A treaty ostensibly banning cluster munitions was recently agreed in Dublin by over a hundred states. There is no doubt that cluster munitions are an appalling weapon. They are often used to carpet bomb civilians and leave behind large amounts of unexploded bomblets to kill and maim years after a war has ended. Unfortunately the Cluster Munitions Convention is ludicrously flawed.

The main source of the problem is the US. It dropped almost 400 million bomblets over Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam – more than the rest of the world put together has ever used, and in more recent years has unleashed them on Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. However the US, along with most other relevant states, such as Israel, Russia and China, did not attend the negotiations. By contrast, many of the states pushing the treaty do not produce cluster bombs and have never used them. These include Ireland, the Vatican and Costa Rica - which doesn’t even have an army

It is true that some producers and users have joined, but at the price of an exemption allowing them to continue “military cooperation” with non-participating states. Although they are barred from “expressly requesting” the use of cluster munitions by other states, this only applies if the choice of weapons is in their “exclusive control” - which of course it never would be in a joint operation. This outrageous loophole means that while the UK and France can’t use their own cluster bombs anymore, they can ask the US to use theirs (while continuing to use every other vile weapon in their arsenal of course). This exemption belies supporters’ laughable claims that the treaty establishes a taboo against cluster munitions which will prevent the US from using them, as if it does why did US allies insist on it?

Further weaknesses include a stockpile destruction period of eight years, after which states can apply for extensions - as many times as they like! Even if governments destroy their stockpile, the result will simply be a windfall for the arms industry – both from destroying the weapons it sold to governments in the first place and from developing alternatives.

Despite all this the treaty was greeted by an orgy of mutual back-slapping among diplomats and civil society representatives - for which read a naïve do-gooding elite paid handsomely to “speak for the poor” and beg on their behalf for crumbs of charity from the tables of power. Its chief real impact will be a minor legitimacy boost for the status quo.

Recently the principle of Gorey Community School sought “advice” from the Department of Education as to whether a young Muslim student should be banned from wearing the hijab. The hijab is a veil worn by Muslim women in accordance with Islamic teaching.

The attempts by the governments of a number of European countries most notably France to ban the wearing of the hijab is an attempt to play on anti-Muslim prejudice within society.

The fact that the government have given the school the right to impose this ban is undoubtedly for the same reason. Socialist Youth opposes this attack on the rights of people to express their religious outlook. Any attempt to impose a ban on the wearing of the hijab will only lead to division between Muslin and non-Muslim young people and deepen anti-migrant prejudice within Irish society.

We stand for the complete separation of church and state and for the creation of a properly funded and democratically run secular education system. Such a system would respect the right of people to express their religious beliefs and could provide all young people with the best education and training that they are entitled to.

As the economy slows down the wages and conditions of workers inevitably come under attack. Young workers and the unorganised are very often the most vulnerable. In the case of apprentices there is a particular vulnerability because of their reliance on their bosses for access to training. The image of the benevolent master passing on his trade to the next generation is a myth.

Apprentices are a highly profitable source of cheap labour that the employers can exploit - if they weren't productive they'd never be taken on in the first place and another form of training would exist.

In industry in general, and construction in particular, the shadow of job losses looms large over workers. A recent Fás report predicted that there would be 50,000 fewer jobs in construction by the end of next year than there were at the start of 2007. For apprentices this often means enduring increased exploitation for fear of being let go and not being able to finish their time - effectively even cutting off their chances to find work in their trades abroad.

Discussions with apprentices recently have confirmed our view that apprentices are routinely denied their legal entitlements such as pay, travel time and proper training. It is very common for more experienced apprentices to be “laid off” only for the company to take on a new, lower paid apprentice. People are also finding that they might have worked for months, even a year without being registered as an apprentice with Fás.

The State has a statutory responsibility towards apprentices and, technically, there are very particular rules regarding the apprenticeship process, including sanctions that can be taken against so called “rogue employers” but basic information about this is not given to apprentices. It is clear that we cannot rely on Fás, or the National Employment Rights Authority to step in on our behalf. They've stood back and knowingly allowed employers to get away with exploitation for years. As they say on the Fás website, their aim is to “meet the needs of industry and the labour market”.

It is time for apprentices to get together and discuss a strategy to force the state to intervene - to enforce the existing rules and live up to their obligations - as a first step towards defending and improving our rights.