MayDay DISGRACE!!!

dathi1 · 23-04-2004 9:24pm

see they're bringing in 3000 Irish troops (Ireland.Com) on the day!! I think this is a scare tactic and training exercise in the run up to the real Anti Bush demo in June. I'd expect massive march bans and v heavy military presence...I reckon GW is gonna head for the park.

Chinafoot · 23-04-2004 9:38pm

is nobody else disgusted and also worried bout the fact that these guys had requested immunity meaning that they could shoot anyone SUSPECTED of causing trouble to the president and get away with it????

have to say i do think we should protest but i also think theres gonna be huge trouble.

jesus_thats_gre · 24-04-2004 3:35am

Originally posted by seamus
I saw a sticker today on my lunch, something along the lines of:
"CAPITALISM KILLS!
MAY DAY 2004
JOIN THE FIGHT!"

Intending a peaceful protest....suuuuurrree.

Here is another one of these stickers, thought I would take a picture of it as evidence.

Its not going to be peaceful. I have been warned by three different friends, all members of the Gardai, to stay of the streets of Dublin during Mayday. Its going to be messy!

Tuars · 24-04-2004 10:08am

Phoenix park is supposed to be the people's park, a public park. And it will be closed on May day which is supposed to be the worker's day.

There's something wrong here.

halkar · 24-04-2004 11:12am

Its my birthday, everyone will be celebrating. Behave my people behave, might the force be with you

Happy birthday to me :cool:

seamus · 24-04-2004 12:20pm

Originally posted by Victor
I think you'll find she was thrown head first from the van. Not in any formal sense, but she was objecting to a garda car reversing over her.

Either way, it's not very relevant in a this thread.

I was on hte DART about 2 years ago, gang A in the station decided to stone gang B on the train, are you saying it was my fault for staying on the train (along with various grannies, parents with toddlers etc.) instead of braving the hail of stones? Whats the difference between that riot and one associated with a protest?

Obviously I expect that if you could have moved out of the way of the hail of stones you would have. That situation is different in two ways - a)It's not something you expect is *ever* possible on a DART, so you shouldn't have to be prepared, and b)It's an enclosed space, nowhere to run. If the same thing happened on the street, you would run away. So why would people not run away in a riot situation?

I think jesus_thats_gre's picture sums up nicely what the attitude of the protestors is. While it could all be claimed to be metaphorical, a picture of a petrol bomb, and "take back your life" is almost certainly an incitement to riot.

They're not going to be peaceful.

Tuars · 24-04-2004 12:45pm

seamus, isn't it the duty of the police to protect the public space from lawbreakers?

Why should we have to hide in our homes or avoid the city centre just because there is a threat of violence?

I don't believe we should surrender the public space to rioters, politicians or the police. We have a right to peaceful protest without being subjected to indiscriminate attacks by the police.

The police have a duty to protect peaceful protesters and not provoke them. They also have a duty to protect the public from rioters. It's not an easy situation to be caught up in at times I know, but that's their job. If they don't do it properly then they become part of the problem.

seamus · 24-04-2004 2:28pm

I'm not going to bother restating my point. If you don't bother reading my posts, I'm not going to waste my energy.

Tuars · 24-04-2004 3:20pm

I'm not going to bother restating my point. If you don't bother reading my posts, I'm not going to waste my energy.

No such luxury for me I'm afraid. I've already wasted my energy reading your posts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point is this: The people who organise the protests are responsible for the conduct and safety of everyone who shows up at the protests or who just happens to be in the area at the time.

My point is this: It's the gardaí who are responsible for public safety. That's what the law mandates and allows them to do and that's what they're paid for.

If the protest organisers are supposed to have the same responsibility then give them the powers of law to enforce it and let the gardaí stay at home.

We have a right to peaceful protest and that cannot be usurped just because it's logistically inconvenient for the gardaí.

chewy · 24-04-2004 3:35pm

i started reading these threads but omigod it so painful to read such thrash, and look at the crap headlines in the sun today, next we're going have the patriot act....

and next your going to tell me its ok to beat up joyriders... cos it not , its not ok to beat up anyone

seamus · 24-04-2004 4:25pm

Originally posted by Tuars
Correct me if I'm wrong but your point is this: The people who organise the protests are responsible for the conduct and safety of everyone who shows up at the protests or who just happens to be in the area at the time.

You're wrong.

24-04-2004 4:31pm

We have a right to peaceful protest and that cannot be usurped just because it's logistically inconvenient for the gardaí.

You and these protestors have the right to a peaceful protest. Theres no dispute here with us on that score. The problem I and alot of posters here is that these protests are more often than not, violent to some degree. And when this violence occurs, the gardai step in and then get battered for criticism.

What I've been saying is that if you wish to organise a march, or protest it is also your responsibility to ensure that, that march/protest is peaceful. Otherwise whose fault will it be if things go sour?

The Gardai are there to keep the peace, and if you by creating a march, generate a massive potential for unrest/violence, then it shouldn't be allowed. It is the same way that Nazi rally's are generally not allowed, because the potential for violence and damage to public property rises.

I believe that organisers should re-inforce their wish to have a peaceful protest by excluding potential troublemakers. Otherwise, all you're doing is setting up the Gardai to take a fall.

My point is this: It's the gardaí who are responsible for public safety. That's what the law mandates and allows them to do and that's what they're paid for.

Thats just passing the responsibility to the law completely. As a citizen I'm obliged to look out for the good of the nation and my fellow citizens. You're neither taking responsibility for your own actions or those people you've organised to congregate. If I organise an event that brings 2k arsonists together, I'm sure as hell going to be responsible for what they attempt to burn down. By the same reckoning, even if its a minority that determines to burn something, I'm responsible for them and their actions while they're at the event I organised.

Tuars · 24-04-2004 4:32pm

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by Tuars
Correct me if I'm wrong but your point is this: The people who organise the protests are responsible for the conduct and safety of everyone who shows up at the protests or who just happens to be in the area at the time.

You're wrong.

Originally posted by seamus
My gripe is with those peopel who a) Claim it's not their problem if scumbags turn up to their protests, and b) Complain when they get injured by anti-riot measures while standing in the middle of a riot, involved or otherwise.

Tuars · 24-04-2004 4:40pm

klaz, I agree with much of what you say in theory but the reality tends to work out differently.

In the real world the organizers cannot be held responsible for everyone that shows up without giving them powers of enforcement normally reserved for the gardaí.

Also in the real world it seems that those who do want to protest peacefully will be restricted from doing so because of the possibility, however small, of violence occurring. This scenario is much more likely than the one where the right to peaceful protest would be protected.

So the right to peaceful protest is compromised.

Obviously, it is in the interest of those who are the objects of the protest to try to put them down and discredit them. When those same people control the security forces then we need to be careful about how much power we grant them.

Boston · 24-04-2004 4:48pm

Originally posted by Tuars
klaz, I agree with much of what you say in theory but the reality tends to work out differently.

If they make no effort to control those elements and avoid trouble, then yes they can.

Tuars · 24-04-2004 5:30pm

Originally posted by Boston
If they make no effort to control those elements...

But how should they control those elements? With water cannons? Or plastic bullets? Obviously by their very nature they are not to be reasoned with.

monument · 24-04-2004 8:42pm

Originally posted by klaz
If I organise an event that brings 2k arsonists together, I'm sure as hell going to be responsible for what they attempt to burn down. By the same reckoning, even if its a minority that determines to burn something, I'm responsible for them and their actions while they're at the event I organised.

Who is I'm"? And no, I am afraid you have no responsible what so every to people who turn up out of their own free will.

It’s in a public area, and if you can not stop any one from turning up in a public area, you can not be responsible for their actions. However the state, in the form of the Gardia have responsibility in this area.

If you phone your friends now for a night out, you would be planning the night, but you would not be accountable for the free actions of others in a public area

24-04-2004 11:25pm

Who is I'm"? And no, I am afraid you have no responsible what so every to people who turn up out of their own free will.

I'm = organisers of the protest.

It’s in a public area, and if you can not stop any one from turning up in a public area, you can not be responsible for their actions. However the state, in the form of the Gardia have responsibility in this area.

Actually you're wrong there. A public area can be closed off by decision of a state authority for any number of reasons.

Look. The organisers of this event are advertising for people to come marching and protesting for a number of reasons. Included in the people coming are those who will decide to cause trouble. Sure, its a minority, but i think its reasonable for the organisers to be responsible for their actions, should it lead to intervention by the Gardai. The Organisers can limited the chance of violence occuring by limiting the types of people coming, or by working with that Gardai, rather than against.

But how should they control those elements? With water cannons? Or plastic bullets? Obviously by their very nature they are not to be reasoned with.

Just how would you deal with public disorder? Should these elements decide to damage private property, cause a riot, attack the Gardai.. how would you deal with them? throw flowers in the air?

klaz, I agree with much of what you say in theory but the reality tends to work out differently.

Why? Because theres so much interest in causing as much trouble for the Gardai as possible? Thing is, many of these protestors that i have met, have genuine hatred for the Gardai. Not for anything that has been done to them, but rather because they have this unreasonable hatred of the "establishment". The Government and capatalism is the enemy, and every opportunity is taken to cause as much harm as possible.

The times i have heard of protests or marches going off without a hitch, have been organised by people, who worked with the Police, creating cordons, and keeping things calm. Is there going to be any such organisation and co-operation at this protest?

So the right to peaceful protest is compromised.

So in essence there is no such thing as a peaceful protest, but rather a lucky protest.

DadaKopf · 25-04-2004 1:54am

Hahahahahahaha!

WE’LL GAS BERTIE

May Day Poison threats to Dublin received by The Sun

A sinister anarchist group last night threatened to massacre 10,000 people including Bertie Ahern and 24 EU Prime Minister in gas attacks on May Day.

The terror squad’s main target is Farmleigh House in Dublin’s Phoenix Park where the Taoiseach will welcome the EU leaders at a banquet next Saturday.

Warning of the gas attacks came in frightening emails sent to the Irish Sun yesterday.

The anarchists described how they would use hydrogen chloride to inflict maximum injury on their victims. And a chemicals expert confirmed that the group’s plans were capable of causing mass deaths.

A Justice Department spokesman said the threats were a matter for the garda who have drawn up extensive security plans for May Day.

A garda source said last night: “We are taking theses threats extremely seriously.” The threat poses a security nightmare for the hard-pressed cops.

They will be stretched to police protest against war, racism and capitalism by 5,000 people in the capital the same day coinciding with weekend celebrations to mark the enlarged EU.

Intelligence officers believe extremists are planning open warfare with cops on the streets as they hijack the demonstrations.

The Irish Sun
April 24 2004 – Page 6

Anarchists say they’ll release enough gas to kill 10,000 Dubliners

By Lynn Jolly

Horrifying emails from anar4chists threatening the world’s biggest terror strike sent a chill through Irish Sun Staff.

The terror group calling itself An@rky sent a series of sinister messages to our Dublin offices.

We immediately passed them on to Garda. Last night they were being investigated by cops.

A spokesman said the emails were being taken seriously.

“We have a major security operation in place for next week,” he added.

Top of the anarchists’ hit list is Bertie Ahern and the 24 EU leader he will welcome to a banquet at Farmleigh, the official State guesthouse, next Saturday.

The group said it would attack Farmleigh with hydrogen chloride gas which burns the skin, eyes and damages lungs.

But it did not spell out who its other 10,000 victims would be or where exactly they would strike at them. An@rky warned in one email: Farmleigh and other EU fat cat targets will be hit with lethal poison gas on May Day.

“The gas prepared is Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) which is an acid mist burning skin, and eyes as well as destroying the lungs. The gas will be released by small gas generators, portable as well as those already concealed and in place in the vicinity of the targets.”

“Each tiny generator contains 1000g of Sulphuric Acid (H2S04) and 600g of Sodium Chloride (NaCl). The ingredients are battery acid (concentrated to 98%) and ordinary table salt.

“Each generator will release 250litres of HCl which is enough to injure and kill up to 10,000 people. And so if only one generator is activated the heavily guarded EU targets will be swamped in clouds of an all-pervasive acid mist.

“There is no protection against this form of attack for the fat cats or their minions. What price those miles of wire now?

“This warning is issued to alert the Irish people to stay well away from Farmleigh and the other venues including the airports during the EU Celebrations’. The Irish people are not the targets.

“WE STRESS THAT THE IRISH PEOPLE ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE NEEN THE TARGETS.

“This is not a threat. The attacks will take place as described and are now unstoppable. An@rky.

Last night a source at University College Dublin’s chemistry department said the science behind the attacks threat was correct.

He confirmed the gas would be deadly.
“This gas could be fatal to people if it’s inhaled in an enclosed area,” said the source.

“Scientifically the chemical reaction described could happen.

“If 250 litres of the gas is released in an open area it could burn people and do them damage.

“And if it is released indoors -at Farmleigh for example – it could kill people.” The Dublin Grassroots Network plan to march peacefully in the city.

Their spokesman Laurence Cox said: “We would condemn anything like the threats in the emails. It’s something we obviously don’t condone.

“But I don’t see how it could happen give the enormous security presence there will be.”

A Justice Department spokesman said: This is an operational matter for the Gardai, who have been working for some time on security for May Day.”

About 4,000 cops, backed by the Army and riot squads, are being drafted into Dublin on Saturday.

It is one of the biggest ever Gardai security operations costing millions of Euro.

Intelligence sources already knew that anarchists were planning to hijack the peaceful protest before the emails were received at the Irish Sun’s Dublin office.

It is believed that violent elements are planning battles with cops.

Soldiers are being trained to use water cannons on rioters.

I mean, Al Qaeda hasn't even managed this, but the US military has.

I know people don't take the Sun seriously, but in all fairness, examples like this show just how rediculous all this hype has gotten.

All in all, the government/garda/media conspiracy has done very well concocting all this nonsense. Now every single discussion about political protest, the EU, or globalization is filtered through this crap so any genuine discussion about the state of the world is instantly discredited.

Crackdowns on civil and political liberties and freedom of speech are happening all over the world. For some reason, we condemn it in the developing world, but readily support it in our own.

Somebody get a compass and a flashlight.

Tuars · 25-04-2004 10:10am

Originally posted by klaz
Actually you're wrong there. A public area can be closed off by decision of a state authority for any number of reasons.

Then it's no longer a public area. The public space has been compromised

Originally posted by klaz
The Organisers can limited the chance of violence occuring by limiting the types of people coming, or by working with that Gardai, rather than against.

How exactly can they limit the types of people coming? By setting up checkpoints?

Just how would you deal with public disorder? Should these elements decide to damage private property, cause a riot, attack the Gardai.. how would you deal with them? throw flowers in the air?

In case you missed my point I was talking about the measures the organisers should take. The gardaí are authorised to use force, the protest organisers are not. We agree that there are unruly elements that cannot be reasoned with yet you believe it is the responsibility of the march organisers to stop them. Unless you give the march organisers the power to use force (which is a recipe for disaster) then they don't have many options other than throwing flowers in the air

The times i have heard of protests or marches going off without a hitch, have been organised by people, who worked with the Police, creating cordons, and keeping things calm. Is there going to be any such organisation and co-operation at this protest?

That is what I would hope for but I think it's asking too much to hold the organisers responsible for the conduct of everyone. We know that many different groups will be protesting for many different reasons (and many of them contradictory). Some may have more legitimacy then others. We cannot compromise the right to legitimate protest because of the threat of violence.

25-04-2004 1:15pm

We cannot compromise the right to legitimate protest because of the threat of violence.

And this is the root of the problem that I have. The majority of protests that I have been aware of (I don't keep track of them, to be honest) have turned somewhat violent. These protests have been violent to different levels, however in all cases they've been used to descredit the Gardai and their handling of crowds.

My view on this is that unless a protest is definetly going to be peaceful, it should not be allowed to take place. Otherwise all the organisers are doing is creating a mess that the Gardai have to clean up. And as a result their creditibility falls.

What i'd like to know though, is why there isn't more co-operation with the Gardai with the aim to reduce the chances of violence occuring? Surely, its in your interests that the Gardai/Police are happy with arrangements, and that you're secure in the knowledge that theres no risk in protesting. (There will always be a chance of a spark of violence, but you can limit the chance that it becomes a raging inferno)

Tuars · 25-04-2004 1:43pm

Originally posted by klaz
they've been used to descredit the Gardai and their handling of crowds

I think there's a case to be made that in most cases the police weren't adequately prepared or trained to deal with the situation.

My view on this is that unless a protest is definetly going to be peaceful, it should not be allowed to take place.

The problem with this is that it gives the objectors to the protest a simple pretext to prevent any protesting taking place (e.g. Bloody Sunday).

I agree that the credibility of the protesters suffers when violence take place. However, usually they are powerless to stop it. There is always an element who are just looking for a fight.

The nature of the anti-globalization protests seems to be such that it is difficult to co-ordinate with the police, given the variety of organisations involved and their platform. Also, some of them are wary of having anything to do with the police.

I agree it's in everyone's interest to try to reduce the chances of violence of occurring. However, I disagree that the organisers should be held responsible for the rioters or that the march should be banned if there is a threat of violence.

DadaKopf · 25-04-2004 2:05pm

Klaz:

Liasing with the Gardai is one thing - that might alleviate the Gards' own nervousness and reduce the likelihood of police brutality.

Seeking permission to protest is another thing altogether. Our constitution assures us of our right to protest. In fact, as citizens, our social contract obligates us to protest.

History has shown how important social movements have become co-opted and neutralized tactics you're suggesting we do. I'm not suggesting violence is legitimate. I'm saying that the point of the 'movement', of the protests, are entirely legitimate. Because the reasons behind the movement challenge the status quo and necessitate change, it's a natural tactic by the authorities and the conservative-minded general public to want to discredit the whole thing by over-exaggerating the violent elements of the movement.

If we're all democrats, how come we allow this to happen?

I've been to loads and loads of protests. Like everyone here, I won't deny that a tiny number of people get violent. I also won't deny that on most occasions, the Gardai act superbly. There's exaggeration being thrown from both sides here. This movement is genuine and necessary and the vast majority of people who join in it - from crusties to middle class suburbanites to development workers and advocates to academics to trade unionists to state employees - are neither unwilling to allow the movement to be discredited by violent elements nor the state's co-optive strategies.

We know the price that's paid for that. That's one of the reasons why the movement is so diverse. Apart from it reflecting its democratic values, it's a strategic response to those co-optive state tactics.

Cork · 25-04-2004 3:34pm

Originally posted by Tuars
However, I disagree that the organisers should be held responsible for the rioters or that the march should be banned if there is a threat of violence.

Have the organisers any responsibity that marchs go off peacefully?

I would say they have an obvious duty of care.

Tuars · 25-04-2004 4:53pm

Originally posted by Cork
Have the organisers any responsibity that marchs go off peacefully?

I would say they have an obvious duty of care.

It's in their interests that the marches go off peacefully. Certainly they should emphasise peaceful protest.

Whether they are capable of stopping or should be responsible for the actions of those who choose violence is another matter.

Victor · 26-04-2004 10:52am

Originally posted by klaz
And this is the root of the problem that I have. The majority of protests that I have been aware of (I don't keep track of them, to be honest) have turned somewhat violent. These protests have been violent to different levels, however in all cases they've been used to descredit the Gardai and their handling of crowds.

Oh, come on, there more violence in a Saturday night in Temple Bar than a year's worth of political protests.

vorbis · 26-04-2004 11:09am

i'd have no problem with allowing protests. What gets me is the guys who compain about garda brutality after the protest gets a bit violent. I mean if they're going to protest then thats a risk they'll have to take. Either that or ensure the protest doesn't get violent.

Spacedog · 26-04-2004 1:19pm

Can you get protest insurence, in order to limit the liability of damage to property and persons at protests? since the right to protest is the constitutional right of the people, the government should pay the premimum.

I'm sure that if the church can get kiddy-fiddling insurance, a few broken mcdonnalds windows and beatup peaceful protester compensation payouts shouldn't be out of the question.

Victor · 26-04-2004 1:24pm

Originally posted by Spacedog
I'm sure that if the church can get kiddy-fiddling insurance

Off-topic, but thats probably under public liability insurance.

26-04-2004 1:31pm

Oh, come on, there more violence in a Saturday night in Temple Bar than a year's worth of political protests.

Probably, but the numbers of people present in a certain area are far different, and its rare the Gardai are needed to be called in to protect private property.

I think there's a case to be made that in most cases the police weren't adequately prepared or trained to deal with the situation.

True enough. However, I still see it as a cop out to blame the Gardai when things go wrong. You see, the organisers have brought many groups all with different agnedas together, and never think that those groups would decide to create trouble. Activists and trouble tend to go hand in hand. (From the little experience that i have from the papers, the TV and the few that i have met.)

You see, one of the main issues i have with this, is if the Gardai didn't appear on the scene, didn't break up any rioting, didn't detain troublemakers, they'd be slated for not doing their job. Its a set up. Either way the Gardai will come off with a worse reputation.

I agree that the credibility of the protesters suffers when violence take place. However, usually they are powerless to stop it. There is always an element who are just looking for a fight.

Aye, and there are leaders that cause those fights. Protests should be a little more selective in the people they allow in. Known troublemakers weeded out etc. And they're not powerless to stop it. The only reason they're powerless at all is because they've decided to leave all responsibility to the Gardai.

I agree it's in everyone's interest to try to reduce the chances of violence of occurring. However, I disagree that the organisers should be held responsible for the rioters or that the march should be banned if there is a threat of violence.

Then at least call it what it is...... Advertise as a Potentially Violent Protest. Don't call it a peaceful protest, when it can be anything but.

Organisers should bear some responsibility for their actions. Their decision to hold a rally, their decision or bring so many people together. If they don't want to liase with the Gardai, get in some profesional people to handle security or handle safety. At least then, the damage to both the Protestors and the Gardai's reputations would be limited.

DadaKopf

Seeking permission to protest is another thing altogether. Our constitution assures us of our right to protest. In fact, as citizens, our social contract obligates us to protest.

Thats fine. Does it also tell us to create situations where we can be reasonably sure that trouble will occur, and not try to reduce those chances?

I have no problem with protesting. I have problems with protesting irresponsiblely.

History has shown how important social movements have become co-opted and neutralized tactics you're suggesting we do. I'm not suggesting violence is legitimate. I'm saying that the point of the 'movement', of the protests, are entirely legitimate. Because the reasons behind the movement challenge the status quo and necessitate change, it's a natural tactic by the authorities and the conservative-minded general public to want to discredit the whole thing by over-exaggerating the violent elements of the movement.

I accept that. I've never said that people don't have the right to protest, however, I do believe that there should be some safeguards in place to protect private property and non-protestors. Sure, there will be institutions that will try to descredit Protestors, and Vice Versa. The problem i have with all this, is that the people that have no interest in the protestors issues are caught in the middle. But tell me, were Gothenburg and Genoa completely isolated incidents? Were they overhyped by the governments of those respective cities, or did protestors really do the damage claimed?

MayDay DISGRACE!!!

Comments