[klaz]

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?

[Mighty_Mouse]

Theres propably gonna be an eliment of troublemakers over from England to battle the Gardai but hopefully the Gardai will have learned how to conduct themselves since previous May Day incidents.

[pork99]

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

I would say they have an obvious duty of care.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT, 1994 SECTION 19

19.—(1) Any person who—

( a ) assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of the peace officer's duty, knowing that he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, or
( b ) assaults any other person acting in the aid of a peace officer, or
( c ) assaults any other person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or any other person for any offence,
shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
( a ) having elected for summary disposal of the offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both,
( b ) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
(3) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, knowing that he is or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(5) The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in substitution of any provision in any other enactment relating to assault or obstruction of a peace officer.

(6) In this section—

"peace officer" means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces;

"prison" means any place for which rules or regulations may be made under the Prisons Acts, 1826 to 1980, section 7 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940, section 233 of the Defence Act, 1954, section 2 of the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act, 1956, or section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960;

"prison officer" includes any member of the staff of a prison and any person having the custody of, or having duties in relation to the custody of, a person detained in prison.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mind how ye go now!

[Tuars]

Originally posted by pork99
[BCRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT, 1994 SECTION 19

19.—(1) Any person who—

( a ) assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of the peace officer's duty, knowing that he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, or
( b ) assaults any other person acting in the aid of a peace officer, or
( c ) assaults any other person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or any other person for any offence,
shall be guilty of an offence. [/B]

Don't see anything there about being responsible for the actions of others...

[pork99]

Originally posted by Tuars
Don't see anything there about being responsible for the actions of others...

my point exactly

[monument]

Is there not a new act?

[sceptre]

Originally posted by Tuars
Don't see anything there about being responsible for the actions of others...

As you guessed, probably because there isn't. As far as I know there's no legal duty of care or liability in tort for organising a march or event that partly or totally goes awry unless the organiser is taking part in or encouraging law-breaking. Even in the case of nuisance it's the person who creates the nuisance that is legally responsible for it. You're responsible for your own actions. As it should be. A person is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them. A reasonable duty of care is owed to anyone who is proximate but that doesn't confer any extra duty of care on the organisers. One could make the case that violence is reasonably forseeable by the prganisers of whatever happens this weekend but you also have to examine the standard of care owed. Again if the organisers aren't inciting violence they don't owe any duty of care beyond anything a reasonable person would be required to owe. You have to prove a causal link. Vicarious liability doesn't kick in here and there's no breach of statutory duty under the infamous Rylands v Fletcher as no statutory duty exists.

Tort isn't my field so I'm correctable on the above if someone else actually knows better. As far as I know the "duty of care" is an irrelevent non-starter.

[Redleslie]

Originally posted by bonkey
They do not have the luxury of sitting back and thinking...hmmm...ok...I'll wait to see this guy attacking someone before I can decide he's a rioter rather than an innocent bystander caught up in the rush towards me. They do not have the luxury of saying "ahh..he's begging me to stop...that means he's no longer a threat, so I can turn my back on him". They do not have the luxury of time, of space, of any of the things that it would take to be able to do the job in the way you seem to be proposing.

If you are an innocent bystander, then there most certainly is an onus on you to get out of there. Not only is it sensible self-preservation (i.e. the rioters are as much a threat to you as the police), but you will be adding to the problem by remaining there or running with the mob, regardless of whether or not you take any violent action yourself, and it is nothing short of fantasy-land unrealism to expect the police to be able to distinguish you from the guy who is picking his opening to inflict maximum damage with a concealed weapon.

And if that doesn't convince you, consider how dangerous mobs are just in terms of the dynamic of large numbers or erattically moving people. People get thrown to the ground, trampled on. I had a friend who got knocked over by a surge of people at an event and landed on a broken glass which punched through 4 of the 5 tendons in one of her hands. If you're an innocent bystander, then not trying to get out of the mob is as inherently self-destructively stupid a thing to do as I can imagine.....even if the police weren't an issue.

jc

I don’t have much more to add to this to be honest, except that the grassroots network (read, evil foam mouthed anarchists) have stated here that they don’t want any physical confrontation with the gardai and army and they’re going to keep any troublemakers out of their demonstration; a tactically sensible and responsible approach imo, (although if they find themselves taking on a troublemaker who also happens to be an undercover cop then that’d probably be enough of an excuse for the gardai to jump in and start battering everyone). This was also the case at previous protests, in Prague in 2000, people who wanted to throw stuff at the police were forcibly prevented from doing so by the more disciplined and organised protesters like the Italian Ya Basta group (see complaint about this here.) The exact same tactics didn't stop them getting attacked by the police in Genoa though.

I find the whole thing quite comical - the conspiracy theories, the relentless name calling, the hypocritical condemnations of “violence”, the sidelining of boring real issues, and the elevation of the absolutely tiny Irish anarchist “scene“ to the level of Al Queda-esque terrorswine and beyond. Who knows, maybe a few thousand Greek anarchists (and they do like a scrap) will appear from somewhere on Saturday and contribute to the pantomime but I doubt it.

[bonkey]

Originally posted by Redleslie
I don’t have much more to add to this to be honest, except that the grassroots network (read, evil foam mouthed anarchists) have stated here that they don’t want any physical confrontation with the gardai and army and they’re going to keep any troublemakers out of their demonstration;

Yes, and the police have stated that they too do not wish to see the day marred by violence.

Isn't it amazing how only one of these two positions is lauded as :

a tactically sensible and responsible approach imo,

The other one, you dismiss entirely out of hand. Indeed, you seem to go so far as to apparently arbitrarily decide that the police are guilty for any violence which has resulted at other events.

Thats strong logic, that is.

jc

[Sparks]

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats strong logic, that is.

In fairness JC, it's more precedence than logic. I mean, I know quite a few Gardai personally (though target shooting administration) and they're decent people who work hard at a ****ty and thankless job - but there are always a few people in every organisation that fall into the "bad apple" category and in the Gardai, they're the ones that we saw caught on camera in Dame St, beating the daylights out of unarmed protestors without their ID numbers on their uniforms. And the bigger problem is that there's no repercussions for those people, as was shown publicly when the Damn St. case came up for internal investigation and every Garda "forgot" who was there. So when the Gardai say that they're not going to try to start a riot, we can no more believe them than we can believe the protestors - because neither has any real control over their rank-and-file.

But the Gardai are getting less credit here, because they claim to have that control, and on the basis of that claim have put in for a lot of weaponry to have on the day. So if you have two groups, both calling for a peaceful demonstration, but with no past history of having sufficent control of their members to guarantee that peace, and one of those groups is arming for the protest, it's only logical to be more worried about the group that's arming up.

[bonkey]

Originally posted by Sparks
In fairness JC, it's more precedence than logic.

Err...what? Are you agreeing that it is illogical? Or are you saying that there is simply no need for there to be logic used in this case?

but there are always a few people in every organisation that fall into the "bad apple" category

No argument from me on that one. So explain again why it is reasonable to believe what the protestors (who will have bad apples) say, but not what the police (who will also ahve bad applies) say....to the extent of implying that the police will go there with an agenda to beat up the protestors, which htey will do without provocation.

Seems to me like "every organisation except protestor groups" is the classification being used here for the bad apples.

and in the Gardai, they're the ones that we saw caught on camera in Dame St, beating the daylights out of unarmed protestors without their ID numbers on their uniforms.

And because of this one event, it is apparently considered reasonable to conclude that the protestors are going to be innocent in any future event. and that if violence breaks out it will be because of the police????

Again, it seems to me that there's cherry-picking of who to believe in terms of their stated wants, and which events to use as a basis for drawing conclusions.

So when the Gardai say that they're not going to try to start a riot, we can no more believe them than we can believe the protestors

Yes - my point exactly. Especially the words no more. They have the same credibility.....and what I was disagreeing with was the notion that we can and should believe the protestors when they say "we don't want violence", but we cannot and should not believe the gardai when they say "we don't want violence".

I believe neither side has anything near the required credibility to believe their comments when they make these comments, and I was objecting to someone arbitrarily ceding credibility to one of hte factions, for little more apparent reason than it happens to be the faction whos ideology they find themselves closer to.

and one of those groups is arming for the protest, it's only logical to be more worried about the group that's arming up.

Oh come on Sparks. Thats completely ridiculous. If there are protestors who are premeditating violence, do you expect them to be putting "what your violent protestors will be carrying this year" ads in the national papers? No? So how can you refer to "the group thats arming up".

Not only that, but the police arming themselves is not an indicator that they will be engaging in premeditated violence, as opposed to reacting to instigated violence.....no more than attending the protest is an indicator that you intend to be a violent protestor.

Again, I'm sure that if I used the latter logic to condemn protestors, you'd be outraged....which only shows what I'm saying about people cherry-picking who to apply their standards to.

Riot police arming themselves is no more an indicator of intent to violence than protestors trying to drum up support is a similar indicator of intent to violence for them....especially when you go back and re-read your "bad apples in every organisation" comments.

jc

[Redleslie]

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, and the police have stated that they too do not wish to see the day marred by violence.

Isn't it amazing how only one of these two positions is lauded as :

I don't see how creating a climate of fear and tension is either sensible or responsible and that's exactly what the gardai and media are doing. I dont think there was ever anything like this amount of hysteria even when paramilitaries were running about blowing people and precious property up left right and centre for 30 years.

The other one, you dismiss entirely out of hand. Indeed, you seem to go so far as to apparently arbitrarily decide that the police are guilty for any violence which has resulted at other events.

Eh no. Each scenario tends to be different. However, I did mention Greek anarchists who are notoriously violent and I thought I implied that the Prague police‘s behaviour was professional and well disciplined in that case. But from what I’ve read about police tactics at protests over the last 100 years or so, it was fairly exceptional.

Slightly OT, but what about Nepal? Is rioting ok there?

[bonkey]

Originally posted by Redleslie

I don't see how creating a climate of fear and tension is either sensible or responsible and that's exactly what the gardai and media are doing.[/B]

And there we go again....

No possibility that vciolent protestors would also be creating a climate of fear and tension? No? Not even worth including them along with the police and media? No....didn't think so. Far easier to just apply the logic to one side rather than both.....as has been my point.

But from what I’ve read about police tactics at protests over the last 100 years or so, it was fairly exceptional.

Surely you are not trying to allege that at protests in general, regardless of size, nature, location, etc. that it is the significant exception, rather than the norm, when the protest is held peacefully????

And, not only that, you also appear to be alleging that not only is it the minority where its peaceful, but it is the minority where the police are not to blame for the peace being broken.

Or are you, perhaps, referring to protests of a specific type or nature?

Slightly OT, but what about Nepal? Is rioting ok there?

I don't believe rioting is acceptable anywhere.

Assembling peacefully in protest against an unjust law which attempts to outlaw peaceful protest is perfectly acceptable, and I would support anyone engaged in it.....

...but rioting in order to complain that you're not allowed protest peacefully???? That, in my opinion, takes stupidity to a whole new height.

[Blackjack]

Pardon my lack of specific direction on this, but I reckon (for what it's worth) it's worth a mention.

25 leaders of European Countries will be in Dublin on May day, and various protestors will be there to protest various different issues on the day.

This collection of Political Leaders (and regardless of what you may think, these are, in most if not all Instances Democratically elected leaders) is probably the most obvious target for a Terrorist Attack on the day, or on any day if you were to get so many Political Leaders together on the same day.

The powers that be (please feel free to insert the relevant Label - e.g. Government, Police, Establishment, Army, Police State, etc) have decided to Lock down the immediate area, Phoenix Park, surrounding where these persons will be on the day.

While this is a Public Park, and a lot of people do use the park, how many of these protestors would really bother going to the Phoenix Park ever, never mind would be put out by it being closed for 48 hours next weekend?.

Furthermore, anyone who really believes that all who come along to a protest on this weekend (and let's just use previous years as examples) are there for peaceful protest, are just being a tad Naive, in my opinion.

The Organisers, and indeed the protestors, are entitled to protest, in a peaceful manner. The Authorities (see paragraph 4 for relevant description as required) are not only entitled but have the responsibility to provide the relevant level of protection to the visiting Dignitaries the necessary level of protection to ensure that they come to no harm. Indeed anything less than that is a less than satisfactory result.

Ireland is, after all, host to a large meeting of World leaders on a particular day which many people decide is a day to celebrate or protest certain items as they see fit. Neither is an event that either party have any right whatsoever to prevent from happening, or endangering the safety of the other party by allowing or preventing to take place. Where is happens is an event that both sides have a part in, mind.

Do we (and I mean the proverbial, We as a country) take the threats (whether they may seem a little extreme or not) seriously, and perhaps run the risk of over preparing for the event, and ensuring a bit of overkill on making sure nothing happens?. Or, do we, like what the Irish Country (whether that be Government, People, electorate, whatever) take the stance "ah, sure, nothing will happen, we'll be grand on the day" and then run the risk that something terrible may happen on our soil that will mean that 01/05 will be the next series of numbers that people begin to associate with terrible acts?.

yes, I am probably taking a very negative perspective on things, but the whole idea of people assuming that they have the right to walk up to Farmleigh on the day to Protest, Throw eggs, grenades, whatever, is a bit beyond what I would be comfortable allowing if I was the host.

Oh and yes, I am a Capitalist. I work for a large Multi national, shamelessly taking my salary in order that I can call it a living, only occasionally giving to Charity, Recycling what I can given the facilities available, and only buying the Brand names if and when I see them on Sale, and very cheaply. Mind you, when people visit my house, they know they will be very well looked after. Does that make me any different?, I don't think so.
I would like to assume that at least when we (and again I take the proverbial "we" being the Irish people) invite, or at least have the occasion of a visit of the various Political Leaders to our country, that we would ensure that they are given safe passage and afforded a decent level of protection (the same level of protection we would expect and assume for any one of our fellow countrymen abroad, regardless of Political importance).
In Short, do we risk allowing the Sh1t to hit the fan, or do we ensure that we take the relevant steps for prevention?.

Ireland has been accused of being the least prepared, least equipped, least able for various different possibilities or eventualities. Should we run the risk of this (mostly justifiable) accusation to ring true on Saturday?.
I think not.

Personally, if I do see protestors getting a little boisterous on Saturday, and getting a blast of Water Cannon, a smack of a Baton, or worse if the situation requires it, it won't really bother me. I will assume that they placed themselves in a position that warranted that treatment in the first place.
I'm Still a Capitalist I suppose. Oh Well.
My EUR 0.02 (tax paid) for what it's worth.

[Morpheus]

Damn it, now these protests have RUINED my saturday...

I was gonna go for some shopping therapy...

Now ill have to fight my way around town avoiding the unwashed masses,
the handing out of flyers,
the in your face...
sign this petition...
sign that petition...
dont mind us were just firing tins of paint over this petrol station...


protesting about SO many things that not one single coherent voice can be heard....

ARGHH !!!

:dunno:

The above is EXACTLY what will go through quite a large part of the populations mind when they think about the protests.