Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

MDR

boards.ie tends to attract a broad mix of groups and interests from across society making it a very good place to poll peoples opinions and concerns. Hence I feel comfortable that I can pose a 'what if' question on these boards, and recieve generally balanced responses.

I am concerned about 'Ant-globalisation' protestors and the upcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union. Perhaps I am being a little bit naive and childish, but I am worried that our security services, simply won't be up to the task of coping with the type of protesting, anti-gobalisation groups have employed in the past, ala Milan etc.

These concerns, are in part driven by recent cut back in expediture at the Garda, there is huge pressure on man-power and equipment there. If current levels of expenditure at the Garda are insufficent to cope with the everyday hum-drum of crime in Ireland, how can they cope with what may happen during Ireland's Presidency.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to the culture of fear, just because a news organisation reports that maurdering hoards of anti-globalisation protestors will descend upon Ireland and reek havoc in their wake, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will happen etc.

However the thought of the Irish Presidency of the EU raised alarm bells in my head long before the recent spate of news reports, and thus the question I pose.

Finally, does anyone have the link to the 'Infamous' Temple Bar protest pages as features on rte. ?

mike65

When Ireland has the EU presidency the government usually gets things done and sends everyone home happy by love bombing
the delegations. Maybe they could do the same with the anarchists who will undoubtedly will arrive en mass in Dublin, I suggest a blind eye be turned to all drug dealing and to let that be known to the dealers who can then get the anti-globalisation crowd spaced out by the big day!

I bet the gardai will be using every copper they can muster with logistical support from other police forces and the army, meanwhile the rest of the country will be subject to a crime wave.

Mike.

Sand

Its a concern but hopefully the government will simply intercept potential troublemakers/anarchists at their points of arrival and put them on the first plane, train or boat home again - Northern Irelands border will obviously be a weakpoint in that strategy.

Most likely the army will be brought in in huge numbers to assist the civil powers, so manpower shouldnt be a huge issue. The biggest problem will be dealing with people who are arrested and processing them quickly and effectively - Ireland doesnt have the facitlities to try and imprison its own crinimals without a mob of potential rioters arriving on its doorstep.

All else fails we can always ask the British Paras to assist policing the protest march.

Sparks

In other words, "sorry lads, but it's kind of akward for us, so we're revoking your right to free speech and freedom of assembly and the right to protest government actions peacefully".

mike65

Well if you all behaved yourselves....some nice chanting...

"Hell no we wont feel good about being rich westerners!"
"I'm white and I'm guilty!"
"We took the day off work to be here you know!"

....rather than bottles and bits of pavement.

Mike.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
In other words, "sorry lads, but it's kind of akward for us, so we're revoking your right to free speech and freedom of assembly and the right to protest government actions peacefully".

Do not the EU delegates also have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly?

Sparks

Meh,

Do not the EU delegates also have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly?

Do the EU delegates meet on the street and have difficulty in hearing each other? The protest is people using their right to free speech. The EU delegates use their right to free speech whenever they open their mouths - and they get far more television coverage.

The thing I'm seeing coming up here is a repeat of the armed soldiers guarding shannon against unarmed civilians who had broken no laws but whose safety was rated less valuable by the Irish government than that of US military hardware.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Do the EU delegates meet on the street and have difficulty in hearing each other? The protest is people using their right to free speech.

And I have no problem with that, as long as the protestors don't infringe on other people's right to free speech. But if the protestors disrupt meetings, blockade conferences and destroy property (as has happened at recent anti-globalization protests), that's not free speech.

I realize that most of the protestors are there to make their voice heard peacefully and legally, but the police still need to be prepared to deal with the violent minority.

DadaKopf

I don't think violence in Ireland due to our impending EU presidency is likely. Who really cares?

I'm surprised nobody in this thread has mentioned the World Economic Forum, which was due to arrive here soon. As was the case in the New York WEF, the protest was well attended but there was no violence. However, the WEF is no longer going to be held in Dublin because we're just too damn far out and radical here, or something. Whatever.

Obviously the violent protesters in Dublin would have been the ones who travelled here from Italy or whatever.

I don't care anyway. If people want to have a big party in Dublin, I'm all for it.

Sand

In other words, "sorry lads, but it's kind of akward for us, so we're revoking your right to free speech and freedom of assembly and the right to protest government actions peacefully".

When its not possible to safely police a protest its a tad irresponsible to simply stand back and permit to go ahead - when your responsible for law and order you police the events you can and you prevent the ones you cant I would have thought. Id imagine youd be the first criticising the police if they lost control of any situations that could develop.

As a compromise the government could designate selected "protest" areas which would be easier to police/have less property to thrash etc etc and would handily isolate troublemakers from peaceful protestors as the troublemakers wouldnt be happy until they were rioting in O Connell street, thrashing property and shops they took a disliking to - mind you theyll need every bit of experience theyve gathered in the last few years of violence and rioting to deal with the skangers.

The thing I'm seeing coming up here is a repeat of the armed soldiers guarding shannon against unarmed civilians who had broken no laws but whose safety was rated less valuable by the Irish government than that of US military hardware.

How many did they shoot? How great a threat were they to the protestors? What would the protestors have done if the soldiers werent there?

I don't care anyway. If people want to have a big party in Dublin, I'm all for it.

They always advertise these things as parties....

MDR

As I said no-one wants to restrict anyones right to protest, everyone has the right to protest peacefully, but 'peacefully' is the most important word here, and I believe that as a society we have agreed over many years that volient protest is unacceptable.

Protestors may not agree with me on this, they will see their cause as being so important as to in some cases warrant any means possible by which to make themselves heard. I can understand this, but believe it to be folly. Afterall what does volient protest really achieve ?, are people attempting maytardom in the name of their cause, but rarely will people in the wider community, the people whose attitudes really need to be changed recognise that mayrtardom.

So what is left ? I suppose I can nolonger pass judgement on what it takes to touch the wider community these days, to change hearts and minds. But I do know, that volient protest as was the case in Milan, will only alienate the cause of anti-globalisation further from the wider community, at least in Ireland anyway.

We as community won't accept it (well we rarely accept it would be a better description). I worry about the ability of our security services to keep the peace for the wider community, I don't want this to sound as though as I am advocating the oppression of a minority group in the name of the peace and quiet of the majority. I am only refering to volient protest, the protestors are welcome to get as much media airtime and make as much racket as they damn well please.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sand
As a compromise the government could designate selected "protest" areas which would be easier to police/have less property to thrash etc etc and would handily isolate troublemakers from peaceful protestors as the troublemakers wouldnt be happy until they were rioting in O Connell street, thrashing property and shops they took a disliking to - mind you theyll need every bit of experience theyve gathered in the last few years of violence and rioting to deal with the skangers.

That's a very good idea. Maybe a section of the Phoenix Park for general demonstrations with a smaller walled area specifically for violent elements in which could be built replicas of McDonalds or Starbucks or whatever is the current fashion. People could trash those without disturbing the peace in the real world. Save a lot of valuable police resources.

DadaKopf

Yeah, it's great idea - just like those public squares in Vienna and St Petersburg that were designed to trap protesters inside when the authorities decided to control them by blocking them in with cannons and giving them a whiff of grapeshot.

SkepticOne

Except with fake Starbucks.

Sand

Times have changed Dada... The Chinese have demonstrated the effectiveness of tanks and rifles have never lost their popularity.

Sparks

Geez. You go and have one beer and you get fifteen replies to counter

Meh,

And I have no problem with that, as long as the protestors don't infringe on other people's right to free speech. But if the protestors disrupt meetings, blockade conferences and destroy property (as has happened at recent anti-globalization protests), that's not free speech.

What you're describing is not a case of the right to free speech (for the EU delegates) being disrupted. And no recent anti-globalisation protests have successfully prevented meetings.

I realize that most of the protestors are there to make their voice heard peacefully and legally, but the police still need to be prepared to deal with the violent minority.

Correct, and it's a difficult job because it's walking a fine line, but then, that is the job they signed up to do.

Sand,

When its not possible to safely police a protest its a tad irresponsible to simply stand back and permit to go ahead - when your responsible for law and order you police the events you can and you prevent the ones you cant I would have thought. Id imagine youd be the first criticising the police if they lost control of any situations that could develop.

Imagine all you want, you'd be incorrect. And if you were to permit the Gardai to ban protests because of "security difficulties", you'd be stepping onto a slippery slope. (No, it's not a logical fallacy, it's backed by precendent in our history with the Gardai, the Department of Justice and our current Minister of Justice and Garda Commissionar.)

As a compromise the government could designate selected "protest" areas which would be easier to police/have less property to thrash etc etc and would handily isolate troublemakers from peaceful protestors as the troublemakers wouldnt be happy until they were rioting in O Connell street, thrashing property and shops they took a disliking to - mind you theyll need every bit of experience theyve gathered in the last few years of violence and rioting to deal with the skangers.

They're called "free speech zones" and they're used in the states. And inevitably, they're located several miles from anywhere and surrounded by chain-link fence and razor wire.
Three things :
1) I don't want to live in the States. They run their country incorrectly in more ways than we do.
2) I have a right to free speech and a right to free assembly. I refuse to sign those rights away. They come with a right not to be punished for the illegal acts of others and the duty to follow the law myself. "Free Speech zones" go against all of these rights and duties.
3) The point of a protest is to be visible to point out to the authorities that there is a large segment of a population that disagrees with their policy decisions. To curtail that ability is a step towards a dictatorship.

How many did they shoot?

None. How many could they have shot? ALL of them.

How great a threat were they to the protestors?

How great a threat were a group of soldiers armed with fully automatic rifles and live ammunition facing a large noisy and unarmed crowd? What kind of idiotic question is that?

What would the protestors have done if the soldiers werent there?

Protested. The same way they had done before. Legally and peacefully.

And sand, you sidestepped the point completely. These were Irish soldiers, paid for by the taxes of Irish civilians. Some of those civilians were protesting that they didn't want their military neutrality further comprimised, and the Irish government deployed Irish soldiers with live ammunition to ensure that no damage might occour to American military hardware. In other words, Irish civilian lives were placed lower on the priorities list of the government than damage to inanimate hardware and the resulting political embarressment.
Up until that happened, I could look at China and think "jaysus, at least we're not that bad". Now we know that we're not that bad only because our army doesn't have tanks.

MDR,

As I said no-one wants to restrict anyones right to protest, everyone has the right to protest peacefully, but 'peacefully' is the most important word here, and I believe that as a society we have agreed over many years that volient protest is unacceptable.

Indeed - if you mean violence against people. I can wholeheartedly support that. The problem is that some people point to destruction of property and say that it's as unsupportable to destroy property as it is to assault people. It's not that clear-cut. Smashing shops and cars is pointless vandalism and the people who do this are criminals and need to be arrested and dealt with by the criminal justice system - but smashing a military aircraft which is a part of an illegal military act isn't, it is in fact legal under international law, as was argued in the Kelly case.
Shades of gray and all that.

edit to point out that the WEF meeting is not going to take place in Ireland anyway

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And no recent anti-globalisation protests have successfully prevented meetings.

Not for want of trying.

Sand

Imagine all you want, you'd be incorrect. And if you were to permit the Gardai to ban protests because of "security difficulties", you'd be stepping onto a slippery slope.

So the Gardai arent allowed to prevent problems in your opinion, theyre only allowed to pick up the pieces during and afterwards and get demonised for doing so?

1) I don't want to live in the States. They run their country incorrectly in more ways than we do.
2) I have a right to free speech and a right to free assembly. I refuse to sign those rights away. They come with a right not to be punished for the illegal acts of others and the duty to follow the law myself. "Free Speech zones" go against all of these rights and duties.
3) The point of a protest is to be visible to point out to the authorities that there is a large segment of a population that disagrees with their policy decisions. To curtail that ability is a step towards a dictatorship.

1) Inform the US embassy you wont be applying for a visa then.

2) You have rights and you have responsibilites - its part of the compact between the state and the individual. Think about the rights and responsibilities you have as a poster here. Other members of a society have a right not to be inconvenienced by your protests. They have a right to see their tax money spent better than on police overtime and security bills to deal with rioting scum. These free speech areas allow you to make your protests, centralise it for the benefit of everyone ( yes even the protestors so that they can better police themselves and present a coherent message ) without overly impacting society. And as said before they handily isolate peaceful protestors from the troublemakers who pout and stamp their foot.

3) A free speech area doesnt in any way reduce the impact --- if you can get a million people to show up for a protest then the point is made regardless of whether they show up in downtown or in a far easier to police area outside the city.

None. How many could they have shot? ALL of them.

LOL.

How great a threat were a group of soldiers armed with fully automatic rifles and live ammunition facing a large noisy and unarmed crowd? What kind of idiotic question is that?

LOL.

Protested. The same way they had done before. Legally and peacefully.

LOL.

So they wouldnt have tresspassed, vandalised property and attacked Gardai then?

These were Irish soldiers, paid for by the taxes of Irish civilians. Some of those civilians were protesting that they didn't want their military neutrality further comprimised, and the Irish government deployed Irish soldiers with live ammunition to ensure that no damage might occour to American military hardware.

Would that be the Irish government elected democratically by the Irish people as it best represented them and their interests?

/me shrugs.

Sparks

Not for want of trying.

I don't know whether to say "Really? Well then, why the big deal?" or "Actually they weren't trying to end the meetings, but to protest their agenda".

Sparks

Sand,

So the Gardai arent allowed to prevent problems in your opinion, theyre only allowed to pick up the pieces during and afterwards and get demonised for doing so?

No, they are supposed to prevent problems by doing their jobs professionally. We've not seen much of that in the recent past though.

1) Inform the US embassy you wont be applying for a visa then.

Being facile?

2) You have rights and you have responsibilites - its part of the compact between the state and the individual.

:rolleyes:
As I specifically said, in other words?

Other members of a society have a right not to be inconvenienced by your protests.

Actually, that right does not explicitly exist. I certainly cannot assault someone or harrass them, but I am most certainly within my rights to peacefully protest, even if it means you can't drive to work in the morning.
You're upset by this? Guess what - that's the point of a protest, it's to get public attention to an issue. Otherwise, you could just sit home and think to yourself "I don't like that idea".

They have a right to see their tax money spent better than on police overtime and security bills to deal with rioting scum.

Indeed. And that right is enforced by the arrest of those who engage in riots.
A riot, by the way, is not a peaceful protest.

These free speech areas allow you to make your protests, centralise it for the benefit of everyone ( yes even the protestors so that they can better police themselves and present a coherent message ) without overly impacting society. And as said before they handily isolate peaceful protestors from the troublemakers who pout and stamp their foot.

What they do is curtail the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and the impact that any peaceful protest has on government policy.

Now, if you're serious Sand, I can give you a cheap, legal means to eliminate most protests without comprimising any rights.

3) A free speech area doesnt in any way reduce the impact --- if you can get a million people to show up for a protest then the point is made regardless of whether they show up in downtown or in a far easier to police area outside the city.

That was proven to be wrong in the states, when anti-war protestors were isolated, the media kept away, and then they got attacked with baton rounds and tear gas without provocation.
Happily, some protestors had camcorders and there were some reporters in the crowd. Oakland is now taking legal action over the actions of the police in that protest.
But large protests (of up to a half-million people) were simply kept off the news and out of the public eye.

LOL.

Sand, is there a particular argument you have to present, or are you just content with assinine comments?

So they wouldnt have tresspassed, vandalised property and attacked Gardai then?

There's this principle in this country, whereby people are assumed not to be about to commit a crime before they actually do it. Eliminate that principle, and every under-25-year-old guy is going to be given a speeding ticket every time he drives to the shop, car insurance will be inordinately high, and they'll even charge you extra for ATM receipts and chewing gum to pay for the littering charge...

(a postnote to say that no Garda was ever attacked in Shannon. According to the Gardai themselves, that is. Willie O'Dea might disagree, but frankly, I don't believe much he says without proof...)

Would that be the Irish government elected democratically by the Irish people as it best represented them and their interests?

You know, I don't remember being asked on election day if I had any opinion on the deployment of Irish soldiers with live ammunition against Irish citizens who had committed no crime, when the only thing that they could protect was foreign military hardware.
Somehow, I think you'll find that the majority of Irish people, had they been asked, would have democratically told the government where to place that idea.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't know whether to say "Really? Well then, why the big deal?"

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about your rights to free speech while simultaneously trying to deny others their right to free speech and association?

"Actually they weren't trying to end the meetings, but to protest their agenda".

Incorrect, anti-globalization protestors regularly try to blockade conferences. If you look at this page, you'll see some examples of this.

Everybody resisting the corporate offensive should unite and blockade the summit to close it down,

Ten thousand protesters, the equivalent of 50,000 in Britain, successfully laid siege to the World Economic Forum (WEF) being held in Melbourne. They blocked off all the streets to the bosses' and politicians' powerful gathering on how to push globalisation and the free market.

Sparks

Meh,
I'm not sure why, but I'll repeat myself.
They're not protesting the idea of a WEF summit, they're protesting the agenda it promotes.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
They're not protesting the idea of a WEF summit, they're protesting the agenda it promotes.

I'll quote that quote again:

...lay siege...blockade...shut it down...

These people are not simply expressing their opposition to the WEF peacefully; they are actively trying to prevent the WEF delegates from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and association. The WEF delegates have just as much right to free speech and peaceful assembly as the protestors do.

Victor

Originally posted by MDR
Finally, does anyone have the link to the 'Infamous' Temple Bar protest pages as features on rte. ?

Possibly http://www.irishsocialforum.org/index.html

Originally posted by Sand
2) ... These free speech areas allow you to make your protests,

But it isn't free speech then is it? It's corralled speech and Article 40 only allows it to be corralled away from the Oireachtas - not from anywhere else and not to any specific area.

Sparks

Indeed Meh, though there is the niggling point that their personal freedoms aren't being challanged, but their professional actions. And since those actions impact a lot of people, I'd be damn cautious about condemning protest at their actions.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
And as said before they handily isolate peaceful protestors from the troublemakers who pout and stamp their foot.

These idiots do more than pout and stamp feet. They attempt to injure and kill members of security services by throwing rocks, petrol bombs and god knows what else at them. I can't understand how rioters get off so easily. They should be arrested and charged with attempted murder. And as for the so-called peaceful protesters who are often responsible for harbouring the thugs in their mobs. Either they begin co-operating with the police and help finger the dangerous element or else they've no right to complain when things hot up and they get in the way.

Sparks

These idiots do more than pout and stamp feet. They attempt to injure and kill members of security services by throwing rocks, petrol bombs and god knows what else at them. I can't understand how rioters get off so easily. They should be arrested and charged with attempted murder.

The do get arrested, though the charge isn't always attempted murder.

And as for the so-called peaceful protesters who are often responsible for harbouring the thugs in their mobs. Either they begin co-operating with the police and help finger the dangerous element or else they've no right to complain when things hot up and they get in the way.

And there we go with the jump from rationality to rabid right-wing crackpot mania.
Firstly Turnip, the phonomen of violent elements hijacking a larger crowd is well-known world-wide with everything from soccer fans to protestors. The legal system takes the view that when it happens, the people involved in the larger crowd are not responsible.
Secondly, those elements that turn up for a fight and nothing else are usually fingered by the organisers. Of course the gardai have a history of not listening too well, because it's an easier job to drop the ID numbers and weigh in with a baton...

SkepticOne

With high profile events like international meetings of the EU, WEF etc, the Gardai will allocate whatever resources are neccesary to deal with potential violence. If the Commissioner failed to respond approprately to a riot situation, people would be calling for his head.

The problem is that the places where they are being brought in from will be further stretched given their reduced overall strength. It is the lower profile areas of their activities that will take the brunt of the reduced manpower as these rarely make the headlines.

mike65

I see a report on the Sunday Times today which says the trade union movement is going to add to the fun by staging stikes in the run up to and during the Dublin summit. Thanks guys. As ever.

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I see a report on the Sunday Times today which says the trade union movement is going to add to the fun by staging stikes in the run up to and during the Dublin summit.

Government stooges - stopping the common man getting to the protests.

Sparks

Well you guys, if you don't want protests, you know the price - the right to call a binding referendum on a topical issue by presenting a petition with a set percentage (~4%) of the population's signatures.

MDR

Pardon me are we being held to ransome ?

You want the right to hold a referendum on an issue if you get approximately 4% of the population to sign a petition. Is that 4% of the electorate or the population, because I should image you could probabily get quite a few 8 year olds to sign anything you put in front of them.

4% of the electorate is going to much harder to achieve, and I might support it. However it must beg the question that we have elected public representatives, through an entirely democratic process, whom we charge to bring forward referedum's on their merits.

I amn't sure if I want any interest group who can muster sufficent minority support to have the right to propose changes to the constitution willy-nilly. I have gone out and voted people in to look at such issues indebtily and present them to me in an informative and accountable way. If they can't do this job, then I won't vote them back in. Whereas I have no guarentees an interest group I will have the same level of accountablity.

Should these interest groups not concentrate their efforts on bringing our elected representative around to their way of thinking (as everyone else does).

As for soldiers in Shannon having guns, I don't see it as clearily cut as you do. If you review the indymedia footage of this event, you will hear people being told they want 'as many people to get arrested as possible'. By what means one might ask ?

Well I very much doubt any of the 'peace' protestors had it in their head to use volience, but there where very real intentions to do more damage to planes and tear down fences, where they more plans to kidnap/assault Garda ?

Perhaps I am blowing things out of proportion, anyone who supported the peace marches at shannon, would probabily argue that I am, unfortunately however, once the soldiers where sent out to protect the planes, they where going to go out with guns. If you see them transporting military equipment around the country they always have guns, they aren't trained in the use of nightsticks etc.

Its not good, I don't like it, but once the Garda proved inadequate to the task of protecting the airport, and the soldiers where called out that was that.

I amn't going to argue the toss about legality of protecting american military equipment, once the protestors expressed their intention to tear down the fence and 'storm' the airport, it changed things for me, that isn't 'peaceful' protest in my head. The soldiers where non-agressive/engaging on the day (as where the protestors i might add), I am glad they where prepared.

I do abhor the use of guns by our security forces to maintain the peace, and don't want to see it repeated, but feel that during the Irish EU presidency something more than night sticks may be warranted. I again repeat I don't want to restrict anyones right to peacefuly protest .....

Havelock

I admit I am, split on the issues raised here, I like everyone to have their right to free speech and assemble, but when I comes to a group of people intent at all accounts inclueding their own to better their posistion by the maginlisation of others, I would like to revoke all their freedoms. The fact of the matter is, no matter how many people show up at these protests, it won't phase the government one bit. People might as well be chained up out in a field in Meath and would have the same effect on the WEF or Current Irish Government. They don't care, look at London the Millions who protested against an illgal war, were they listened to. No, just resured the government would be vindicated when the Axis (sorry I mean collition) Forces found all the WMD's and Shallow Mass Graves, and nuclear reactors, and prison camps, and other mean horrible things that they had all the evidence that they couldn't show us because then Iraq would know they knew.....things, and they would liberate the oppressed unrepresented Iraqi populace, and allow them create a democratic government which would negoigate fair trade terms for Iraq's vast miniral wealth and lead into the "civilised" western world. You know I'm still waiting to be honest, I have the slightest glimmer of hope that they give Iraq back to the Iraqis, before the Iraqis over throw the Americans, because well I'd hate the Americans to bomb it again.
As for the Irish Soldiers guarding American Military Aircraft, never mind why the soldiers were armed, they always are, why were the planes here. We could have easily gathered that 4% signature to force the issue and get the planes off our "Neutral" soil.

Sparks

MDR,

Pardon me are we being held to ransome ?

No, I'm just pointing out that protests are held in the main because of a lack of an alternative method to influence policy. Implement that alternative method and there is no longer a motive for the majority of protests.

You want the right to hold a referendum on an issue if you get approximately 4% of the population to sign a petition. Is that 4% of the electorate or the population, because I should image you could probabily get quite a few 8 year olds to sign anything you put in front of them.

My error, I should have said the electorate.

4% of the electorate is going to much harder to achieve, and I might support it.

5% of the electorate did a lot more than sign a petition for a lot less of a chance of influencing policy prior to the invasion of iraq.
Which is pretty much the point - if that many people feel strongly about a topic, odds are that it's important enough to have a referendum on.

However it must beg the question that we have elected public representatives, through an entirely democratic process, whom we charge to bring forward referedum's on their merits.

This implies that we trust those we elect. Which is not a view supported by the CSO's recent statistics collected on the electorate.

I amn't sure if I want any interest group who can muster sufficent minority support to have the right to propose changes to the constitution willy-nilly.

4% of the population is approximately 120,000 people. That's a pretty large minority.
Plus, it's hardly minority control when the referenda procedure gives control to the majority.

I have gone out and voted people in to look at such issues indebtily and present them to me in an informative and accountable way.

You have? Wow. How'd you get to vote on who got to run a particular ministry when noone other than Ahern got to do that?

Whereas I have no guarentees an interest group I will have the same level of accountablity.

No, and no interest group ought to be able to run the government. But any interest group ought to be able to call for a referendum if there's sufficent support for one.

Should these interest groups not concentrate their efforts on bringing our elected representative around to their way of thinking (as everyone else does).

When ~150,000 people marching in one of the largest civil protests in the history of the state has no influence on the government, it gives me pause as to the effectiveness of that approach.

As for soldiers in Shannon having guns, I don't see it as clearily cut as you do. If you review the indymedia footage of this event, you will hear people being told they want 'as many people to get arrested as possible'. By what means one might ask ?

But who was calling for that? Indymedia might be fun to read if you want to see a bunch of nutters rant at each other, and it does occasionally have snippets that you don't catch otherwise, but I wouldn't use it to determine national policy

Well I very much doubt any of the 'peace' protestors had it in their head to use volience, but there where very real intentions to do more damage to planes and tear down fences, where they more plans to kidnap/assault Garda ?

Firstly, "more plans to kidnap/assault Garda" is incorrect - the gardai themselves stated that the story of a garda being assaulted was false.
Secondly, the attacks on american military aircraft were justified under the Neuremberg principle.
Thirdly, had the legal recourse of calling for a referendum on the use of shannon been available, odds are that the hatchet attacks on aircraft would never have happened. And the hung jury in the Kelly case shows that people can't bring themselves to condemn it.

Perhaps I am blowing things out of proportion, anyone who supported the peace marches at shannon, would probabily argue that I am, unfortunately however, once the soldiers where sent out to protect the planes, they where going to go out with guns. If you see them transporting military equipment around the country they always have guns, they aren't trained in the use of nightsticks etc.

Yes, but when they're driving around the country with military equipment or escorting cash shipments, they're protecting Irish assets from criminals - here they were standing between Irish civilians protesting the use of an Irish airport by a foreign military force in violation of our tradition of neutrality. And as the Horgan case showed, the use of shannon in the Iraq invasion was significant departure from the practise of the government over the past fifty years.

Its not good, I don't like it, but once the Garda proved inadequate to the task of protecting the airport, and the soldiers where called out that was that.

Except that that's not what happened. The number of gardai initially assigned proved to be too low, and the solution to that is more gardai, not armed soldiers.

that isn't 'peaceful' protest in my head.

Agreed, I thought that was highly irresponsible. Of course, I thought that because the soldiers were already deployed...

The soldiers where non-agressive/engaging on the day (as where the protestors i might add), I am glad they where prepared.

Yes, it was quite gratifying to see that they reacted the way they did - but the fact remains that they should never have been there.

MDR

No, I'm just pointing out that protests are held in the main because of a lack of an alternative method to influence policy.

I would disagree, I find people generally tend to protest before exploring any political avenue, canvassing their local td etc.

Which is pretty much the point - if that many people feel strongly about a topic, odds are that it's important enough to have a referendum on.

The protest in question was against a war on Iraq, their is no direct implication that the the people attending the mass demostrations would have supported a constitional change proposed in a referedum. Indeed there would have been much debate about what form of words the constitutional change would take, you are effectily looking for a tool to change government policy, a stick for minority groups to beat the government with.

If we went down this road we could we find ourselves having a referedum every other week, Irish people historically don't like having to go to the polls and see it as a chour. I would worry that through a mix of fanatism on one side and appathy on another, would start to churn out some very scewed results ....

This implies that we trust those we elect. Which is not a view supported by the CSO's recent statistics collected on the electorate.

We then the democratic method is to sit tight until the next election and don't vote em back in, or start to canvass your tds to support a 'no confidence' motion, in this case canvassing the coalition partners would be best.

4% of the population is approximately 120,000 people. That's a pretty large minority.

4% of the electorate ? In the grand scheme of things 4% of something is still 4% of something, and is still a huge minority when compared to the whole. Now if you had 15/20% of the elecorate behind you, now that would be much more conviencing although chances are that anything 20% of the population supports enough to sign a petition for, would all be on the governments radar for that term of office.

You have? Wow. How'd you get to vote on who got to run a particular ministry when noone other than Ahern got to do that?

Why is that relevent ? Why does who works in which ministry matter ?, FF and PD got all the votes, therefore they won the right to run the country as they see fit. If they do a bad job, they don't get in next time ... democracy.

But any interest group ought to be able to call for a referendum if there's sufficent support for one.

I suppose 'interest group' is a bad choice of words,the people should be able to call a referendum, if enough people support a consitutional change, I don't disagree with you, I just feel 4% is a little bit too small. Also I amn't convencied that people don't have the power through the existing system to canvass for a constitutional change.

When ~150,000 people marching in one of the largest civil protests in the history of the state has no influence on the government, it gives me pause as to the effectiveness of that approach.

Well there is much conjecture on the numbers on the day, any news source I read put it at 100,000, but I won't argue the toss over it. Then as I said don't vote for them next time around, and do you bit to make sure no-one else does.

But who was calling for that? Indymedia might be fun to read if you want to see a bunch of nutters rant at each other, and it does occasionally have snippets that you don't catch otherwise, but I wouldn't use it to determine national policy

No it was the actual footage of people at the protest being told to get themselves arrested, indymedia didn't generate that, they only reported on it.

Firstly, "more plans to kidnap/assault Garda" is incorrect - the gardai themselves stated that the story of a garda being assaulted was false.

They did tie up a Garda while they disabled the plane, no ?

Thirdly, had the legal recourse of calling for a referendum on the use of shannon been available, odds are that the hatchet attacks on aircraft would never have happened. And the hung jury in the Kelly case shows that people can't bring themselves to condemn it.

Referendum's are about consitutional change, not about changing government policy. You are not in position to say what might have happened if you 'referendum mechanism' had of been in place, there is every chance the attack still could have happened.

Yes, but when they're driving around the country with military equipment or escorting cash shipments, they're protecting Irish assets from criminals

The soldiers where protecting shannon airport from among other things mass-tresspassing and tearing down fences, Shannon is a state asset and they where protecting it, granted they where indirectily protecting american planes as well, but there you go.

Except that that's not what happened. The number of gardai initially assigned proved to be too low, and the solution to that is more gardai, not armed soldiers.

There where no gardai resources available at the time, they where too busy trying to get the people of limerick to stop killing each other.

One point you may have missed, that between the public consulations that take place on referendums, the setting up and work of the referendum commission, the advertising, the information etc etc etc, the war would have been long over before the referendum would have taken place .....

Sparks

The protest in question was against a war on Iraq, their is no direct implication that the the people attending the mass demostrations would have supported a constitional change proposed in a referedum.

Where did the constitution come into this? We decide matters relating to constitutional change using referenda - but that does not mean all referenda must be about constitutional change!

Irish people historically don't like having to go to the polls and see it as a chour

Irish people historically have had little direct political influence via polls. What are the odds that both are related?

We then the democratic method is to sit tight until the next election and don't vote em back in

That's giving them a lot of time to do a lot of damage.

If they do a bad job, they don't get in next time ... democracy.

And we live with the damage in the meantime, and have to pay for the clean-up afterwards.

I just feel 4% is a little bit too small.

Bonkey, what's the percentage set at in Switzerland?

No it was the actual footage of people at the protest being told to get themselves arrested

But who was telling them to get arrested?

They did tie up a Garda while they disabled the plane, no ?

No, they didn't. That was a story told to the media by (if I remember correctly) Willie O'Dea - and later flatly denied by the protestors, the garda involved and the gardai offically.
The garda wasn't actually in the hanger at the time, he was making tea in another building - when he returned, he had the to-be-expected reaction of "oh ****, the boss is going to have my head for this". That was the extent of the "assault".

Referendum's are about consitutional change, not about changing government policy. You are not in position to say what might have happened if you 'referendum mechanism' had of been in place, there is every chance the attack still could have happened.

As I said, we happen to use referenda to decide on constitutional change, but that does not mean that you cannot have a referendum on a non-constitutional matter. The Nice treaty would be a good example, if it hadn't been such a farce...

Then as I said don't vote for them next time around, and do you bit to make sure no-one else does.

In other words, whomever you elect has absolute authority with no appeal for five years? No thanks. As I've said, that gives them too much time to do damage.

There where no gardai resources available at the time

That story was bandied about at the time. And was false.

One point you may have missed, that between the public consulations that take place on referendums, the setting up and work of the referendum commission, the advertising, the information etc etc etc, the war would have been long over before the referendum would have taken place .....

Once again, that's how we handle constitutional change in this country - it does not mean we have to do that for non-constitutional referenda.

"Should we allow the use of Shannon airport and Irish airspace by the US for military flights related to proposed military action in Iraq, yes or no?"

There you have it. Nice and simple.

MDR

Where did the constitution come into this? We decide matters relating to constitutional change using referenda - but that does not mean all referenda must be about constitutional change!

Well forgive me in Ireland historically they always have been about consitutional change ...

Irish people historically have had little direct political influence via polls. What are the odds that both are related?

People have lots of influence in the polls when they choose to excercise it, for instance in the last election the election of alot of independent td's and the rise of the smaller parties was people giving power to those 'non establishment' groups, very powerful stuff.

That's giving them a lot of time to do a lot of damage.

Yes, but the people gave them that right, the people can rise up en mass (alot more than 4%) and take it away should they so wish, and has happened more than once in Irish politcal history. FF and PDs for all their faults are the first strong government we had had in a long time.

But who was telling them to get arrested?

I think it was a yahoo from the socialist workers party, but have to review the footage again.

The Nice treaty would be a good example, if it hadn't been such a farce...

The Nice treay wasn't a non-constitutional matter ....

In other words, whomever you elect has absolute authority with no appeal for five years?

Well its not quite as simple as that, if you can garner public support, or even just poltical support you can make changes in the interm. You are simply looking for anrachy to rein ...

That story was bandied about at the time. And was false.

Those with any close knowledge of the Garda, would know that particularily then but also now they are stretched to their limit. To say otherwise is mere fancy, they simple couldn't afford the 150 men it took to police the situation as they had been over-stretched by the gangland killings in limerick.

"Should we allow the use of Shannon airport and Irish airspace by the US for military flights related to proposed military action in Iraq, yes or no?"

Eh no, I elected a government to make policy like that, if they do a bad they don't get in again, you are advocating school boy anarchist stuff.

Sparks

MDR,

Well forgive me in Ireland historically they always have been about consitutional change ...

Yes, but that's hardly a valid argument against non-constitutional referenda!

People have lots of influence in the polls when they choose to excercise it, for instance in the last election the election of alot of independent td's and the rise of the smaller parties was people giving power to those 'non establishment' groups, very powerful stuff.

Agreed, the rise in voting in single-issue TDs is an important trend - but not in the way you're thinking. It indicates that where people have a vote to achieve a certain goal, they will exercise that vote.
However, as we've seen, it was not "very powerful stuff" as it ended in a FF near-majority government that's put through some of the most reactionary legislation of the past few decades!

Yes, but the people gave them that right, the people can rise up en mass (alot more than 4%) and take it away should they so wish, and has happened more than once in Irish politcal history.

What precisely is that supposed to mean?

FF and PDs for all their faults are the first strong government we had had in a long time.

I'm less concerned with their strength and more with their actions. Not too many of which have been in our best interests.

I think it was a yahoo from the socialist workers party, but have to review the footage again.

Hmm. I remain unsurprised

Well its not quite as simple as that, if you can garner public support, or even just poltical support you can make changes in the interm. You are simply looking for anrachy to rein ...

Anarchy? No thanks. I'm advocating a legal mechanism to eliminate the need for anarchial protests without eliminating the right to free assembly. Bit of a difference, really.

Those with any close knowledge of the Garda, would know that particularily then but also now they are stretched to their limit. To say otherwise is mere fancy, they simple couldn't afford the 150 men it took to police the situation as they had been over-stretched by the gangland killings in limerick.

Eh no, I elected a government to make policy like that, if they do a bad they don't get in again, you are advocating school boy anarchist stuff.

Hang on a minute - that's abdicating responsibility for an action. How exactly is demanding that we share the responsibility an anarchist stance?

Sand

Being facile?

Felt it was the appropriate response to your stated wish.

As I specifically said, in other words?

You said it but you chose to ignore it - You claim to have rights but no responsibilities in the exercise of those rights. Thats not the way society works. Indeed you would not enjoy such a society where one particular groups rights were an exscuse to trample all over the rights of another group. In cases such as Drumcree independant bodies have tended to favour those who are being inconvenienced.

You're upset by this? Guess what - that's the point of a protest, it's to get public attention to an issue. Otherwise, you could just sit home and think to yourself "I don't like that idea".

You wouldnt happen to be the taxi unions PR man would you? The best way to get a public to take notice and turn against your idea is to inconvenience them. CIE and co at least had a bit of a brainwave with their no fares protest - they made their bosses sit up and listen, they made sure the public knew they were protesting but they didnt inconvenience their customers an iota - if anything they gave them a benefit. I personally despise CIE but i applaud their attitude to that particular industrial action.

Indeed. And that right is enforced by the arrest of those who engage in riots.
A riot, by the way, is not a peaceful protest.

Id agree but this is apparently a matter of opinion. After all vandalism and tresspassing and assault is not always vandalism, tresspassing and assault is it?

What they do is curtail the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and the impact that any peaceful protest has on government policy.

Youve stated this but youve never demonstrated how to my mind? Why is making minor concessions to assist in the safe and proper policing of a protest so impossible? Why must protests be staged in such a fashion as to stretch Garda resources and ability to police so as to give the greatest possible chance of violence? Why must they be staged in such a fashion as to inconvenience the public at large as much as possible? Why must it be staged in such a fashion as to present the largest bill to the tax payer? And why will any violence be entirely the Gardais fault in the aftermath?

That was proven to be wrong in the states, when anti-war protestors were isolated, the media kept away, and then they got attacked with baton rounds and tear gas without provocation.

Actually the media apparently didnt care - if they couldnt be arsed showing up at a predesignated point in a secure location theyre not much more likely to go another less secure undesignated point.

And protestors are always attacked without provocation. God help us if they werent, Indymedia would implode into itself as the the paradox ripped apart space and time.

Sand, is there a particular argument you have to present, or are you just content with assinine comments?

Sorry I didnt realise you were being serious -- not that my response would be much different if you were being serious.

There's this principle in this country, whereby people are assumed not to be about to commit a crime before they actually do it. Eliminate that principle, and every under-25-year-old guy is going to be given a speeding ticket every time he drives to the shop, car insurance will be inordinately high, and they'll even charge you extra for ATM receipts and chewing gum to pay for the littering charge...

Theres another policing concept called crime prevention - its believed to be more important and effective than merely reacting to crimes as they occur.

And the "peaceful" protestors had already demonstrated their credentials - which was why the army was called in.

You know, I don't remember being asked on election day if I had any opinion on the deployment of Irish soldiers with live ammunition against Irish citizens who had committed no crime, when the only thing that they could protect was foreign military hardware.

We live in a representitive democracy, not a direct democracy. You elect representitives, you vet them on their performance and you punish or reward them based on your evaluation of their performance. The majority gets their representives in - last time it was FF/PDs ( and I highly doubt you voted for either tbh so what you were asked on election day wouldnt have much influence on the outcome ) next time it could be some nightmare coalition of Labour/Greens/SF wholl do their best to punish those who worked for a good job. That being the case Ill either accept it till next election or emigrate:|

Somehow, I think you'll find that the majority of Irish people, had they been asked, would have democratically told the government where to place that idea.

Im sure they would have at the time. As im sure they would have supported the use of Shannon in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi war, as Im sure they wouldnt now, and as Im reasonably sure they will support the use of Shannon in the future when Iraq elects its own government.

And you want to base long term politcal polices on such variable votes? You get the government you deserve:|

Sparks

Sand,

Felt it was the appropriate response to your stated wish.

I didn't state a wish, I stated that it was a risky thing to put armed soldiers in charge of crowd control at a protest.

You said it but you chose to ignore it - You claim to have rights but no responsibilities in the exercise of those rights.

I specifically said the opposite to that:

I have a right to free speech and a right to free assembly. I refuse to sign those rights away. They come with a right not to be punished for the illegal acts of others and the duty to follow the law myself.

The best way to get a public to take notice and turn against your idea is to inconvenience them.

The best way to make someone take notice is to get their attention.
I agree with you in regard to the CIE move - but they could do that because they had access to the transport infrastructure. Those protesting the war had no such mechanism to use.

Id agree but this is apparently a matter of opinion. After all vandalism and tresspassing and assault is not always vandalism, tresspassing and assault is it?

That's the opposite of what I said. Assault is assault. Vandalism is vandalism. And they're criminal acts and subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. And I said that assault is not supportable in any circumstances. But the actions taken against the US military aircraft were not vandalism because of the circumstances and the Nuremberg principles.

Youve stated this but youve never demonstrated how to my mind?

It's not necessary for me to demonstrate how because it's been demonstrated in reality in the US:
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000655.php
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/30/campus.speech.ap/
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=86

Actually the media apparently didnt care - if they couldnt be arsed showing up at a predesignated point in a secure location theyre not much more likely to go another less secure undesignated point.

That's not what I said, nor what happened:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm
http://www.here-now.org/shows/2003/04/20030410_10.asp
http://truthout.org/docs_03/040903A.shtml
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/2003/04/09/news/opinion/5592341.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5579733.htm
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/07/12/1906750
http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Oakland_Police_Lawsuit_110041C.shtml

And the "peaceful" protestors had already demonstrated their credentials - which was why the army was called in.

There's an important point here. Those arrested for tresspass were not there during the following protests. That means that the people in front of the soldiers had no record of criminal acts.

We live in a representitive democracy, not a direct democracy.

Which is one of the main problems in our society, as I have stated before and will continue to argue.

BKtje

If the Garda can't handle a situation i think its only right that the armed forces are called in, especially with peaceful protestors where the chance of anything happenign is minimal.

They could have sent the army into Limerick to try and sort out that mess but that would have beena huge mistake (duh) as a) they have no experience in such matters and b) would have put lives at risk. (if people start fighting armed forces people usually die). Now i know they werent directly fighting the guards but i hope you get my meaning.

Personally i dont mind using armed forces to keep the peace when the Guards are overstretched, they cost a fair bit in tax money to keep them operational, might as well use them at home as well as on peace keeping missions abroad etc. Of course we could shrink the size of the army more and just hire Guards but thats another issue i guess.

Victor

Originally posted by MDR
You want the right to hold a referendum on an issue if you get approximately 4% of the population to sign a petition. Is that 4% of the electorate or the population, because I should image you could probabily get quite a few 8 year olds to sign anything you put in front of them.

Well, Ballybay (Co. Monaghan), population c. 450 had a turn out of 700+ at the last town council election :rolleyes:

Sand

I didn't state a wish,

Yeah you did - go back and check it yourself , im not arsed looking for it tbh and dont make me go and have to.

I specifically said the opposite to that:

No, from what I can summarise you would logically hold the position that the Orange order is not only should be allowed to march where ever the hell they like, the local residents have no right to not be inconvenienced by them. Thankfully your opinion doesnt hold too much sway with the relevant authorities. They appear to recognise the rights and reponsibilities that are a part of society - You have a right to hold your protest, grand, you have no right to intefere with the rights of other citizens to go about their daily lives without undue inconvenience- explicit or otherwise. I can understand that this doesnt sit well with the school of thought that views a protest as a failure unless it stresses peoppe out.

The best way to make someone take notice is to get their attention.

And the best way to piss them off is to piss them off.

I agree with you in regard to the CIE move - but they could do that because they had access to the transport infrastructure. Those protesting the war had no such mechanism to use.

What you really mean to say is that the anti war lobby couldnt get the support of any union or similar institution(s), neither could they organise an effective petition to register a majority or at least significant proportion of citizens disagreed with the governments policy, and neither could they try and garner political support at a national level.

All of this is hard. Its especially hard when youre a tiny, unrepresentitive band of political outcasts but that in itself is a hint. It is more effective in the long run than standing in a field singing kumbyeya my lord though - lets recap , Shannon remained open, the Iraq war was fought and won ( thought lets be honest regardless of Irish policy this wouldnt have been affected ), the protestors gave the public every chance to think ill of them with their crinimal activities, and not a single government td or minister is worried about their positions on the Shannon issue affecting them at election time.

But sure isnt protesting a great laugh.

It's not necessary for me to demonstrate how because it's been demonstrated in reality in the US:

Sorry one man with a sign, the usual student political types and the ACLU are a demonstration of the evil oppression of protests being organised in safe, easily policed areas?

God, help me.

That's the opposite of what I said. Assault is assault. Vandalism is vandalism. And they're criminal acts and subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. And I said that assault is not supportable in any circumstances. But the actions taken against the US military aircraft were not vandalism because of the circumstances and the Nuremberg principles.

http://www.sfsu.edu/~mclicfc/nberg.html

Do you know how shagging time consuming it is looking for the text of the principles - every crackpot witters on about his interpretation of them but no one gives you the text so you can make up your own mind.

Anyway, looking at the above link tell me which prinicple instructs people that they should break the law to prevent other people committing war crimes/crimes against humanity ( assuming we allow of course that the coalition liberation was such ) ? I see all the ones that say the individual has no defence for carrying out a warcrime, but I must be reading a different version.

In fact they only mention domestic law in that an international crime is still a crime even if domestic law does not recognise it. This is not the same as "break domestic law willy nilly if you *think* an international crime may be occuring".

And yet vandalism isnt vandalism. Its enough to weaken your faith in the justice system.

That's not what I said, nor what happened:

But it wouldnt be true to say they were attacked by the police without provocation now would it? At least not on the basis of the first 3 or 4 links I read ( sorry, Ive got better ways to spend the time ). One of them was amusing with his quite apparently unbiased appraisal of the cops, complete to the cute little icon in the top right corner. My, if they say the cops are evil who am I to disagree.

From what I can see there was a protest going on ( an illegal one too according to your link ), the police claim the protestors started throwing stuff at them, the protestors claim it was positively Ghandian and the police dispersed the protestors using wooden bullets, and the former peace activist mayor backs the police departments response - itll need a bit of the old indymedia treatment before it becomes a slaughter of the innocents wont it?

There's an important point here. Those arrested for tresspass were not there during the following protests. That means that the people in front of the soldiers had no record of criminal acts.

So everyone could just go home then? Get the protestors to turn out the lights when they were done thrashing the place?

Which is one of the main problems in our society, as I have stated before and will continue to argue.

Debateable - the political process needs to be truly representitive but it also needs to be protected from whimsical policymaking and "me too" stuff.

Sparks

Sand,

No, from what I can summarise you would logically hold the position that the Orange order is not only should be allowed to march where ever the hell they like

That's not logical. The Orange order march, not protest.

What you really mean to say is that the anti war lobby couldnt get the support of any union or similar institution(s), neither could they organise an effective petition to register a majority or at least significant proportion of citizens disagreed with the governments policy, and neither could they try and garner political support at a national level.

Nope, that's not only not what I meant to say, it's also quite inaccurate.
It also ignores what was perhaps the largest public protest in the history of the state. The only one that I can think of as a competitor for the title of "largest civil protest" would be the PAYE protests in the 70s.

Shannon remained open, the Iraq war was fought and won ( thought lets be honest regardless of Irish policy this wouldnt have been affected ), the protestors gave the public every chance to think ill of them with their crinimal activities, and not a single government td or minister is worried about their positions on the Shannon issue affecting them at election time.
But sure isnt protesting a great laugh.

Why don't we recap? Tell you what, I'll do it at your level.

Sorry one man with a sign, the usual student political types and the ACLU are a demonstration of the evil oppression of protests being organised in safe, easily policed areas?
God, help me.

Sand, if you think that those are the only references out there as to the serious ill effects of Free Speech Zones, you are mistaken.
But face it, I'm hardly going to get you to read them, now am I?

http://www.sfsu.edu/~mclicfc/nberg.html
Do you know how shagging time consuming it is looking for the text of the principles - every crackpot witters on about his interpretation of them but no one gives you the text so you can make up your own mind.

I got curious and timed it. 44 seconds.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=nuremberg+principles&spell=1

Anyway, looking at the above link tell me which prinicple instructs people that they should break the law to prevent other people committing war crimes/crimes against humanity

And I quote:

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national
obligations of obedience. Therefore [individuals] have the duty to
violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from
occurring." The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.

( assuming we allow of course that the coalition liberation was such ) ?

Allow? Really? Tell me, do you allow that gravity operates towards masses as well?
:rolleyes:

But it wouldnt be true to say they were attacked by the police without provocation now would it?

Yes, it would.
Videotape from the protests shows the police opening fire with baton rounds without warning or provocation.
Then there's the manner in which those rounds were used - they are specifically supposed not to aim at people's heads, and shooting people in the back is, well, a bit of a no-no...

At least not on the basis of the first 3 or 4 links I read ( sorry, Ive got better ways to spend the time ).

So do I, but I provided the links, at your request.

One of them was amusing with his quite apparently unbiased appraisal of the cops, complete to the cute little icon in the top right corner. My, if they say the cops are evil who am I to disagree.

No-one, especially as you don't read the material.

So everyone could just go home then? Get the protestors to turn out the lights when they were done thrashing the place?

I'm beginning to wonder if this is FreeRepublic.ie ...
No, they couldn't have no security there, I suppose - but there's a difference between security and armed troops.
I'll adopt a Bertieism and remind you of the historical record surrounding Vietnam in this case.

Debateable - the political process needs to be truly representitive but it also needs to be protected from whimsical policymaking and "me too" stuff.

Like the Bertiebowl and the new government jets? Indeed.
Somehow I think the necessity to get 120,000 signatures would be effective in that regard.

MDR

Debateable - the political process needs to be truly representitive but it also needs to be protected from whimsical policymaking and "me too" stuff.

True you could have specific interest groups abusing a system such a 'referendum trigger' as part of tatics to pressure the government of the day into something .....

Sand

That's not logical. The Orange order march, not protest.

Same principles, free assembly, free speech and exspression.

Why don't we recap? Tell you what, I'll do it at your level.

Cute cartoon. Cute attempt to dodge subject.

Sand, if you think that those are the only references out there as to the serious ill effects of Free Speech Zones, you are mistaken.

If theyre the best you could get, Id hate to have to waste my time reading the worst.

And I quote:

Im sure you do but not from the Principles - not from the link I provided or the first link on the list you provided.

Its an interesting idea youre setting forward - do you believe then that there is a right to break laws and act against common opinion if a crime against humanity has occured?

Yes, it would.

Despite your link stating the crowd started bombarding the police? Well I guess you take what you want from the report.

No, they couldn't have no security there, I suppose - but there's a difference between security and armed troops.

The previous security was incapable of preventing "peaceful" protestors committing crimes. So the army was called in. Just in case non-peaceful protestors showed up looking to tresspass and vandalise.

Sparks

Same principles, free assembly, free speech and exspression.

You could say the same thing applied to sex, Sand. A march is not a protest. End of story.

Cute cartoon. Cute attempt to dodge subject.

An on-topic cartoon is off-the-subject? :rolleyes:

If theyre the best you could get, Id hate to have to waste my time reading the worst.

Well, I'd hate to waste your precious time.

Im sure you do but not from the Principles - not from the link I provided or the first link on the list you provided.

Not all of us stop at the first link on the list.

Its an interesting idea youre setting forward - do you believe then that there is a right to break laws and act against common opinion if a crime against humanity has occured?

Oh, there's a trick question.
The answer sand, is yes - but if and only if the action you take is not a crime against humanity in and of itself.

Despite your link stating the crowd started bombarding the police? Well I guess you take what you want from the report.

I gave you both the police story and the protestor's. But hey, why waste your time with a balanced argument?

The previous security was incapable of preventing "peaceful" protestors committing crimes. So the army was called in. Just in case non-peaceful protestors showed up looking to tresspass and vandalise.

The previous security was off making tea against orders. Not incapable.
Got any better argument?

Éomer of Rohan

Neither the police nor the army have the right to challenge a mass protest in any shape or form - unless there is some form of proof that there will be violence occuring there - and when I say violence, I do not mean looting which can be dealt with by small core rapid reaction squads of police and is not generally what the turnout is for.

Sand

You could say the same thing applied to sex, Sand. A march is not a protest. End of story

You could but youd be stretching it . Not in the case of Drumcree though. And in both cases their are limits on how far you can take free speech and exspression before you piss off society.

Not all of us stop at the first link on the list.

Not all of us seemingly mean the nuremberg principles when we say the nuremberg principles. Both my link and your first one list the same principles - neither mention your "interpretation" which is apparently not one of the principles in either link.

Oh, there's a trick question. The answer sand, is yes - but if and only if the action you take is not a crime against humanity in and of itself.

But surely you have the right to break the law and thus commit a crime by definition - and whether youre actually committing a crime against humanity is a matter of opinion, and seeing as common opinion is no longer binding either then only your opinion matters surely?

I gave you both the police story and the protestor's. But hey, why waste your time with a balanced argument?

Well I can see why you wouldnt want to use a balanced argument - the police claim they were attacked, the protestors claimed they were attacked without provocation. You utterly dismiss the police claims and announce the protestors were attacked without provocation.

Its such a balanced argument you could be writing for indymedia.

The previous security was off making tea against orders. Not incapable.

Sorry you reckon that a security force which wanders off on tea breaks whilst the area its protecting is infiltrated and property on it thrashed is *capable*?

/me sighs.
No, I dont imagine Ive an argument that can reach you.

Sparks

You could but youd be stretching it . Not in the case of Drumcree though.

Incorrect. Look, abuse my analogy all you want, but the activities of the orange order count as a march, a parade - NOT a protest.

And in both cases their are limits on how far you can take free speech and exspression before you piss off society.

And exactly where is it written that noone has a right to piss off society?
There are no rights to free speech in this regard.
It's the old "should you allow neonazis free speech" argument.

Not all of us seemingly mean the nuremberg principles when we say the nuremberg principles. Both my link and your first one list the same principles - neither mention your "interpretation" which is apparently not one of the principles in either link.

Yes, correct, my bad, you'd have had to read into the second or so page to get the link. Next time I'll supply a deep link instead.
Mind you, had you read the documents, you'd never have said this:

But surely you have the right to break the law and thus commit a crime by definition - and whether youre actually committing a crime against humanity is a matter of opinion, and seeing as common opinion is no longer binding either then only your opinion matters surely?

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html
"Crime against Humanity" is not a wavey-handy term, it's a legal one.
So it's not opinion.
It's law.

Well I can see why you wouldnt want to use a balanced argument - the police claim they were attacked, the protestors claimed they were attacked without provocation.

And the video recordings from several vantage points support the claims of the protestors and testify against those of the police.
Not to mention the fact that the injuries suffered by the protestors were sufficent grounds in and of themselves to demand a pretty serious investigation.

Sorry you reckon that a security force which wanders off on tea breaks whilst the area its protecting is infiltrated and property on it thrashed is *capable*?

Nope, I regard them as incompetent. But there's a difference between having one garda on duty and having ten armed men on duty, and somewhere in between (and a damn sight closer to the garda end of the spectrum) was the correct solution.

No, I dont imagine Ive an argument that can reach you.

You think that's exasperating? You ought to try seeing this sort of thing happen and then reading opinions from people claiming that it's a good thing and that we need to take more steps towards a right-wing totalitarian state rather than towards a moderate progressive one.
I mean, next you'll be saying that Liam Lawlor has a right to his €2 million from adamstown...

redflaremist

Originally posted by MDR
I am concerned about 'Ant-globalisation' protestors and the upcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union. Perhaps I am being a little bit naive and childish

Yes you are being a little naive and childish. If you need something to worry about on this end of things - you should worry more about being made unemployed because the company you work for shuts down here and moves to some country where they can pay people less, or getting sick from eating GM foods, or having your bus service taken away because its not profitable for the company that privatised the route, or breathing in car fumes from all the stinking cars.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to the culture of fear, just because a news organisation reports that maurdering hoards of anti-globalisation protestors will descend upon Ireland and reek havoc in their wake, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will happen etc.

If street protests of two days have you more worried than the above things I've mentioned, then obviously you do subscribe to the culture of etc...

Finally, does anyone have the link to the 'Infamous' Temple Bar protest pages as features on rte. ?

It doesnt exist. Its made up. The screenshot of the report I saw on TV3 was the official Temple Bar site (http://www.temple-bar.ie).

And on Saturday night on my bike, after passing through the hordes of drunken slappers and scumbags, falling out of wanker overpriced pubs with **** chart music blaring from them, people pissing and puking and fighting and shouting everyone - I think a mob of anarchists smashing and burning the entire ****ing place to the ground would be a blessing. Not in disguise.