The whole 'Nazi' jibes at McDowell

...it always disappoints me to see the glee with which posters throw out 'Nazi', 'Fuhrer' and 'Gestapo' jibes at Michael McDowell. Frankly, I don't like the man. But it wouldn't cross my mind to demean the Holocaust or refer to it glibly to score a very cheap point against an Irish politician. Patently we do not live in a society where a whole race face extermination in concentration camps. Have we grown so comfortable that we cannot empathise with the gravity of what Hitler tried to achieve, that we just see that whole little problem as a useful soundbite to throw out in a post?

Villain

I think you'll find McDowell likes to use Nazi jibes too, just ask Richard Bruton.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I think you'll find McDowell likes to use Nazi jibes too, just ask Richard Bruton.

As I said I don't like the man and that line was entirely inappropriate and unacceptable - I believe he said as much afterwards. I don't think that gives others a carte blanche to use the exact same insult though. Hearing it again and again certainly cannot be great comfort to the Jews in Ireland.

DadaKopf

Hey may not be a Nazi (personally, I think that people who resort to calling people Nazis automatically lose the argument), but McDowell is an authoritarian cloaked under the self-delusion that he's an old-fashioned libertarian. I think McDowell has a serious problem empathising with anyone other than his own ego.

He's a small man.

sovtek

There are Jews in Ireland?

Sleepy

While I can't say I like the guy, I do at least recognise that he's at least *trying* to improve things in this country. It shouldn't be that laudable a thing in a politician but unfortunately in this country it seems to be quite a rare trait.

Akrasia

Mcdowell compared Bertie to Ceaucesco, so if he can give it out, then he should be prepared to accept whatevers thrown at him

Vegeta

Sleepy wrote:

While I can't say I like the guy, I do at least recognise that he's at least *trying* to improve things in this country. It shouldn't be that laudable a thing in a politician but unfortunately in this country it seems to be quite a rare trait.

As someone keenly interested in all shooting sports his ignorance on the matter was made very clear with the new CJB. When challenged on some of the new legislation he would not back down even if clearly wrong or out of his depth.

He's not trying to improve things in this country, he is trying to get things done his way

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Mcdowell compared Bertie to Ceaucesco, so if he can give it out, then he should be prepared to accept whatevers thrown at him

To me it just says a lot more about the person making the jibe. Bet they have a store of 'funny' Auschwitz jokes. The suggestion that they are only stooping to his level is hardly a stirring defence.

partholon

hate to break it to ya but when people call someone a nazi ,theryre not talking about concentration camps, theyre talking about the culture of authoritarinism and the absolute uncompromising rule of law. you know like turfing immigerants out of the country for speeding. or forcing a section of the population to carry stars of david, i mean barimetric identity cards, or prehaps raiding schools for unsuspecting children to deport them

funny thing is the guy doesnt seem to apply the same rules to himself, see the many investigations and tribunals he's exempted himself and the gardai commisioner from. micheal has many letters from the people in donegal in his desk complaining about gardai corruption and heavy intimidation yet nowt is ever heard about that nor is an explaination given to why he did nothing and essentially covered it up till someone (thank you mister macbriorty) had the cash to go to the supreme court to get justice. funnily enough the name of the department he's in charge of. pity he doesnt know its meaning. if it was left to macdowel frank macbriorty jr would be serving a life sentence for a murder he didnt commit, and indeed by all accounts didnt happen!

by the way you do know besides the jews another six million people were killed in the holocaust. its not just a jewish tragedy, its a human one

partholon

partholon wrote:

hate to break it to ya but when people call someone a nazi ,theryre not talking about concentration camps, theyre talking about the culture of authoritarinism and the absolute uncompromising rule of law.

'I hate to break it to ya' but I disagree strongly. When someone calls another a 'Nazi', in my experience, it's just a cheap insult rather than some searing analysis of political ideology and comparison of different regimes through examination of actions.

I believe it is more based on the thinking 'he's right wing, and what the worst thing you can call someone on the right wing' to be honest.

partholon

fair enough. but you cant deny macdowel did all the things i said he did, and he's planning to implement the rest. when you factor in what he did to frank connoly as well, in my life i dont remember anyone in the dail ever using privilage in such a way to attack a private citizen, you have to admit he's more than a tad right wing. he's full blown dangerous. honestly can you think of any other minister who's acted with such arrogance and comtempt

lostexpectation

so what you think of former senior judges working on prison reform reports doing the same...

Meh

partholon wrote:

hate to break it to ya but when people call someone a nazi ,theryre not talking about concentration camps, theyre talking about the culture of authoritarinism and the absolute uncompromising rule of law. you know like turfing immigerants out of the country for speeding. or forcing a section of the population to carry stars of david, i mean barimetric identity cards, or prehaps raiding schools for unsuspecting children to deport them

Doesn't that devalue the term "Nazi" just a little? I mean, you're comparing deporting dangerous drivers to the Holocaust, the two things are hardly on the same scale.

Remember, when you compare McDowell to Hitler, you're also comparing Hitler to McDowell.

The Corinthian

Comparisons with the Nazis can be valid, but to do that you would need to make a genuine comparison with one or two policies or identifiable attributes. As such comparing McDowell to Hitler fails as one could hardly make a genuine comparison between a dictator and someone who (other than not being head of state or similar) is at worst vaguely authoritarian.

TBH, people who don’t know enough about the Nazis to make a historical comparison in the first place typically make this particular comparison. Ultimately, they don’t like him and the comparison reinforces this for them.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Seth Brundle

(staying on the sideline but) would fascist be a more appropriate term than nazi?

The Corinthian

kbannon wrote:

(staying on the sideline but) would fascist be a more appropriate term than nazi?

Only if you don't actually know what Fascism is and simply want to misuse the term as a cliché.

Andrew 83

I think if you take the proposed policy of making all non EU citizens always carry a biometric ID card but not all the rest of the people in the country that could be compared to the Nazi policy of making Jews, homosexuals etc wear identification. It isn't going as far but it's very close to it. In that context I think a comparison is good as it should ring some alarm bells in remembering where these kind of things can end up going. Clearly though none of his policies are anywhere near a holocaust.

John_C

Andrew 83 wrote:

I think if you take the proposed policy of making all non EU citizens always carry a biometric ID card but not all the rest of the people in the country that could be compared to the Nazi policy of making Jews, homosexuals etc wear identification. It isn't going as far but it's very close to it. In that context I think a comparison is good as it should ring some alarm bells in remembering where these kind of things can end up going. Clearly though none of his policies are anywhere near a holocaust.

Is the law that cars carry number plates also akin to jews wearing yellow stars?

The Corinthian

John_C wrote:

Is the law that cars carry number plates also akin to jews wearing yellow stars?

Yes and sending criminals to prision is apparantly akin to the death camps.

John_C

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes and sending criminals to prision is apparantly akin to the death camps.

My mother used to write my name on my clothes when I was in school. Should I shop her to Mossad?

The Corinthian

John_C wrote:

My mother used to write my name on my clothes when I was in school. Should I shop her to Mossad?

You'll really have to ask the intellectuals who make, in all seriousness, these comparasons that question.

Sparks

I do find it somewhat surreal that the best defence for an authoritarian public figure is now to invite comparisons with figures like Hitler, Stalin and Mao; whereas comparisons with the great moral leaders of recent history like Ghandi or King has become the touch of death for any politician.

John_C

We should set up an internet pole; "should I shop my mother?".

Anyone who votes 'No' will be barred from likening anyone to a Nazi in the future unless that person has actually annexed Czechislovakia.

Macker

John_C wrote:

We should set up an internet pole; "should I shop my mother?".

Anyone who votes 'No' will be barred from likening anyone to a Nazi in the future unless that person has actually annexed Czechislovakia.

Make mothers pole dance ? ...I suggest a poll to decide

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote:

I do find it somewhat surreal that the best defence for an authoritarian public figure is now to invite comparisons with figures like Hitler, Stalin and Mao;

How is he inviting such comparisons? Calling him authoritarian, especially in the present World climate where governments (both left and right wing) are increasingly becoming more paranoid is ridiculous. Especially if you bother to consider what the term ‘authoritarian’ actually means.

The individuals making them are doing so because they already don’t like him. Calling him names (and let’s face it calling someone Hitleresque is typically intended as an insult) simply reinforces or justifies that dislike.

That’s all it comes down to really; some people dislike him and so call him names, making a clichéd reference to Hitler. In this he is no more inviting such comparisons than any politician who has people who dislike him or her.

whereas comparisons with the great moral leaders of recent history like Ghandi or King has become the touch of death for any politician.

Really? I’m not disagreeing with you, but where has this occurred?

John_C

Macker wrote:

Make mothers pole dance ? ...I suggest a poll to decide

Touché

Andrew 83

John_C wrote:

Is the law that cars carry number plates also akin to jews wearing yellow stars?

All cars wear number plates, with people it should also be all or none. It would be wrong if only EU or only non EU citizens cars did.

partholon

The Corinthian wrote:

The individuals making them are doing so because they already don’t like him. Calling him names (and let’s face it calling someone Hitleresque is typically intended as an insult) simply reinforces or justifies that dislike.

That’s all it comes down to really; some people dislike him and so call him names, making a clichéd reference to Hitler. In this he is no more inviting such comparisons than any politician who has people who dislike him or her.

which is why im glad macdowel won the leadership of the PDs. they were gonna get a kicking anyway at the next election but because of his profile the PDs now actually face the posibility of extinction. no matter what you think of bertie pat and enda no one really hates them. you might disagree with their policies but as individuals no one really finds them offensive. macdowel is actively loathed by a significant number of people, having him as leader may put people who wouldve voted PD (example : for colm o gorman) off compleatly

plus factor in his 50/50 sucess rate in getting elected in the first place and you could have the vista of tom and liz sitting in the dail with their leader absent (i didnt mention mary cause shes standing in clondalkin and i dont rate her chances, lucan its not )

Sparks

The individuals making them are doing so because they already don’t like him.

They certainly don't like him at the point where they make the comparisons; but given that these individuals generally don't know the man personally, the only rational reason for such comparisons is ideological in nature - namely that they find his policies to be authoritarian.
So you're arguing that they only call him authoritarian because they don't like him; while discounting wholly the possibility that they don't like him because they find him authoritarian...

As to the Ghandi or King comparisons, these days even the word "liberal" which was a good - if imperfect, though all such must be by definition - general catagorisation of their political views, is now the political equivalent to derogatory vulgarity in the US and increasingly on this side of the Atlantic as well. Note the general derision reserved for the Green party by all, but most especially McDowell, who has had to apologise for his public characterisations of the Greens in the past. Attempt to state you have an altrusitic or longer-term political viewpoint in modern Ireland and you risk being derided as unrealistic and portrayed as some disconnected stereotypical figure from an american 1960s mythos.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote:

They certainly don't like him at the point where they make the comparisons; but given that these individuals generally don't know the man personally, the only rational reason for such comparisons is ideological in nature - namely that they find his policies to be authoritarian.
So you're arguing that they only call him authoritarian because they don't like him; while discounting wholly the possibility that they don't like him because they find him authoritarian...

And you’re assuming that these individuals have more than a tabloid overview of this guy. Given some of the well thought out augments in this thread defending such comparisons, I’d beg to differ.

As to the Ghandi or King comparisons, these days even the word "liberal" which was a good - if imperfect, though all such must be by definition - general catagorisation of their political views, is now the political equivalent to derogatory vulgarity in the US and increasingly on this side of the Atlantic as well. Note the general derision reserved for the Green party by all, but most especially McDowell, who has had to apologise for his public characterisations of the Greens in the past. Attempt to state you have an altrusitic or longer-term political viewpoint in modern Ireland and you risk being derided as unrealistic and portrayed as some disconnected stereotypical figure from an american 1960s mythos.

Liberalism seems popular enough here, TBH. Maybe it’s just your brand of ‘liberalism’?

The Corinthian

Andrew 83 wrote:

All cars wear number plates, with people it should also be all or none. It would be wrong if only EU or only non EU citizens cars did.

Yes, and it would be wrong only to let EU citizens come over here to live and work, we should let anyone do so... :rolleyes:

It should be noted that Ireland is one of the few countries, along with Britain that has not restricted the number of new EU citizens coming into the country to do just that.

Would that make Prodi in Italy and Zapatero in Spain Nazis?

SeanW

I believe in Godwin's Law as applicable to everyting, including politicians. That is, that when the term "Nazi," "Hitler" or other references to the German government during WW2 are abused, the abused terms lose their 'shock' value which it needs when someone needs to use them to describe something that is directly related to, or very similar to real Nazi-ism.

In that respect while it's not OK in my book to call McDowell a Nazi, he himself well and truly crossed the line by comparing Richard Bruton to Joeseph Goebbels.

Frankly about the only good thing I can give that tosser credit for his great Cafe Bars idea - oh dear - Bertie sin binned that idea because Fianna Fail has such a massive conflict of interest, y'know, being in the pockets of the publicans who have a vested interest in making certain Ireland never adopts a healthy attitude to alcohol ...

Sparks

And you’re assuming that these individuals have more than a tabloid overview of this guy. Given some of the well thought out augments in this thread defending such comparisons, I’d beg to differ.

Well, if an indepth evaluation is what you seek, you may consider my case. I had quite a bit of exposure to McDowell's mannerisms on a personal level and policies on a professional level with regard to the Criminal Justice Bill as it applied to the amendments of the Firearms Acts. I found his manner repugnantly arrogant, to a degree both unprofessional and unstatesmanlike. His policies were ill-informed, ill-advised, framed in a manner insulting to many law-abiding people and contained glaring basic errors and omissions. You can refer to the public record of the Dail debates on that section of the Bill if you wish, or look at the Criminal Justice Bill thread in the Shooting forum on this site.

And yes, I would strongly agree with the assertion that McDowell is an authoritarian by nature.

Liberalism seems popular enough here, TBH. Maybe it’s just your brand of ‘liberalism’?

And with that phrase, you reinforce my point.

Andrew 83

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, and it would be wrong only to let EU citizens come over here to live and work, we should let anyone do so... :rolleyes:

It should be noted that Ireland is one of the few countries, along with Britain that has not restricted the number of new EU citizens coming into the country to do just that.

Would that make Prodi in Italy and Zapatero in Spain Nazis?

We look like changing that when it comes to Romania and Bulgaria in January (coincidently it's McDowell who's changing that). I'm proud of the fact that we have let the other 10 accession states' citizens in, we should also have given them the same level of access to social services as we do to the other 14 EU member states' citizens who come here, but it was a good start. We need to keep expanding in this regard and not cutting back, no matter what the UK do.

Neither Prodi nor Zapatero were in government at the time those decisions were made - it was Burlesconi and Aznar. That's doesn't excuse the two you mention for not changing policy yet though.

Andrew 83

SeanW wrote:

Frankly about the only good thing I can give that tosser credit for his great Cafe Bars idea - oh dear - Bertie sin binned that idea because Fianna Fail has such a massive conflict of interest, y'know, being in the pockets of the publicans who have a vested interest in making certain Ireland never adopts a healthy attitude to alcohol ...

I agree with you there. He also hasn't, as far as I know, insisted on throwing beggars and prositutes in jail with the alarming vigour his predecessor John O'Donoghue did.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote:

And yes, I would strongly agree with the assertion that McDowell is an authoritarian by nature.

But authoritarian enough for dictatorship? Because if not then the comparison really begins to look stupid.

And with that phrase, you reinforce my point.

No, I just don’t think you’re a Liberal.

Andrew 83 wrote:

We look like changing that when it comes to Romania and Bulgaria in January (coincidently it's McDowell who's changing that). I'm proud of the fact that we have let the other 10 accession states' citizens in, we should also have given them the same level of access to social services as we do to the other 14 EU member states' citizens who come here, but it was a good start. We need to keep expanding in this regard and not cutting back, no matter what the UK do.

But this is not the same as the racist policies of the Nazis, which is the comparison, and neither is it as morally black and white, given that a majority of people in this country would tend to disagree with your sentiments.

Neither Prodi nor Zapatero were in government at the time those decisions were made - it was Burlesconi and Aznar. That's doesn't excuse the two you mention for not changing policy yet though.

Indeed it does not, but and so the comparison could still be made but your logic, which is why I think such comparisons are idiotic.

Andrew 83

The Corinthian wrote:

But this is not the same as the racist policies of the Nazis, which is the comparison, and neither is it as morally black and white, given that a majority of people in this country would tend to disagree with your sentiments.

My point is that making one group of the population carry a particular piece of identification which they must produce when stopped (which could be an arbitrary stop) and is an offence not to carry, but not anyone else in the population is wrong. I'm not saying it's the same as what happened with the Nazis, but that it's starting down a road which is not that big a leap from making certain parts of the population wear armbands at all times which it is an offence not to wear. I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

Indeed it does not, but and so the comparison could still be made but your logic, which is why I think such comparisons are idiotic.

Again I can't really follow this.

EDIT:

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, and it would be wrong only to let EU citizens come over here to live and work, we should let anyone do so... :rolleyes:

Sorry forgot to address this point earlier. While I would like to see more open borders (and globally, not just here) that is irrelevant to this discussion. What I'm talking about is immigrants who are legally here. They should be treated the same as everyone else who is legally here (as is currently the case in many situations. Existing legislation says that those who gain refugee status are entitled to all the rights of every other citizen yet these people will now be forced to carry a biometric ID card at all times while most of the citizenry will not). McDowell's proposals will lead to them not being. Also, I haven't heard of any age limitations on the carrying of these cards. Will all children of non EU citizens who move over here have to carry their fingerprints etc to school on biometric cards everyday?

Victor

John_C wrote:

We should set up an internet pole; "should I shop my mother?". Anyone who votes 'No' will be barred from likening anyone to a Nazi in the future unless that person has actually annexed Czechislovakia.

Well I once had an experiment with Bohemia, does that count?

You shold be reported to the Spell Czechs!

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote:

But authoritarian enough for dictatorship?

Yes. Honestly and seriously. A specific example?
In the new Firearms Act 2006, there is a section which gives the Minister the right to declare some firearms to be "restricted", on the basis of a half-dozen metrics from calibre to colour. There is no appeals procedure, there is no requirement for consultation - with experts or otherwise, there is no mechanism by which a mistake can be appealed. For example, if the Minister says he wants to ban all .22 calibre firearms, he now has that right - even though that will eliminate 11 of the 15 olympic shooting events from the list we can train for in Ireland. And noone will have the ability to contest that decision in any court because of how the law is written. We asked in the Dail during the debate that this be amended to give a formal appeals mechanism; this was denied. We asked for a formal consultation mechanism - denied. We asked to have it written that we could call up the minister and ask him informally to reconsider - denied. And not just denied, he sat there in the Dail laughing at the notion that we - a group of law-abiding sportsmen who conformed wtih every law he'd ever written on that area and who went beyond the law in terms of safety precautions, and all of whom were experts in the area because of long periods of time spent working in it (usually over ten years) - were asking to be able to appeal his decision.

That is authoritarian. It's the sheer amusement he felt - as well as the open contempt and disdain that he displayed in parliment - at the notion that a group of experts were pointing out that an appeals or consultation process on a very technical area of the law was a necessary thing to have, that makes him authoritarian in nature.

The Corinthian

Andrew 83 wrote:

I'm not saying it's the same as what happened with the Nazis, but that it's starting down a road which is not that big a leap from making certain parts of the population wear armbands at all times which it is an offence not to wear. I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

Suggesting that going from this to armband wearing is not big leap is an insane extrapolation. The ID system is designed to curb illegal immigrants, not to set apart one part of the population from the rest.

Again I can't really follow this.

They’ve not reversed the policies and in certain cases (Spain) tightened immigration security up, thus one can argue that they are in agreement and even building upon the policies of their predecessors - especially if you consider some of the policies they’ve had no trouble reversing (e.g. Iraq).

Does that make them Nazis? Probably as much as McDowell.

Sorry forgot to address this point earlier. While I would like to see more open borders (and globally, not just here) that is irrelevant to this discussion. What I'm talking about is immigrants who are legally here. They should be treated the same as everyone else who is legally here (as is currently the case in many situations. Existing legislation says that those who gain refugee status are entitled to all the rights of every other citizen yet these people will now be forced to carry a biometric ID card at all times while most of the citizenry will not).

The problem is not the legal ones, but the illegal ones and given that the latter will attempt to blend with the former then ID become a practical measure. Indeed this further debunks your Nazi analogy as they specifically used such identification (which was visible, not an ID card) to separate them from the rest of the population, while this measure is designed only to separate the illegal portion of that group.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote:

That is authoritarian. It's the sheer amusement he felt - as well as the open contempt and disdain that he displayed in parliment - at the notion that a group of experts were pointing out that an appeals or consultation process on a very technical area of the law was a necessary thing to have, that makes him authoritarian in nature.

That's not authoritarian enough for dictatorship though. Do you have a better example? Were you arrested for your dissention? Sent to a re-education camp? Fed a bit of caster oil? Are you forbidden to campaign in opposition?

TBH, he certainly is a bit authoritarian and arrogant (a la Thatcher), but going from that to dictatorship, let alone Nazism is fanciful to say the least. To me it sounds more like he ignored a group he considered to be nut cases.

Andrew 83

Surely though for this to have any effect then people who 'don't look like EU citizens' will be arbitrarily stopped in order to inspect their ID when they haven't done anything wrong. I think this is wrong and could lead to unfair targeting of those who look/sound different by the authorities. How else are they going to get to check the cards? Will bouncers etc start taking it upon themselves to ask (illegally or not) to see them? (This isn't ridiculous, I think most of us have seen bouncers flaunt laws - I have witnessed two pretty serious assualts in recent months while just walking by outside Dublin city centre nightclubs by bouncers. Even though I'm sure this is a minority it does happen and not infrequently)

I reiterate that although I don't think that all citizens should have to carry these cards, I would have less of a problem with the whole population doing rather than just a small group based on where they come from. Identification based on something like this is comparable, though as I say not the same, as Nazi policies which went further in my opinion.


If this is going to keep going in circles though we should probably drop it.


(EDIT: I wouldn't call him a Nazi by the way. I do find these immigration proposals to be completely objectionable and deeply worrying. I think comparisons of indivudal policies to some particular Nazi policies are not out of place, by means of a warning and a reminder. It's not to say they're the same or to equate the people involved. If we are unable to use bad examples from history as a warning of what may happen it's a very bad state of affairs and itself takes away from the importance of what happened)

partholon

The Corinthian wrote:

That's not authoritarian enough for dictatorship though. Do you have a better example? Were you arrested for your dissention? Sent to a re-education camp? Fed a bit of caster oil? Are you forbidden to campaign in opposition?

TBH, he certainly is a bit authoritarian and arrogant (a la Thatcher), but going from that to dictatorship, let alone Nazism is fanciful to say the least. To me it sounds more like he ignored a group he considered to be nut cases.

wasnt martin ferris arrested in kerry north two weeks before the last election in a blatent attempt to scupper his election hopes? who ordered that, particularly seeing as he wasnt charged with anything. and while you may not be fed castor oil you can be humiliatied and farted /spat on and emotionally brutalised ala frank macbriorty jr. hey you might even have a mental breakdown over it like his wife!

and in the 2002 mayday "riots" didnt the gardai hospitalise 27 people and threaten reporters with arrest? i seem to vividly remember a girl from RTE asking a gardai why they were batton charging peacful protesters and taking off their numbers and being told in reply,"if you dont get off the street im arresting you for obstructing the public highway and i'll confiscate your equipment"

not exactly a good sign is it, and this is before the new poweres mickey d gave the gardai

fact is you now live in a country where you can be taken into gardai custody for 72 hours for doing nothing, be let go, and taken in again. oh and you can die for no apparent reason in a gardai cell if your really unfortunate and no one'll be held accountable

John_C

partholon wrote:

wasnt martin ferris arrested in kerry north two weeks before the last election in a blatent attempt to scupper his election hopes? who ordered that, particularly seeing as he wasnt charged with anything. and while you may not be fed castor oil you can be humiliatied and farted /spat on and emotionally brutalised ala frank macbriorty jr. hey you might even have a mental breakdown over it like his wife!

and in the 2002 mayday "riots" didnt the gardai hospitalise 27 people and threaten reporters with arrest? i seem to vividly remember a girl from RTE asking a gardai why they were batton charging peacful protesters and taking off their numbers and being told in reply,"if you dont get off the street im arresting you for obstructing the public highway and i'll confiscate your equipment"

not exactly a good sign is it, and this is before the new poweres mickey d gave the gardai

fact is you now live in a country where you can be taken into gardai custody for 72 hours for doing nothing, be let go, and taken in again. oh and you can die for no apparent reason in a gardai cell if your really unfortunate and no one'll be held accountable

Yet the current minister had no hand in any of that.

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote:

That's not authoritarian enough for dictatorship though.

I'm afraid it actually is, in the context of the example quoted - because he is the dictator for that area of law now. No appeals, no consultations. Can we be sent for re-education? No. Can we have our doors kicked in by armed police without our having broken any law? Yes. It has happened.

To me it sounds more like he ignored a group he considered to be nut
cases.

Let me give you a quote from McDowell about that same group from 2004 to speak on that point:

4. Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the policy on the issuing of licences for 0308 firearms and other similar armaments; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this policy prevents marksmen from representing Ireland internationally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6399/04]

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy will appreciate that there is a difficult balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, having a firearms policy which seeks to limit the availability of particular classes of firearm for reasons of public safety and national security and, on the other hand, endeavouring to meet the requirements of those who wish to participate in international shooting competitions.

...

I have heard from and met people who consider that policy antiquated. I can see some considerable force — this is a view which Deputy Deasy might share — in the proposition that the real danger to Irish society probably does not come from misappropriated sporting firearms or competitive shooting firearms, and that the prevalence of firearms and their availability from other sources is probably much more obvious as a problem than this particular problem. I want to review the position and address the difficulties that competitive shooters currently encounter.

...The situation at present is unduly conservative and a political steer is needed. I confess that I met some of the relevant interests over a year ago and promised them early action. For one reason or another, I have been blown off course on that issue.

...I share Deputy Deasy’s view that people engaging in a competitive sport recognised at Olympic level and the like should not face insuperable or impossible odds on a domestic legislation front just because they live in Ireland, which is not wholly different from any other society in the world in terms of the firearms issue, when we all just wish them well when they go abroad to represent the State.

His thinking of us as nutjobs would not be consistent with such a statement, don't you agree?

partholon

partholon wrote:

wasnt martin ferris arrested in kerry north two weeks before the last election in a blatent attempt to scupper his election hopes? who ordered that, particularly seeing as he wasnt charged with anything.

Sounds to me like a very serious allegation being made here. If we are to say that the arrest of a convicted gun runner is a sign that we are going down the same route as Nazi Germany, and you are suggesting that this was ordered by the Minister, you could at least flesh out your allegations a little.

Incidentally, people have died in custody and members of the public have clashed with the police in left wing regimes as well, and indeed in many countries around the globe. If that is some yardstick - and I can only presume you are making the connection as that is the topic - I guess we should have a list to see what politician is not a 'Nazi'.

partholon

Deleted User wrote:

Incidentally, people have died in custody and members of the public have clashed with the police in left wing regimes as well, and indeed in many countries around the globe. If that is some yardstick - and I can only presume you are making the connection as that is the topic - I guess we should have a list to see what politician is not a 'Nazi'.

true. but im not talking about differnt regeims. im talking about a minister for "justice" who either

A. exempts himself and senior people involved from investigation

or

B. restricts the tribunals terms so much they cant ask niggleing little questions like "did you murder that boy in the cell?"

this is micky d's track record. not just my opionon of him, its how he acts. is it too much to ask to have criminals go to jail?

partholon

partholon wrote:

is it too much to ask to have criminals go to jail?

What criminal is not in jail and how is the Minister complicit in his remaining at large?

partholon

well pretty much all the gardai involved in the macbriorty affair. last time i checked retierment on a pension in execss of the average industrial wage isnt exactly prison!