Garda violating free speech right?

FTGFOP

As I was waiting for the Queen to roll down Washington St. in Cork today a lone woman standing several feet behind the crowd at the barrier unrolled a poster slightly bigger than A4 size.

The nearest Garda quickly came to her and appeared to ask for her details. I heard her say she was making a peaceful protest. A second Garda came then and took the poster from her. And something about "offending her". The lady repeated "offend her?!". She asked for her poster back but she wasn't allowed to have it back. I think they asked her to go home then.

The offending poster was illegible at my distance apart from the word 'republic'. All anyone on the road would see is a greenish rectangle with black markings on it. (If that matters)

Were these Gardai completely over the top? It seemed like they just decided this person's right to free speech peaceful protest were suspended.

slum dog

it depends what it said on the poster. people have been prevented from protesting in certain areas throughout the visit but there doesnt seem to be anything anyone can do about it

MagicSean

The poster could have been contrary to section 7 of the public order act.

NUTLEY BOY

Constitutional rights like freedom of speech are rarely absolute in degree. They have to be balanced with competing rights. This can come down to a decision on the spot by a Garda dealing with a particular situation in a given context.

There are quite wide powers available to Gardai under the public order legislation.

Wolfe Tone

FTGFOP wrote: »

As I was waiting for the Queen to roll down Washington St. in Cork today a lone woman standing several feet behind the crowd at the barrier unrolled a poster slightly bigger than A4 size.

The nearest Garda quickly came to her and appeared to ask for her details. I heard her say she was making a peaceful protest. A second Garda came then and took the poster from her. And something about "offending her". The lady repeated "offend her?!". She asked for her poster back but she wasn't allowed to have it back. I think they asked her to go home then.

The offending poster was illegible at my distance apart from the word 'republic'. All anyone on the road would see is a greenish rectangle with black markings on it. (If that matters)

Were these Gardai completely over the top? It seemed like they just decided this person's right to free speech peaceful protest were suspended.

Has been par the course for this entire visit, opposition has been quashed.

Im Only 71Kg

what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp

Our man in Havana

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp

Welcome to 3 days ago.

source

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp

That video's already been rubbished on this forum.

Our man in Havana

foinse wrote: »

That video's already been rubbished on this forum.

Indeed it has.

Technoprisoner

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The poster could have been contrary to section 7 of the public order act.

that is laughable...what ever happened to the right to protest

source

Technoprisoner wrote: »

that is laughable...what ever happened to the right to protest

Perfectly free to protest once it doesn't encroach on others rights, also when protesting you must stay within the law.

Resend

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp

still cannot spell warrant

MagicSean

Technoprisoner wrote: »

that is laughable...what ever happened to the right to protest

Do you know what section 7 of the public order act is?

FTGFOP

For the benefit of the discussion:

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

Source.

Concerning what I saw today, I struggle to see how it applied.

ted1

your one on he video is such a tool

coylemj

Sounds like yet another cheap SF publicity stunt, I saw their 'demonstration' in Cork today on the 9 o'clock news and it looked pretty pathetic.

MagicSean

FTGFOP wrote: »

For the benefit of the discussion:

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

Source.

Concerning what I saw today, I struggle to see how it applied.

But you didn't see what was on the poster.

FTGFOP

It was mostly text with little portraits around that text. The only word I could make out was 'Republic'. One of the portraits was of Bobby Sands -I had to Google to be sure. If I had to put money on it I would say the poster was this with portraits of hunger strikers arranged around it.

You are correct though, I didn't see it. It could have said anything really. However, I don't think it was her "intent to provoke a breach of the peace". She was alone and rather nervous. It didn't seem like a publicity stunt either for my two cents. She stood well back from the crowd too.

Does it matter that I'd have to have been within touching distance to read it properly? Serious question. To me it seemed to be used more as a symbol than a poster to be read. I knew it was something nationalist and that she was a dissenter. I was only a few metres away from her. I was quite surprised that she wasn't left to her devices really, cringeworthy or otherwise.



In a hypothetical scenario where the poster she had was a copy of the Easter Proclamation with a small portrait of Bobby Sands stuck onto it would the Guard have been lawful in not allowing her to hold it up? Would it be lawful but heavy-handed?


As for section 7, which I had not read before starting this thread, it seems including 'insulting' along with 'threatening' etc. gives an unbelievable power to confiscate any posters/literature a guard might not like. Or does 'insulting' have a more precise legal meaning than it might in everyday language? I mean, any poster of a dissenter could be construed as insulting depending how you look at it.

source

your answer is in the second part of the section. Cause a breach of the peace, or being wreckless as to whether a beach of the peace may occur.

Basically a Garda has to decide if, given the circumstances at the material time. Could the offending article cause a breach of the peace. If the answer is yes then it can be dealt with under the public order act.

FTGFOP

In the hypothetical scenario then, the Garda, if he had to justify it to someone later would say, what? That the poster would start a riot? Something less than that? What constitutes a breach of the peace?

Wolfe Tone

FTGFOP wrote: »

It was mostly text with little portraits around that text. The only word I could make out was 'Republic'. One of the portraits was of Bobby Sands -I had to Google to be sure. If I had to put money on it I would say the poster was this with portraits of hunger strikers arranged around it.

You are correct though, I didn't see it. It could have said anything really. However, I don't think it was her "intent to provoke a breach of the peace". She was alone and rather nervous. It didn't seem like a publicity stunt either for my two cents. She stood well back from the crowd too.

Does it matter that I'd have to have been within touching distance to read it properly? Serious question. To me it seemed to be used more as a symbol than a poster to be read. I knew it was something nationalist and that she was a dissenter. I was only a few metres away from her. I was quite surprised that she wasn't left to her devices really, cringeworthy or otherwise.



In a hypothetical scenario where the poster she had was a copy of the Easter Proclamation with a small portrait of Bobby Sands stuck onto it would the Guard have been lawful in not allowing her to hold it up? Would it be lawful but heavy-handed?


As for section 7, which I had not read before starting this thread, it seems including 'insulting' along with 'threatening' etc. gives an unbelievable power to confiscate any posters/literature a guard might not like. Or does 'insulting' have a more precise legal meaning than it might in everyday language? I mean, any poster of a dissenter could be construed as insulting depending how you look at it.

This perhaps?

MagicSean

FTGFOP wrote: »

In the hypothetical scenario then, the Garda, if he had to justify it to someone later would say, what? That the poster would start a riot? Something less than that? What constitutes a breach of the peace?

For example, would the poster be likely to offend someone to the extent that they would try and stop the protestor from displaying it.

Carawaystick

foinse wrote: »

your answer is in the second part of the section. Cause a breach of the peace, or being wreckless as to whether a beach of the peace may occur.

Basically a Garda has to decide if, given the circumstances at the material time. Could the offending article cause a breach of the peace. If the answer is yes then it can be dealt with under the public order act.

Who'd breach the peace? Betty Windsor? or some jackeen? Wouldn't it be a high threshold to prove a person who was out to celebrate the queen of England would occasion a breach of the peace? having been provoked by an a4 sheet of paper.

The law quoted mentions recklessness or intent. If you go to some event and express your firmly held conviction that this is a waste of hard earned tax, how is the reckless threshold breached?

MagicSean

Carawaystick wrote: »

Who'd breach the peace? Betty Windsor? or some jackeen? Wouldn't it be a high threshold to prove a person who was out to celebrate the queen of England would occasion a breach of the peace? having been provoked by an a4 sheet of paper.

The law quoted mentions recklessness or intent. If you go to some event and express your firmly held conviction that this is a waste of hard earned tax, how is the reckless threshold breached?

To be honest, anyone who has any patriotism should be offended by someone using that proclamation as a form of protest against a visiting dignitary. You might as well wipe your arse with the flag. So yes I can see it possibly causing trouble.

FTGFOP

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This perhaps?

No, it wasn't that. One of the portraits was a charcoal style one of Bobby Sands. I googled thinking it might have been a stock poster, but I didn't find it. It might have been home made.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

To be honest, anyone who has any patriotism should be offended by someone using that proclamation as a form of protest against a visiting dignitary. You might as well wipe your arse with the flag.

Really? That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable form of protest and not disrespectful use of the Proclamation. Appropriate patriotism aside I'm bothered by the freedom of speech issue. Section 7 seems very open to abuse.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

Who'd breach the peace? Betty Windsor? or some jackeen?

Oi! That imflammatory language, which is a breach of the peace.



:pac:

jaybeeveedub

FTGFOP wrote: »

In the hypothetical scenario then, the Garda, if he had to justify it to someone later would say, what? That the poster would start a riot? Something less than that? What constitutes a breach of the peace?

"an act which causes reasonable alarm and apprehension to members of the public" Thorpe v DPP (2007) affirmed in Brady v DPP (2009)

jaybeeveedub

It is hard to see how, if she had refused, the case could possibly have won in court. In fact it probably would have been an ideal opportunity to test the constitutionality of SS.5-7. Which have, since they where brought in, been questioned on a constitutional basis. Given the borderline status of a photo of an aborted foetus with respect to S.7 I can't see many judges in assessing the balance between public order and constitutional rights coming down against a lone lady with a small poster. As we don't know the content obviously this discussion is academic, but an interesting one nonetheless. My guess is that the Gardai were under strict instructions to push the Public Order Act to its limits and deal with any backlash afterwards when Betty was back home in Balmoral

FTGFOP

What did the 1994 legislation eclipse? Did people have greater rights prior to this act?

stephendevlin

Funny how we got to be a "Republic" from a "riot"

MagicSean

FTGFOP wrote: »

What did the 1994 legislation eclipse? Did people have greater rights prior to this act?

AFAIK it made statutory many offences which would probably have been dealt with by the common law breach of the peace.

MagicSean

stephendevlin wrote: »

Funny how we got to be a "Republic" from a "riot"

I'd hardly call an uprising and civil war a riot.

stephendevlin

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I'd hardly call an uprising and civil war a riot.

People fought for what they believed in. Your "not allowed" to do that now incase someone finds it "offensive" or "may cause trouble".

Maybe riot wasnt the right word to use but uproar seems to get things done.

BornToKill

stephendevlin wrote: »

People fought for what they believed in. Your "not allowed" to do that now incase someone finds it "offensive" or "may cause trouble".

You 'weren't allowed' to do it then either. Hence the trials and executions.

MagicSean

stephendevlin wrote: »

People fought for what they believed in. Your "not allowed" to do that now incase someone finds it "offensive" or "may cause trouble".

Maybe riot wasnt the right word to use but uproar seems to get things done.

The 80 trouble makers from Eirigí can't really be compared to the will of the Irish people.

dienbienphu

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The 80 trouble makers from Eirigí can't really be compared to the will of the Irish people.

nor can the opinions on the frontline

stephendevlin

stephendevlin wrote: »

Funny how we got to be a "Republic" from a "riot"

Just on a historical footnote we got to become a "Republic" thanks to a booze up in Canada and a misunderstanding/diplomatic incident involving a replica cannon.

We got to become a "Free State" from a "riot" would be a more accurate inaccuracy on your part.

Finnbar01

I was listening to my local radio this morning. There was a discussion about some woman in Moneygall, who has decided not to go and see Obama but stay at home instead. She was told that that's fine, as long as she allows an armed garda into her house and more gardaí to stationed in her gardens. Surely this is wrong on so many levels???

Happyman42

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp

There is something odd about that alright, I don't understand that they would take a pole when any of those people could have had a weapon concealed on their person.
From anecdotal stuff, the OP's story, and the media reports that potentially offensive posters, banners etc where taken down in the days before the visit, it seems to me that there was an organised attempt to remove any displays of protest including the national flag and protesters themselves.

Resend

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is something odd about that alright, .

there is it says it is a private video?

Happyman42

Resend wrote: »

there is it says it is a private video?

That's only just been made private in the last few minutes! ...somebody got a knock on the door, methinks! :eek:

Resend

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's only just been made private in the last few minutes! ...somebody got a knock on the door, methinks! :eek:

was that the one where the garda was challenging the whining woman with flag?

MagicSean

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is something odd about that alright, I don't understand that they would take a pole when any of those people could have had a weapon concealed on their person.
From anecdotal stuff, the OP's story, and the media reports that potentially offensive posters, banners etc where taken down in the days before the visit, it seems to me that there was an organised attempt to remove any displays of protest including the national flag and protesters themselves.

So they should let in the big weapons because they could have missed a small one already? Your first paragraph makes no logical sense.

Anyway, no harm in getting rid of the rubbish posted around Dublin. It seems everyone with a cause seems to think they have a right to stick up a poster. Makes the place look untidy. Protestors weren't banned but they showed their true colours and were delt with swiftly. The vast majority of people did not oppose the visit so that would explain the lack of protests. Haven't heard of any flags taken from people.

Happyman42

Resend wrote: »

was that the one where the garda was challenging the whining woman with flag?

Yes

MagicSean

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's only just been made private in the last few minutes! ...somebody got a knock on the door, methinks! :eek:

Probably more to do with the level of abuse she was getting. Way too many insulting comments for her to delete.

Happyman42

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Probably more to do with the level of abuse she was getting. Way too many insulting comments for her to delete.

Doubt that, she seemed resilient enough to me.

Resend

lucky no one had this

Happyman42

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So they should let in the big weapons because they could have missed a small one already? Your first paragraph makes no logical sense.

So trouble making protesters were only expected to use flag poles, is that your point?

Why take a flag pole and not body check? It takes two seconds to pat somebody down....why take flag poles and only a quick look inside bags. Very odd, unless you were actually doing something else, like removing symbols?

MagicSean

Happyman42 wrote: »

So trouble making protesters were only expected to use flag poles, is that your point?

Why take a flag pole and not body check? It takes two seconds to pat somebody down....why take flag poles and only a quick look inside bags. Very odd, unless you were actually doing something else, like removing symbols?

Because a pat-down requires reasonable cause whereas a pole can be seen without a search.

Happyman42

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Because a pat-down requires reasonable cause whereas a pole can be seen without a search.

I didn't know that, can you link me to the law ?
What about the bags...would you be happy with their methods there?

MagicSean

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't know that, can you link me to the law ?
What about the bags...would you be happy with their methods there?

What methods? The legislation involved is the Firearms and offensive weapons act and the public order act. There is already a thread on the powers of search.