SDLP call for the release of Marian Price.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A Unionist controlled supremacist state was never the goal of unionism. In it's purest form unionism is interested only in the preservation of the union. Of course a person can be both bigoted and unionist, just as a person can be bigoted and nationalist but it's not an official part of either ideology.

Doesn't matter what 'Unionism' thought it was or is, the fact is that it was a suprematist state and there are those who wanted it to remain that way by gerrymandering and suppression.

How do you know the British don't want to maintain the Union? Will you still be saying this after the Scots (inevitably) vote to maintain the union next year?

They quite clearly say it in the GFA, they have no nterest in maintaining the Union if the majority vote in favour of a UI.

But what are you even trying to say here, are you trying to claim the provos won the war even though a UI is at least 50 years away if ever?

The right to self determine was won, that should be enough and 50 years is your assessment. Because, like others you can't see the trees for the forest.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

"Oh come off it" yourself?

Nobody here is psychic. Use the words you mean. I have not raised extending assistance to members of an illegal association; I raised freedom of association as a British Constitutional right and as a civil right under the European Convention.

This was in response to a silly little comment about it being "made clear" who Marian Price should not "associate with" upon release. I'm genuinely concerned you are mistaking prison with Cheltenham Ladies' College. Nobody has a right to warn an individual in such a way.

I suggest you actually read the ECHR particularly Article 11 which is on the right to freedom of association.

No restrictions shall be placed
on the exercise of these rights
other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national security or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful
restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the
armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.


I've bolded the bit thats relevant here.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what 'Unionism' thought it was or is, the fact is that it was a suprematist state and there are those who wanted it to remain that way by gerrymandering and suppression.

Unionism doesn't think anything because it's a political ideology. Unionism is the desire to maintain the union between Ireland and Britain. Yes there are bigots in unionism, just as there are bigots in nationalism but bigotry does not define either ideology.

They quite clearly say it in the GFA, they have no nterest in maintaining the Union if the majority vote in favour of a UI.

They say nothing of the sort in the GFA. The GFA is the document that represents the British governments respect for the right of self determination. But while they do allow the people of Northern Ireland self determination as a basic right they still hold on to the desire that Northern Ireland will choose to remain with Britain. Previous Prime Ministers have been very clear on that.

The right to self determine was won, that should be enough and 50 years is your assessment. Because, like others you can't see the trees for the forest.

It was won and it should have been a right to begin with I agree with your premise but that was not a victory. As I've said before neither side can claim victory.

What do you mean when you say we can't see the trees from the forest? What can you see that I can't?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you mean when you say we can't see the trees from the forest? What can you see that I can't?

The trees....

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the
people of the island of
Ireland exercise
their right of self-determi
nation on the basis set out in
sections (i) and (ii)
above to bring about a united Ireland
, it will be a binding obligation on
both Governments to introduce and suppor
t in their respective Parliaments
legislation to give effect to that wish;

Dress it up anyway you wish, but accepting that the people have the right to self determination is not exactly supporting the Union. The Union is dying.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The trees....

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the
people of the island of
Ireland exercise
their right of self-determi
nation on the basis set out in
sections (i) and (ii)
above to bring about a united Ireland
, it will be a binding obligation on
both Governments to introduce and suppor
t in their respective Parliaments
legislation to give effect to that wish;

Dress it up anyway you wish, but accepting that the people have the right to self determination is not exactly supporting the Union. The Union is dying.

so the IRA ended up with the same thing the SNP did. They just murdered a few more people along the way.

Still a long way from their objective of a 32 county socialist republic.

the only people that "won" are the majority of people in the north who rejected violence.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I suggest you actually read the ECHR particularly Article 11 which is on the right to freedom of association.

No restrictions shall be placed
on the exercise of these rights
other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in

You bolded this very important provision. Can you tell me where any applicable prohibition on "association with dissidents" is prescribed by UK Law?

Rascasse

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You bolded this very important provision. Can you tell me where any applicable prohibition on "association with dissidents" is prescribed by UK Law?

I'm sure this has been pointed out on this thread before but: As a life sentenced prisoner she was released on life license. As such, she is liable to recall to prison should it be deemed necessary by the prison/police/government. The fact her lawyers were unable to get her released despite this most egregious abuse of power (as her supporters will claim) suggests the reasons had merit.

Until her death she risks recall should she breach her license conditions or do something that worries the authorities, like any other released lifer.

Cody Pomeray

Rascasse wrote: »

As a life sentenced prisoner she was released on life license. As such, she is liable to recall to prison should it be deemed necessary by the prison/police/government. The fact her lawyers were unable to get her released despite this most egregious abuse of power (as her supporters will claim) suggests the reasons had merit.

Until her death she risks recall should she breach her license conditions or do something that worries the authorities, like any other released lifer.

Oh of course, there is absolutely no question of conditional release being contrary to constitutional or civil rights, for example, as permissible under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. But I have asked pablomakaveli a very specific question about association with dissidents, since he seems to know something about the law that no judicial authority knows. I'm dying to hear it.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You bolded this very important provision. Can you tell me where any applicable prohibition on "association with dissidents" is prescribed by UK Law?

I'm not a legal expert but i'd imagine it may come under Terrorism Act 2006 specifically the "Encouragement of Terrorism" section.

In any case she has been released subject to licence conditions according to this article. I'd imagine any further appearances alongside dissidents will see her back in jail.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert but i'd imagine it may come under Terrorism Act 2006 specifically the "Encouragement of Terrorism" section.

Can you narrow it down?

In any case she has been released subject to licence conditions

There is absolutely no question that her liberty is legitimately subject to conditions, what I want to know is where the authority to make one such condition "association with dissidents" is derived.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can you narrow it down?

There is absolutely no question that her liberty is legitimately subject to conditions, what I want to know is where the authority to make one such condition "association with dissidents" is derived.

I didn't know much about release conditions so had to do a bit of reading up on it.

According to the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2005

these two conditions would seem to cover that.

(c)a restriction relating to his making or maintaining contact with a person;
(d)a restriction on his participation in, or undertaking of, an activity;

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I didn't know much about release conditions so had to do a bit of reading up on it.

According to the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2005

these two conditions would seem to cover that.

(c)a restriction relating to his making or maintaining contact with a person;
(d)a restriction on his participation in, or undertaking of, an activity;

But again, you're being a bit enthusiastic in your interpretations. That provision exists to (i) compel a prisoner on release to maintain contact with a probation officer or (ii) to prohibit a prisoner on release from maintaining contact with a victim.

There are plenty of references in case law on both counts, and both are perfectly valid and would apply as a normal course of life in a prison setting; what we do not have, is any case law relating to the above legislation or its 2008 equivalent pertaining to a prisoner making contact with a large group of individuals, especially one so broad and vaguely described as "dissidents". So we have a problem here.

The European Court of Human Rights are particularly fastidious in the need for prescribing legislation which sets out, in domestic law, where the exception applicable to Article 11.2 of the convention is requested.

We are only at the first obstacle on our journey in overcoming the barriers which would eventually allow an exception under the article in question, and we seem to be having quite a bit of difficulty already. We haven't even got to the European Court rulings explaining the convention yet. So... what else do you have?

Grudaire

At least level heads finally persevered about this up North.

... more than can be said about this thread :pac:

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But again, you're being a bit enthusiastic in your interpretations. That provision exists to (i) compel a prisoner on release to maintain contact with a probation officer or (ii) to prohibit a prisoner on release from maintaining contact with a victim.

There are plenty of references in case law on both counts, and both are perfectly valid and would apply as a normal course of life in a prison setting; what we do not have, is any case law relating to the above legislation or its 2008 equivalent pertaining to a prisoner making contact with a large group of individuals, especially one so broad and vaguely described as "dissidents". So we have a problem here.

The European Court of Human Rights are particularly fastidious in the need for prescribing legislation which sets out, in domestic law, where the exception applicable to Article 11.2 of the convention is requested.

We are only at the first obstacle on our journey in overcoming the barriers which would eventually allow an exception under the article in question, and we seem to be having quite a bit of difficulty already. We haven't even got to the European Court rulings explaining the convention yet. So... what else do you have?

I don't really have anything else for you to be honest. As i said im not a legal expert and you obviously seem to have some background in law so it would be pointless in me arguing it any further with you.

That said it doesn't mean that i accept that it should be allowed for her to associate with dissidents. She is a convicted terrorist and she's associating with members of an illegal organization. It's quite possible she may even be assisting them. It's no surprise why that would set alarm bells ringing for the british security forces. Surely even you could see that.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

That said it doesn't mean that i accept that it should be allowed for her to associate with dissidents. She is a convicted terrorist and she's associating with members of an illegal organization.

I don't think the problem is anyone's understanding of the law, I think the problem is an understanding of the word dissident.

A dissident is nothing more, either in law or in common parlance, than an indvidual generally opposed to the official policies of Government or some other authority as they relate to the institutions of state or policy generally. This is a term that is unreasonably broad and curtailing access to such people - even where they feel strongly about objecting to the institutions of state - is not just a no-go in law, I don't see how it can be considered acceptable to any person with a shred of interest in a normal functional democracy.

OCorcrainn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the IRA ended up with the same thing the SNP did. They just murdered a few more people along the way.

Still a long way from their objective of a 32 county socialist republic.

the only people that "won" are the majority of people in the north who rejected violence.

The formation of the Provisional IRA after the split was a reaction to unionist orchestrated violence and oppression. Look up the 1969 riots. I shouldn't have to point that out.

Also the British Army together with loyalist paramilitaries killed far more people than republican paramilitaries.

Also Scotland is a different country, with a different situation and history is far more different. You might as well be comparing Ireland to South Sudan.
Just to add, I'm not justifying anything here. Just pointing out the facts.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't think the problem is anyone's understanding of the law, I think the problem is an understanding of the word dissident.

A dissident is nothing more, either in law or in common parlance, than an indvidual generally opposed to the official policies of Government or some other authority as they relate to the institutions of state or policy generally. This is a term that is unreasonably broad and curtailing access to such people - even where they feel strongly about objecting to the institutions of state - is not just a no-go in law, I don't see how it can be considered acceptable to any person with a shred of interest in a normal functional democracy.

The use of the term "dissident" in this case though relates to members of the RIRA, CIRA and other illegal organizations in that vein. In general use, yes it would be too broad a term but when referring to the members of these organizations specifically than we have a specific group of people, these being people who are members of illegal organizations.

pablomakaveli

OCorcrainn wrote: »

The formation of the Provisional IRA after the split was a reaction to unionist orchestrated violence and oppression. Look up the 1969 riots. I shouldn't have to point that out.

Also the British Army together with loyalist paramilitaries killed far more people than republican paramilitaries.

Also Scotland is a different country, with a different situation and history is far more different. You might as well be comparing Ireland to South Sudan.
Just to add, I'm not justifying anything here. Just pointing out the facts.

The stats here indicate Republicans killed more than the British army and loyalists.

Not that numbers matter anyway. There was no right side between Republicans and Loyalists. Neither were really justified in what they did.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The use of the term "dissident" in this case though relates to members of the RIRA, CIRA and other illegal organizations in that vein. In general use, yes it would be too broad a term but when referring to the members of these organizations specifically than we have a specific group of people, these being people who are members of illegal organizations.

Well that's a completely different issue. I am taking dissident to mean any person attached to active separatist movements such as the 32 County Sovereignty Movement or the IRPWA.

If you're referring to those who are members of an illegal organization then yes there is a case in law for prohibiting association with such people as part of a release licence, without question.
The question is if you're making such a licence condition, surely the priority should be arresting members of an illegal organisation (and put them in prison with other members of that organisation, so they can bunk up and become friendly together).

The law can't just instruct someone not to hang around with broad groups of people with undesirable political opinions.That's completely unworkable.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well that's a completely different issue. I am taking dissident to mean any person attached to active separatist movements such as the 32 County Sovereignty Movement or the IRPWA.

If you're referring to those who are members of an illegal organization then yes there is a case in law for prohibiting association with such people as part of a release licence, without question.
The question is if you're making such a licence condition, surely the priority should be arresting members of an illegal organisation (and put them in prison with other members of that organisation, so they can bunk up and become friendly together).

The law can't just instruct someone not to hang around with broad groups of people with undesirable political opinions.That's completely unworkable.

Well i was only referring to those members of illegal organizations. I know political groups are free to meet up and demonstrate. I've no objection to that as long as it is peaceful and within the confines of the law.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The trees....

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the
people of the island of
Ireland exercise
their right of self-determi
nation on the basis set out in
sections (i) and (ii)
above to bring about a united Ireland
, it will be a binding obligation on
both Governments to introduce and suppor
t in their respective Parliaments
legislation to give effect to that wish;

Dress it up anyway you wish, but accepting that the people have the right to self determination is not exactly supporting the Union. The Union is dying.

That only gives them the right to self determination, something they should have had from the start. The Union isn't dying. Not today or tomorrow and never say never but certainly not for the foreseeable.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the IRA ended up with the same thing the SNP did. They just murdered a few more people along the way.

Still a long way from their objective of a 32 county socialist republic.

the only people that "won" are the majority of people in the north who rejected violence.

That's it Fred, refer to a totally different scenario to continue clutching at straws.
The fact that the majority of nationalists have rewarded SF with power completely undermines your point, I would think.
Continued growth of the party in the South only hastens the day when a UI will be firmly on the agenda. Watch the British accomodate the idea then, they can't wait to be rid imo.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That only gives them the right to self determination, something they should have had from the start. The Union isn't dying. Not today or tomorrow and never say never but certainly not for the foreseeable.

When you see an ideology trying desperately to hold onto the last vestiges of their supremacy (the flag protest being the latest) then you know that death is not far off. The Union is in crisis, the infighting is only begining.

OCorcrainn

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The stats here indicate Republicans killed more than the British army and loyalists.

Not that numbers matter anyway. There was no right side between Republicans and Loyalists. Neither were really justified in what they did.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html (choose "status summary" and "organization summary" as the variables)

That is fair enough, but I was referring to the deaths of civilians. Due to the collusion that occurred, I include the British Army and security forces with the loyalist paramilitaries.

getzls

OCorcrainn wrote: »

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html (choose "status summary" and "organization summary" as the variables)

, I include the British Army and security forces with the loyalist paramilitaries.

Groan.:mad:

Same tired old Republican bull****.

Iwasfrozen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html (choose "status summary" and "organization summary" as the variables)

That is fair enough, but I was referring to the deaths of civilians. Due to the collusion that occurred, I include the British Army and security forces with the loyalist paramilitaries.

Both paramilitaries were secret organisations, how can we be certain the line between paramilitary and civilian doesn't blur?

OCorcrainn

getzls wrote: »

Groan.:mad:

Same tired old Republican bull****.

Whats your problem? I wouldn't count republican paramilitaries as civilians either.

Scofflaw

This looks increasingly like the standard trench warfare and blame game that most Northern threads eventually become. If it continues the thread will be locked, as usual, and people will be sanctioned, as usual.

moderately,
Scofflaw