Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spain's proposed anti protest laws

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    goose2005 wrote: »
    Except for the time the Defence Minister called Cearbhall O Dalaigh a "thundering bollocks and a ****ing disgrace", and accused him of disloyalty to the state.

    Yes, the Fine Gael Defence Minister Paddy Donegan. And the Fine Gael Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave refused Donegan's resignation.

    Then there were the various insults by Catholic clergy of Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

    But let's not let facts get in the way a of soundbite, eh? (I see Labout TD Robert Dowds parroted the same line: “Never before in the history of the State has a President of our country ever been targeted like this,” he said.)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/qualified-apology-from-man-who-called-president-midget-parasite-1.2082408

    I fear that all this overblown outrage from the govt about what is, let's face it, pretty tame stuff as street protests go, is softening up the public for anti protest laws here in Ireland, too. Really shameful that it is Labour doing a lot of the dirty work for FG on this (e.g., Joan Burton, Alex White, Pat Rabbitte).


  • Options
    #33
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Just to comment on your video but if you keep calling someone a scumbag you are dehumanising them and making it okay to treat that as such. Think of the worst thing someone could call you now imagine if they kept verbally abusing you. Eventually you would stop tolerating them.

    Can you see this limit being reached in the continuing saga of Irish Water and the hunt for scapegoats ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #34
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Can you see this limit being reached in the continuing saga of Irish Water and the hunt for scapegoats ?


    No absolutely not, let me be clear demonstrations are all part of free societies and obviously voting is how to change governments however we are dealing with a small number of people that have no respect for the will of the people. To put it into perspective during the hotly contested Lisbon treaty the most concerning issue for most people was something that had nothing to do with economic issues. The "people" wanted a written agreement that Europe would not force through abortion but that was never a European matter has always been an internal matter. It goes back to the point that people dismiss the arguments of the day and concentrate on slandering the government. Sensible debate is replaced with bias.


  • Options
    #35
    nibble
    Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭nibble


    General Franco would be proud indeed.


  • Options
    #36
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    nibble wrote: »
    General Franco would be proud indeed.

    General Franco also knew to stay neutral during WW2 and outlived all the other fascist regimes. Tyrant that he was he had a lot of international backing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Terrlock
    Registered Users Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Terrlock


    Anyone ever feel like we are like frogs in water that is slowly reaching boiling point....

    This anti protest law was passed. We should keep careful watch on other laws that are coming in.

    Often they are not covered in our media unfortunately.


  • Options
    #38
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Terrlock wrote: »
    This anti protest law was passed.

    oh for **** sake. i hope there is mass non compliance toards it. this law needs to be destroyed

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #39
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    end of the road wrote: »
    oh for **** sake. i hope there is mass non compliance toards it. this law needs to be destroyed

    This is the thing laws gets passed all the time but the compliance rate can be extremely low a case in point is jay walking which I don't even know if it is legal or not but people certainly get away with walking straight out there. How you implement the laws is also extremely important so if your hard handed then people will ignore the law and just do it anyway.


  • Options
    #40
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Think what they're doing in Spain is bad?

    Look what just announced in Venezuela

    http://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2015/01/29/venezuelan-army-can-shoot-protesters-effective-immediately/
    An internal ruling made by the Venezuelan Ministry of Defense, published on Tuesday, January 27, in state newsletter Gaceta Oficial, legalizes the use of lethal weapons by the national armed forces (FANB) against protesters.


  • Options
    #41
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Did anyone else notice what the lead story was on tonight's RTE News? The most pressing, important issue today in the Republic? That 5 days ago, some guy out of a handful of protestors shouted out that Michael D Higgins is a "midget parasite traitor."Yup, our esteemed govt has grave fears that a schoolyard taunt is a serious threat to our nation! Eeek! Leo Varadkar denounced it as an attack on our Constitution:
    "To see him targeted in this way, I think, is an attack on our Constitution and even the kind of language used against him really is beneath common decency."
    Labour Senator Lorraine Higgins took to the airwaves to whip up hysteria, too:

    They didn't just abuse the president. Total assoles who haven't a clue about the nature and functions and duties of the presidency subjected him to physical intimidation. These thick, ignorant, mostly anarchist thugs are doing no favour to people who are genuinely aggrieved and willing to protest peacefully. And they do not represent them.They are more interested in their own "political" agenda than in the genuine suffering of decent people. Like, it would be ok if the guards very publicly insulted, humiliated and physically intimidated you. We wouldn't hear another word about it - no? Yeah?
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    I'd say our own govt would only LOVE to bring in legislation to limit our freedom of expression here. Certainly they spend a lot of effort demonising thug protesters already.

    FYP.
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    PS -- BTW, I love Michael D. I imagine he is far too sophisticated, and also sensitive to the palpable anger of the Irish people, to attach such a lofty threat to a bit of name-calling. Plus, remember when he called that rightwing American radio host a wanker? Loved that.

    He was dealing with a bullyboy who deserved a strong response. He did not physically intimidate him in the manner of your thug friends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Yes, the Fine Gael Defence Minister Paddy Donegan. And the Fine Gael Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave refused Donegan's resignation.

    Then there were the various insults by Catholic clergy of Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

    And two wrongs make a right? What point are you making? It's ok to insult the presidency or it's not? At least give other badly behaved people a tiny piece of credit in that they didn't physically intimidate the president.


  • Options
    #43
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    feargale wrote: »
    They didn't just abuse the president. Total assoles who haven't a clue about the nature and functions and duties of the presidency subjected him to physical intimidation. These thick, ignorant, mostly anarchist thugs are doing no favour to people who are genuinely aggrieved and willing to protest peacefully. And they do not represent them.They are more interested in their own "political" agenda than in the genuine suffering of decent people. Like, it would be ok if the guards very publicly insulted, humiliated and physically intimidated you. We wouldn't hear another word about it - no? Yeah?



    FYP.



    He was dealing with a bullyboy who deserved a strong response. He did not physically intimidate him in the manner of your thug friends.
    ah gway oul that for jesus sake. it wasn't nice what these protesters said but it was hardly what you say it was.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #44
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    feargale wrote: »
    And two wrongs make a right? What point are you making? It's ok to insult the presidency or it's not? At least give other badly behaved people a tiny piece of credit in that they didn't physically intimidate the president.
    nobody physically intimidated the president. it was a bit of shouting roaring and a few not nice insults. shouldn't have happened but no need for the dramatizing

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #45
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    General elections in the Autumn and this party are out. This is constantly happening: the right-wing government bring a law in, left-wing government remove it and vice versa. Same old, same old.


  • Options
    #46
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    end of the road wrote: »
    nobody physically intimidated the president. it was a bit of shouting roaring and a few not nice insults. shouldn't have happened but no need for the dramatizing

    His car was surrounded. One yob urged the others to "take him out." When these great champions of the people come to power people of short stature will, it seems, be second class citizens. I woudn't have those yobs on my side in a three-legged race.


  • Options
    #47
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    What happened to Michael? :mad:

    Leave Michael D ALONE!


  • Options
    #48
    crockholm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    What happened to Michael? :mad:

    Leave Michael D ALONE!

    Jeez,of all the fetishes out there,you fall for a micky D one,probably the most impotent one out there:mad:


  • Options
    #49
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    feargale wrote: »
    His car was surrounded. One yob urged the others to "take him out." When these great champions of the people come to power people of short stature will, it seems, be second class citizens. I woudn't have those yobs on my side in a three-legged race.

    Would you please post video that shows his car being surrounded by protestors, and in which you hear a yob urging others to "take him out"?


  • Options
    #50
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    feargale wrote: »
    He was dealing with a bullyboy who deserved a strong response. He did not physically intimidate him in the manner of your thug friends.

    You're out of line there. You don't know anything about me.

    My posts were in reference to the RTE coverage and govt condemnation of the VERBAL INSULTS, not physical intimidation (if there was any --- and if there was, you think they might have mentioned that).

    Indeed, the link I provided from the RTE website is headlined "Verbal abuse of President by water charge protestors is condemned."

    I do not think that calling the President a mean name is an attack on our constitution or a matter for the gardai. Attempting to curtail freedom of speech --- even speech that is stupid and ugly --- is a much greater threat IMO.


  • Options
    #51
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    I do not think that calling the President a mean name is an attack on our constitution or a matter for the gardai. Attempting to curtail freedom of speech --- even speech that is stupid and ugly --- is a much greater threat IMO.
    Quoted for truth.


    I would go a step further and say even if someone did shout "Kill him" or "Don't let him out alive", it should be allowed without any fine or criminal prosecution. Anyone who physically assaults gardai or the car should be arrested no question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Mesrine65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭Mesrine65


    A short synopsis of Spanish gag laws...



  • Options
    #53
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    From El Pais:
    if you come to a demonstration with a placard reading: "The parliament is full of crooks," you can be hit with a fine of 30,000 euros, for insulting an institution. The same goes if you say "Madrid is a whorehouse," or: "The mayor is a jerk." Not to mention if you call members of government "fascists," although you may believe you are offering a mere objective description based on real resemblances, rather than insulting anyone.

    http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/01/08/inenglish/1389174370_355509.html


Advertisement