Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

MDR · 18-07-2003 11:17am #1

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 · 18-07-2003 5:46pm

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 · 18-07-2003 9:09pm

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 · 19-07-2003 12:49am

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 · 19-07-2003 11:16am

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 · 19-07-2003 12:03pm

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 · 19-07-2003 2:55pm

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 · 19-07-2003 3:45pm

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 · 19-07-2003 4:05pm

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 · 19-07-2003 5:56pm

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 · 19-07-2003 7:20pm

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 · 19-07-2003 7:41pm

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 · 20-07-2003 2:06am

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 · 20-07-2003 2:18am

Except with fake Starbucks.

Sand · 20-07-2003 2:22pm

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

Sparks · 20-07-2003 5:59pm

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 · 20-07-2003 6:46pm

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

Not for want of trying.

Sand · 20-07-2003 6:55pm

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 · 20-07-2003 6:57pm

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 · 20-07-2003 7:11pm

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 · 20-07-2003 7:55pm

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 · 20-07-2003 8:16pm

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 · 20-07-2003 8:37pm

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 · 20-07-2003 9:05pm

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 · 20-07-2003 9:05pm

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 · 20-07-2003 10:41pm

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 · 20-07-2003 10:56pm

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 · 20-07-2003 11:15pm

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 · 20-07-2003 11:36pm

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 · 20-07-2003 11:53pm

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 · 21-07-2003 12:01am

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.

Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

Comments