Legality of removal of protesters from Holocaust commemoration ceremony.

Their event. Their rules.

What right had they to be there in the first place?

They had every right to remove the protesters from the venue, just like bouncers can remove you from a nightclub for any reason

OP, you appear to have a trend of trying to start threads with a certain agenda which sometimes might not be fully disclosed until a few posts in. There is nothing wrong with you starting threads of course. I'm not a moderator. But why not just be more clear on whatever you are trying to say rather than trying to "sneak" it in?

To answer your ostensible question, presumably it was a privately own venue. And any implied right to be there can be revoked. Once she was asked to leave and, given reasonable time, refused to do so, they are perfectly within their right to remove her in a reasonable way.

This is not the anomaly you might be trying to represent. Below is a photo of a lady who was arrested for wearing a particular T-shirt in the gallery of an event in Washington DC where your buddy Mr. Netanyahooo was speaking.

https://x.com/frankthorp/status/1816175704708407494

Regardless of personal circumstances, Higgins is the President and there should be respect for the office if not for the individual. The attention-seeking lady trying to get herself some more publicity is apparently not from here, and if not a citizen, then should she ever apply for citizenship, one would hope that her actions could be taken into account when assessing her application. The exact same as in any other country.

In fact, even in the ostensible bastion of free speech - the US - non-citizen visa holders are protected under the first amendment in terms of protesting, but the smart advice is always given to be very very careful and err on the side of caution if you are there on a visa and protesting. The first amendment is of zero use when it comes to preventing your status from being cancelled, or if your visa is not renewed. I wouldn't fancy the chances of an Irish person with an Israeli visa retaining their status should they insult the office of the Israeli President in a similar manner.

A student in the UK with dual Canadian-Jordanian citizenship won an appeal against the stripping of her UK visa for having the controversial opinion that genocide wasn't a great thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/30/manchester-university-student-dana-abu-qamar-wins-back-visa-after-pro-gaza-comments

So everyone has the right to stay in a public building and can't be asked to leave. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ this must be from the same school of thought that a Garda must give you their hat if you want to **** it in.

Depends on what you mean by "public building". It belongs, I think, to Dublin City Council which is a public authority; in that sense it is publicly-owned.

But "publicly-owned" does not mean that any member of the public has a special right of access. Dublin City Council, as the owner of a bulding, has the same right to control entry to and presence in the building as does any owner of any building.

I don't know whether this event was by invitation only or whether it was public in the sense of there being a general invitation to anyone who wanted to attend. But, either way, those present were there at the invitation of Dublin City Council (or, possibly, at the invitation of some person or body to whom the premises were rented for the night). If you're there by invitation, and that invitation is withdrawn, you become a trespasser and, if necessary, reasonable force can be used to remove you from the premises.

(There might be a legal issue if you've paid to attend. You could then argue you have a contractual right to be present, and withdrawing your invitation is a breach of contract. That might or might not be a good argument, depending on the terms of the contract, but the argument is certainly there to be had. But, even then, your primary remedy for breach of the contract is damages for not being permitted to attend the event. But I don't think any of this is relevant here; this wasn't an event that people paid to attend.)

@ Donald Trump (#6): "Regardless of personal circumstances, Higgins is the President and there should be respect for the office if not for the individual".

The event was to commemorate what was something without equal in terms of sheer evil. The Holocaust should be regarded as uniquely evil, not just because so many millions were systematically and brutally murdered, but because the extreme nationalist hate-mongering which lay behind it is not dead, as we have learned in recent years. And by the way it was not just a holocaust of Jews, but you can add in hundreds of thousands of Sinti, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped and others as well.

If we are to respect the office of President of Ireland, then perhaps the President should respect to memory of the Holocaust by refraining from other issues, even very grave and urgent ones, like Gaza.

Perhaps he should respect its memory every single day by refusing to be bullied into refraining to speak out about its modern day ongoing equivalent.

A great bit of whataboutery, that. And did my post fawn over the actions of the current Israeli Government? No.

You should denote that by putting it in quotes. You are quoting others.

And if there was a day to remember the Irish Famine and the President said in his speech that we should not forget there are still famines ongoing in the world at this minute, would that cause you as much bother?

It's frankly perverse to use a historical event as a bar to speaking out about a contemporary injustice.

Extremely moving remembrance ceremony from Auschwitz museum just finished on bbc. Taoiseach Michael Martin and many other heads of state placed candles in memory of the millions who died.

Correct. World leaders have attended a commemoration event at Auschwitz. None have put their foot in it like Higgins has here. All were quiet and respectful and let the representatives of the 6 million plus victims do the talking.