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

Garda violating free speech right?

Options
  • 20-05-2011 4:03pm
    #1
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭


    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.
    Tagged:


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    slum dog
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 240 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #3
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


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


  • Options
    #4
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    Im Only 71Kg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Im Only 71Kg


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #8
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,271 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    foinse wrote: »
    That video's already been rubbished on this forum.
    Indeed it has. :D


  • Options
    #10
    Technoprisoner
    Registered Users Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #11
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,271 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Resend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Resend


    Im Only 71Kg wrote: »
    what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abi3hgIxtNM&feature=topvideos_mp
    still cannot spell warrant


  • Options
    #13
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #14
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,427 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    your one on he video is such a tool


  • Options
    #16
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,384 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,271 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #21
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.
    proclamation.jpg

    This perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #24
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    proclamation.jpg

    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.


  • Options
    #26
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,335 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #27
    jaybeeveedub
    Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭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)


  • Options
    #28
    jaybeeveedub
    Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #29
    FTGFOP
    Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP


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


  • Options
    #30
    stephendevlin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,307 ✭✭✭stephendevlin


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement