Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?

#1 · 21-06-2012 10:15AM #1

Luke Ming flannigan is currently involved at a protest on Clonmoylon Bog in Galway. he rushed down last night to get involved with the protest in preventing National Parks & Wildlife Service and Gardai from implementing the law.

I want to know how come he can stay down there supporting the protest is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? Is his role in the Dail not as important as his passion for promopting anarchy?:mad:

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 11:24AM

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

b]edit for maximum clarity[/bI'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Examples would be this protest re: the bogs, the bin tax protests, the house hold charge tax protests, etc. where sitting TDs publicly call on the public to break the law.b]/edit[/b

Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

creedp · 21-06-2012 11:51AM

IrishHomer wrote: »

Luke Ming flannigan is currently involved at a protest on Clonmoylon Bog in Galway. he rushed down last night to get involved with the protest in preventing National Parks & Wildlife Service and Gardai from implementing the law.

I want to know how come he can stay down there supporting the protest is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? Is his role in the Dail not as important as his passion for promopting anarchy?:mad:

Would we be better off if he headed off to Poland with Wallace!

Auguste Comte · 21-06-2012 12:03PM

Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?

Maby because he is supporting his constitutants who feel, rightly or otherwise that they have been shafted out of their rights to use their own land in the way it has been used for generations.

Probably a more representitive and honest use of time spent away from the dail than most of the party men who blindly follow the whip with no questions as to right or wrong.

Just my view.

crusher000 · 21-06-2012 12:08PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

I'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

If this was the case we would have very few sitting TD's in the dail as let's face it alot of them have flaunted the law. Can we isolate one politican for flaunting the law by joining a protest v a politican that owes money for work rendered on their house v politicans whom haven't paid taxes due or found guilty of drink driving. I could go on but I think you see what I'm getting at.

crusher000 · 21-06-2012 12:12PM

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?

Maby because he is supporting his constitutants who feel, rightly or otherwise that they have been shafted out of their rights to use their own land in the way it has been used for generations.

Probably a more representitive and honest use of time spent away from the dail than most of the party men who blindly follow the whip with no questions as to right or wrong.

Just my view.

Some people forget the emotional ties country people have with the land and how it's used. Penal law only allowed the cutting of turf for certain number of days a year. I have heard of farmers whom were jailed because they flouted this law. I know, I know it's way back and move on etc. but some people may relate these stories to what's happening now.

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 12:22PM

crusher000 wrote: »

If this was the case we would have very few sitting TD's in the dail as let's face it alot of them have flaunted the law. Can we isolate one politican for flaunting the law by joining a protest v a politican that owes money for work rendered on their house v politicans whom haven't paid taxes due or found guilty of drink driving. I could go on but I think you see what I'm getting at.

And you missed my point.
Which was that TDs who break the law should lose their seats. I was not targeting ming

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 02:07PM

Actually I referred to at least 5 other TDs;
Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Joan Collins.

Though my list would go on, hence the "etc."
Why didnt I refer to these people by name?
A) I'm really only interested in having a discussion with informed people, so I assume there is sufficient background knowledge that I would not need to provide an exhaustive list every TD who took part in every protest

Its a philosophical / hypothetical argument over a principle, I do not want to argue to merits of individual protests or the politics of individual TDs.

amcalester · 21-06-2012 02:15PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

I'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

Just because something is signed into law does not make it just. While I may not agree with the actions of the politicians you have mentioned I do see the benefits to society by allowing people, even elected representatives, protest against certain laws they feel are unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

MadsL · 21-06-2012 02:17PM

Well, local Gardai have plenty of practice in dealing with protesters in that neck of the woods. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Personally I find it hysterical the amount of victim playing. Ten years to sort this out and crocodile tears over compensation and here we are wrestling in a bog over machinery. Pathetic.

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 02:20PM

amcalester wrote: »

Just because something is signed into law does not make it just. While I may not agree with the actions of the politicians you have mentioned I do see the benefits to society by allowing people, even elected representatives, protest against certain laws they feel are unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

MadsL · 21-06-2012 02:23PM

Ming claims this machine was burnt out. Political stunt? I can't see NPWS setting fire to things.

http://twitpic.com/9yrabt

He also tweeted that this is now a police state. Really Ming?

On my way to clonmoylan bog. Armed response unit present. Attempts being made to confiscate machinery. welcome to the police state.

Dirk Gently · 21-06-2012 02:23PM

IrishHomer wrote: »

is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? :

perhaps he thought he'd do something productive for his wages instead?
I've no interest in the turf situation but I can't fault a TD for getting involved in something he primarily campaigned on over sitting in the Dail, which is just a glorified rubber stamp and yields no democratic or accountability merits. You could argue that sitting in the Dail is a waste of his time given the centralised power structure we have.

doopa · 21-06-2012 02:27PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

Perhaps he disagrees with the legitimacy of the democratic process. Perhaps he and others don't find it very legitimate. You clearly do. Others don't.

amcalester · 21-06-2012 02:28PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

I dont think it does undermine the legitimacy of our democratic process, if anything it only strengthens it. Whats the point in having an opposition if they are bound to go along with the decisions of the sitting government.

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 02:38PM

doopa wrote: »

Perhaps he disagrees with the legitimacy of the democratic process. Perhaps he and others don't find it very legitimate. You clearly do. Others don't.

I think I'll ask him. But while I'm waiting for his answer, would someone like to explain to me why this is an example of an "illegitimate" process.
[edit]Radio Interview:
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120621,3324008,3324008,flash,257

Question: You're a paid TD, why are you stopping the guards from doing their jobs.
Luke Flannagan TD: I won't answer that as its not relevant.

The question was put to him again and he dodged it. I don't think Mr Flannagan thinks the democratic process is illegitimate. This particular protest is outside his constituency I think. He is breaking the law because he doesnt agree with it, not because of any short coming in the democratic process[/edit]

amcalester wrote:

I dont think it does undermine the legitimacy of our democratic process, if anything it only strengthens it. Whats the point in having an opposition if they are bound to go along with the decisions of the sitting government.

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

doopa · 21-06-2012 04:39PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I think I'll ask him. But while I'm waiting for his answer, would someone like to explain to me why this is an example of an "illegitimate" process.
[edit]Radio Interview:
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120621,3324008,3324008,flash,257

Question: You're a paid TD, why are you stopping the guards from doing their jobs.
Luke Flannagan TD: I won't answer that as its not relevant.

The question was put to him again and he dodged it. I don't think Mr Flannagan thinks the democratic process is illegitimate. This particular protest is outside his constituency I think. He is breaking the law because he doesnt agree with it, not because of any short coming in the democratic process.

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

I don't know what he thinks so I won't answer for him.

To the second point - the concept of a social contract. I think its a great idea, since it will always have problems we therefore require civil disobedience - as best espoused by Thoreau - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
You seem to be suggesting you disagree with the concept? Or that there exist a universally agreed set of conditions when it can be employed?

Stabshauptmann · 21-06-2012 05:22PM

doopa wrote: »

I don't know what he thinks so I won't answer for him.

How about answering for yourself. Can you make an argument for why laws passed by the Dail should be considered illegitimate?

doopa · 21-06-2012 05:25PM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

How about answering for yourself. Can you make an argument for why laws passed by the Dail should be considered illegitimate?

What exactly is the question? Is it possible that the state can create illegitimate laws?

I think the answer is obviously yes they can.

Wishbone Ash · 21-06-2012 05:35PM

Auguste Comte wrote: »

he is supporting his constitutants

That's not his constituency and therefore presumably those involved are not his constituents.

Sponge Bob · 21-06-2012 06:02PM

How do you know his constituents are not among the protestors????

It is not so long ago that Jailbirds (and their families) were invited en masse to Green Party Conferences and even invited to speak. Did anyone condemn the Greens for that???

http://www.shelltosea.com/node/756

Members of the Rossport 5 and their families are guests at the Green Party Annual Convention, which is being held at the Newpark Hotel in Kilkenny this year. The convention takes place on Saturday and Sunday 25th/26th March, and Miceál Ó Seighin is scheduled to speak at 4PM on Saturday 25th.

Auguste Comte · 21-06-2012 07:43PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's not his constituency and therefore presumably those involved are not his constituents.

That's why maby was at the start of the sentence you selectively edited.

I should have said supporting a cause on behalf of his constitutants, in order to keep the pedants at bay.

Einhard · 21-06-2012 08:16PM

I don't have a problem with anyone, ordinary citizens or members of the Oireacthais, engaging in protest. What I do, however, have a problem with, is when people believe they have the right to flout or break the law with impunity in pursuance of that protest. I don't think, frankly, that one has the right to knowingly break the law in a liberal democracy, and then screm blue murder about tyranny and the police state when one is faced with the consequences of that action.

Also, Ming is rather prone to hysterical analogies between Ireland and repressive, absolutist regimes. I would argue that, in his disregard for the will of the democratically elected parliament, that he shows far more disdain for democracy than any of those against whom he rails.

Wishbone Ash · 21-06-2012 11:41PM

Auguste Comte wrote: »

That's why maby was at the start of the sentence you selectively edited

I've never heard of the term/word "maby".

Why couldn't you have said "may be" or used "perhaps" and it would have added much more clarity to your point?

crusher000 · 22-06-2012 04:32AM

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Actually I referred to at least 5 other TDs;
Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Joan Collins.

Though my list would go on, hence the "etc."
Why didnt I refer to these people by name?
A) I'm really only interested in having a discussion with informed people, so I assume there is sufficient background knowledge that I would not need to provide an exhaustive list every TD who took part in every protest
Its a philosophical / hypothetical argument over a principle, I do not want to argue to merits of individual protests or the politics of individual TDs.

Thats fair enough but I think any politician that went to the people seeking election on a certain issue be it water charges, potholes whatever and then when elected to turn their back on their mandate would be selling out those that elected them. Our current sitting government sold out on their promises so I applaud politicans that stand by the mandate that they sought election for in the first place even if they flaunt the law enforced on us by un elected EU politicans

MadsL · 22-06-2012 07:17AM

crusher000 wrote: »

the law enforced on us by un-elected EU politicans

Are seriously claiming that EU politicians are un-elected???

Seriously? No, really?

I'm astounded that you clearly have absolutely no clue as to how the European Union operates.

You might wish to educate yourself http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/georgia/documents/virtual_library/08_euro_en.pdf

The three main decision-making institutions are:
• the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;
• the Council of the European Union, which represents the individual member states;
• the European Commission, which seeks to uphold the interests of the Union as a whole.

monument · 22-06-2012 09:45PM

I disagree with the TD in question, but...

Einhard wrote: »

I don't have a problem with anyone, ordinary citizens or members of the Oireacthais, engaging in protest. What I do, however, have a problem with, is when people believe they have the right to flout or break the law with impunity in pursuance of that protest. I don't think, frankly, that one has the right to knowingly break the law in a liberal democracy, and then screm blue murder about tyranny and the police state when one is faced with the consequences of that action.

Also, Ming is rather prone to hysterical analogies between Ireland and repressive, absolutist regimes. I would argue that, in his disregard for the will of the democratically elected parliament, that he shows far more disdain for democracy than any of those against whom he rails.

So the line or bar here is once a state is generally a "liberal democracy" you must follow all of its laws, even an unjust law?

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

One of three things has happened here: [1] The idea of civil disobedience has gone over your head, [2] you disagree with civil disobedience but instead of just saying so you're going off on a tangent, [3] you agree with civil disobedience but are being selective.

Einhard · 23-06-2012 11:35AM

monument wrote: »

So the line or bar here is once a state is generally a "liberal democracy" you must follow all of its laws, even an unjust law?

In actually worded my post quite carefully to avoid such miscomprehension. I didn't criticse anyone for breaking the law, but rather for expecting to do so with impunity. If someone flouts a law that they believe to be unjust, that's fair enough; however, I would expect them to then face the consequences, without screaming at the top of their lungs about how they are being oppressed.

To address your point more fully- yes, in a liberal democracy, I expect people to uphold the law, and be prepared to face the consequences if they choose not to. One might argue that some laws are manifestly unjust, but the idea that subjective personal disapproval of a law grants one the right to act illegally. When that happens, the tail very much wags the dog, and one would have the likes of Shell to Sea dictating energy policy in this land, and Ming Flanagan et al dictating the environmental.

In a modern, liberal democracy such as ours, with all the safeguards of personal rights in place, redress can be sought for perceived wrongs, and I therefore don't think there is any excuse to willfully break the law, and expect no sanction. Otherwise, where does it end?

monument · 23-06-2012 01:21PM

Einhard wrote: »

In a modern, liberal democracy such as ours, with all the safeguards of personal rights in place, redress can be sought for perceived wrongs, and I therefore don't think there is any excuse to willfully break the law, and expect no sanction. Otherwise, where does it end?

Err in a lot of cases you have to break the law in order to be in a position to legally challenge it.

As an aside: you can also break the law with a legal excuse (ie defending somebody, which goes as far as attack aircraft).

Einhard wrote: »

Otherwise, where does it end?

When the courts says it does.

johngalway · 23-06-2012 01:28PM

I don't agree with Ming on much, but fair play to him for supporting the turf cutters, nice to see people stand up for rural Ireland for a change. We don't have a bog any longer, it was blanket bog and cut by hand, have to buy it in now.

MadsL · 24-06-2012 04:36AM

.

Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?

Comments