Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

passive

naked and fascist violence against our democratically elected leaders.

since someone else already caught you on your making up percentages...i have to ask in what way their violence is fascist...

i mean...really, that doesn't make any sense!

though yes, i acknowledge that a lot of the anarchists coming over had some kind of "anarchy" in mind as it were...however i really doubt that many are coming, and regardless of their intentions theres not enough support over here for them to do any damage.
at most of the (unrelated to the war) protests i've been to theres been nearly a guard to every protestor...thats ignoring that an tiiny minority actually have violent intent or the balls (or idiocy) to act on that intent

but back to my main point....fascist violence....did you think that through at all or does fascist just mean "something really really bad" to most people?

chill

Originally posted by passive
since someone else already caught you on your making up percentages...

The police in Canada and Italy reported at the time on the tv reports that almost all of the street activity was intended to cause a riot and that only a tiny minority were interested in democratic protest.

i have to ask in what way their violence is fascist...

i mean...really, that doesn't make any sense!

It makes complete sense. These people are trying to stop and/or disrupt our democraticlaly elected leaders from meetinga nd discussing issues that matter to us the voters. They are fascist and anti democratic at heart.

though yes, i acknowledge that a lot of the anarchists coming over had some kind of "anarchy" in mind as it were...however i really doubt that many are coming, and regardless of their intentions theres not enough support over here for them to do any damage.
at most of the (unrelated to the war) protests i've been to theres been nearly a guard to every protestor...thats ignoring that an tiiny minority actually have violent intent or the balls (or idiocy) to act on that intent

This doesn't fit with previous riots at the UK, Canada and Europe events.

but back to my main point....fascist violence....did you think that through at all or does fascist just mean "something really really bad" to most people? [/B]

You need to get more acquainted with what fascism really means and then come back.

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
The police in Canada and Italy reported at the time on the tv reports that almost all of the street activity was intended to cause a riot and that only a tiny minority were interested in democratic protest.

The same Italian police who broke into the Genoa Social Forum (independent, non-violent) in the middle of the night and assaulted fifty people?

If you're so keen to root out fascism, there's no better place to start than Italy's police. I wouldn't use them as a reliable source, though.

If there's a reliable source to back up this 90% claim, please produce it.

Sparks

The police in Canada and Italy reported at the time on the tv reports

So not only was it only a TV report (anyone else remember the TV reports on Jessica Lynch's capture) but it was a TV report of what an involved party said - so how is that an objective, independant analysis?
Hell, the GRA will happily tell RTE that the gardai are cooperating fully with the investigation into the May Day protest beatings - in fact, they did so last night on PrimeTime...

Originally posted by shotamoose
Except when it's not. Which is most of the time. Most protests against EU, IMF, etc are, considering the amount of people there, quite peaceful. Your 'statistic' of 90% of protestors being 'violent anarchists' is hilariously wrong, though I doubt you even thought about it.

Correct, those that cause trouble are a minority of hooligans who hi jack a protest.
Such hi-jackings do give a very poor impression on the rest of the protesters though.
It's a bit like English football hooliganism, the people involved don't deserve (or possibly don't even understand) to belong to the protest in question.
mm

Von

Lots and lots of windows got broken in Iraq when the place got banjaxed live on telly. That’s what I call anarchy.

MDR

What do the Iraqi's call it ?

Sparks

Lots and lots of windows got broken in Iraq when the place got banjaxed live on telly. That’s what I call anarchy.

Small potatoes. Look at what the 3rd Infantry did to Baghdad airport and the aircraft on the apron there.

And I notice today that the US airlines that flew US troops to Baghdad are now going to run the civilian airline routes out of there. An Iraqi company couldn't have the job, because someone smashed up their aircraft on the apron at Baghdad airport...

What do the Iraqi's call it ?

Liberation.

Mind you, they're rather used to using odd choices of words...

Von

Originally posted by MDR
What do the Iraqi's call it ?

The militant human rights activists out there don't really seem very interested in what the Iraqis have to say about anything, unless they're cute little kids who have one or two fewer limbs than they used to of course.

redflaremist

Originally posted by Man
Correct, those that cause trouble are a minority of hooligans who hi jack a protest.
Such hi-jackings do give a very poor impression on the rest of the protesters though.
It's a bit like English football hooliganism, the people involved don't deserve (or possibly don't even understand) to belong to the protest in question.
mm

This is rubbish. There are people who believe in militant responses to capitalism and they are just as much a part of the "anti globalisation" movement as the NGOs, the socialists, the pacifists, etc. They are a part of the protests. Some may not agree with their tactics, but part of what makes it interesting is that people respect other peoples methods.

http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html

Victor

Originally posted by chill
It makes complete sense. These people are trying to stop and/or disrupt our democraticlaly elected leaders from meetinga nd discussing issues that matter to us the voters. They are fascist and anti democratic at heart.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism

How the fuc71 do you have facist anarchy? One belives in organisation and control they other doesn't.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
It makes complete sense. These people are trying to stop and/or disrupt our democraticlaly elected leaders from meetinga nd discussing issues that matter to us the voters. They are fascist and anti democratic at heart.

As has already been pointed out, that is not what fascism means .. the anarchist call the WTO and Co the fascists (they actaully know what the word means)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by redflaremist
This is rubbish. There are people who believe in militant responses to capitalism and they are just as much a part of the "anti globalisation" movement as the NGOs, the socialists, the pacifists, etc.[/url]

Exactly. The question of the thread is, will there be sufficient police resources available to deal appropriately with them. I get impression that they are a fairly number compared to the legitimate peaceful protesters whose efforts they undermine. Nevertheless, it is anoying that Garda resources need to be diverted for such purposes.

invincibleirish

The police in Canada and Italy reported at the time on the tv reports that almost all of the street activity was intended to cause a riot and that only a tiny minority were interested in democratic protest.

ah the carbonari,the paramilitary police force in italy which did a lot of nasty things during genoa such as killing carlo giuliani and singing fascist ditties and chants at protestors,i believe minister mcdowell may be creating something similar here.

TomF

It is tiring that so many letter-writers, callers-to-talk-shows, and posters-on-political boards use "fascist" as their favorite term of offence when perfectly good terms like "communist" or "Stalinist" or "Maoist" are mouldering-away for want of use, and besides that are terms which represent regimes and policies that are still alive and nasty in places like China, North Korea and Cuba. Didn't the Fascists disappear from power in Italy and Germany sometime in about 1945 and from Spain at a later date, yet fairly distant in time from now?

Does vocabulary get handed-down from aging lefties to youthful lefties? Is there a ceremony for doing it, or does the Y.L. just begin a rant and watch for approving nods of the gray head of the A.L.?

Whenever I see something about old lefties, I think about Max Shulman's Barefoot Boy with Cheek and his passage about the aging communist agitator jumping up onto a soapbox on a college campus and beginning his address with: "Fellow yoots!"

Turnip

Originally posted by TomF
Didn't the Fascists disappear from power in Italy and Germany sometime in about 1945 and from Spain at a later date, yet fairly distant in time from now?

You are pathetically ignorant of European politics if you think fascists have disappeared from Germany, Italy, Austria and elsewhere. Go away.

Turnip

If anyone has been persuaded to think that the anti-globalisation mob should be taken any way seriously, they should read Phillipe Legrain's book, Open World. He blasts all their arguments to smithereens. He's a top class economist who approaches the world's problems with cold hard realism in contrast to the lefties and their wishy washy idealism.

http://www.philippelegrain.com/

Shorty

Or possibly you could read 'When Corporations Rule the World' by David Korten; MBA and Ph.D. from Stanford University Business School, training in 'organisation theory and business strategy',business studies teacher at Harvard as well as twenty years working on development projects in Asia.

Or some of the recent books by George Soros

http://www.soros.org/gsbio/

shotamoose

Originally posted by Turnip
If anyone has been persuaded to think that the anti-globalisation mob should be taken any way seriously, they should read Phillipe Legrain's book, Open World. He blasts all their arguments to smithereens. He's a top class economist who approaches the world's problems with cold hard realism in contrast to the lefties and their wishy washy idealism.

http://www.philippelegrain.com/

While we're talking top-class economists, why not try reading some Joseph Stiglitz, like his book Globalization and its Discontents.

Unlike Legrain, Stiglitz believes (and I agree) that a perfect market is more of a theoretical concept than a practical reality - Legrain keeps banging on about how 'free trade' is helping everyone when in fact there is no such thing as free trade and probably never will be. Stiglitz knows that markets are always imperfect, and that liberalisation - especially when it's enforced by rich country-dominated organisations like the IMF and WTO - is often disastrous for poor countries. He believes poor countries should be allowed choose their economic path, just like rich cointries have. He's a realist, whereas free-traders who seem to believe that prices matter more than jobs and that power inequalities are unimportant are the real wacky idealists.

Oh, and he's a Nobel laureate in Economics, so maybe he knows what he's talking about.

Victor

Originally posted by TomF
It is tiring that so many letter-writers, callers-to-talk-shows, and posters-on-political boards use "fascist" as their favorite term of offence when perfectly good terms like "communist" or "Stalinist" or "Maoist" are mouldering-away for want of use, and besides that are terms which represent regimes and policies that are still alive and nasty in places like China, North Korea and Cuba. Didn't the Fascists disappear from power in Italy and Germany sometime in about 1945 and from Spain at a later date, yet fairly distant in time from now? Does vocabulary get handed-down from aging lefties to youthful lefties? Is there a ceremony for doing it, or does the Y.L. just begin a rant and watch for approving nods of the gray head of the A.L.? Whenever I see something about old lefties, I think about Max Shulman's Barefoot Boy with Cheek and his passage about the aging communist agitator jumping up onto a soapbox on a college campus and beginning his address with: "Fellow yoots!"

Not sure, but I suspect Chill is a Capitalist, so no need to brand the socialists for his mistakes.

Sand

Nope. Nice twisting of what I said though.

So what are you saying?

Do you still believe that you have a right to freedom of exspression and assembly that cannot be intefered with?

Do you extend this right universally or on a case by case basis?

Whats the difference in your eyes between the orange order and a gay pride march? Do both have a right to march where ever the hell they please?

What is your view?

That's disturbing the peace and being drunk&disorderly.
Not pissing off society.

So that doesnt piss off society?

Pissing off society is then some wonderful anarchist/anti-establishment/arts student gesture or act, with the inherent nobility of sticking it to the old fogies?

Would re-introducing college fees count as pissing off (student) society or would it just be the old fogies strike back?:D

No, it isn't. I gave you a direct link to it's legal definition Sand.

But the point is MY opinion of what that definition means, and YOUR definition of what that means. So long as MY opinion says youre a war crinimal I can break the law and ignore all other opinions to bring you to "justice" - in MY opinion of what justice is of course.

Thats the point.

Here you go. Two links, go to the Photographs and Video links contained within.

Well video most of interest was the rather edited one which showed the police moving in against the protestors under the bridge on the road. Theres a weird skip in the timeline between the police standing watching the protestors and the police moving in for some reason - in both angles of the police moving in:|

But apart from that whats the problem? The police cleared an illegal protest off the road they were blocking - and I saw several objects being thrown at the police when they were doing so. Protestors seemed to be walking away for the most part so they didnt seem to feel they were in threat of their lives. So long as the police stayed within their rules of engagement is there a problem?

No it wasn't. That's why when the Gardai were formed, it was decided that they would be an unarmed force.

Skipping the history lesson, if you want to secure a site you secure it. If the Gardai cant do it - and they couldnt, then you call in the army to assist the civil powers which is one of their roles.

Perhaps you should tell me what your guess is so that I can actually answer you. Innuendo is hard to argue against, because it's never actually made explicit and clear.

My guess, based on your support of the Shannon protestors and your opinion on the nuremberg principles is that youd be happiest if theyd been given 3 or 4 hours with hammers down in shannon.

Youre biggest problem with the army being deployed is that they were effective, Id imagine.

Do gay people ever march through residential areas with the express intention of intimidating the residents with abusive songs and chants and reminding them of their second class status?

Its the principle of the thing Turnip my good man - using your logic the RUC and the British Army were perfectly entitled to prevent civil rights marches because they were potentially a powder keg?

Sand; what is civil disobedience? Is anyone who has spent time in jail a bad person and not to be listened to or trusted? Are morality and legality the same thing?

Well a prison sentence of more than 12 months can bar you from office in some countries. And morality and legality are clearly not the same thing - morals are individual, whereas as the legal system is societys common view of what is and what is not permitted. Merely because youre morals do not follow the legal system does not mean you are somehow not bound by the laws or that your views are somehow superiour to legal system. They may well be, but on the other hand they may well not.

So what you're saying is, "there ought to be limits to freedom"?

Isnt it accepted that there is and should be limits to freedom? Why do we have laws otherwise?

maybe just a tad extreme....really just feeds people like sand to label you as a mindless rioter and try and undermine absolutely any cause you protest for simply because some people (and usually the minority) believe violence (against property, not people) is the best way to go

Well I already assume that your average arts student type gives a carte blanche to protestors violent or otherwise so it probably wont make much difference if he admits it or not:x

Example below ( thanks helpful arts student person )

This is rubbish. There are people who believe in militant responses to capitalism and they are just as much a part of the "anti globalisation" movement as the NGOs, the socialists, the pacifists, etc. They are a part of the protests. Some may not agree with their tactics, but part of what makes it interesting is that people respect other peoples methods.

You are pathetically ignorant of European politics if you think fascists have disappeared from Germany, Italy, Austria and elsewhere. Go away.

Didnt they just drop the overt nationalism and sink into main stream democratic socialism?

Sparks

So what are you saying?

That a protest isn't a march.

Do you still believe that you have a right to freedom of exspression and assembly that cannot be intefered with?

Yes, but not one that has no limits.

Do you extend this right universally or on a case by case basis?

A non-universal right is called a privilege, isn't it?

Whats the difference in your eyes between the orange order and a gay pride march? Do both have a right to march where ever the hell they please?

This really is the irish version of the "should neo-nazi's be allowed to exist" type of question. (In relation to the Orange order, not the gay pride march, which has taken place fourteen times in Belfast now, without serious incident.)

So that doesnt piss off society?

Evidently not, or we'd ban drinking...

Pissing off society is then some wonderful anarchist/anti-establishment/arts student gesture or act, with the inherent nobility of sticking it to the old fogies?

Nope, my point was that "pissing off society" isn't a great metrestick for setting limits to civil rights.

Would re-introducing college fees count as pissing off (student) society or would it just be the old fogies strike back?

Nope, it'd be a bad idea

But the point is MY opinion of what that definition means, and YOUR definition of what that means. So long as MY opinion says youre a war crinimal I can break the law and ignore all other opinions to bring you to "justice" - in MY opinion of what justice is of course.
Thats the point.

Except that it's a legal definition, written to require the minimum amount of opinion possible. Which is rather the point of a legal definition. So you can say "no, it's not a war crime", but that won't matter if it meets the definition.

Well video most of interest was the rather edited one which showed the police moving in against the protestors under the bridge on the road. Theres a weird skip in the timeline between the police standing watching the protestors and the police moving in for some reason - in both angles of the police moving in:|

The video footage I watched showed the protestors walk away peacefully, the cops walk after them and lobbing in tear gas grenades without provocation. The closes there is to people chucking stuff at the police is when a protestor throws a tear gas grenade back from the crowd in their direction.
What were you watching?

But apart from that whats the problem? The police cleared an illegal protest off the road they were blocking - and I saw several objects being thrown at the police when they were doing so. Protestors seemed to be walking away for the most part so they didnt seem to feel they were in threat of their lives. So long as the police stayed within their rules of engagement is there a problem?

The problem is that they operated outside both their RoE and the specific safety instructions for the baton rounds, thereby placing lives at risk (a shot to the head from a baton round is pretty serious from a medical standpoint). And I've re-watched the video footage looking for protestors throwing stuff at the police, and I still don't see any.

Skipping the history lesson, if you want to secure a site you secure it. If the Gardai cant do it - and they couldnt, then you call in the army to assist the civil powers which is one of their roles.

Except that the Gardai could have been used, and weren't.

My guess, based on your support of the Shannon protestors and your opinion on the nuremberg principles is that youd be happiest if theyd been given 3 or 4 hours with hammers down in shannon.

Youre biggest problem with the army being deployed is that they were effective, Id imagine.

You're incorrect. I regard the whole Mary Kelly incident as being unnecessary had the government done the correct thing and told the US that logistical support for an illegal military action was not on the cards, the same way that every neutral state in the EU other than us did.
The happiest I'd have been would have been if we'd denied overflight rights, even if it was done after the protest, instead of before as it should have been.
Hell, if it was done now I'd be happy.
Instead, troops are still moving through shannon.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
Its the principle of the thing Turnip my good man - using your logic the RUC and the British Army were perfectly entitled to prevent civil rights marches because they were potentially a powder keg?

I can't follow your reasoning I'm afraid. Gay pride marches do not incite hatred or promote triumphalist sectarianism as neo-nazi marches do and orange order marches sometimes do. The civil rights marches were about demands for democratic equality not supremacy. I feel embarrassed to even have to point this out. Are you saying the civil rights marchers got what they deserved on bloody sunday or are you saying they shouldn't have marched at all?

Turnip

Originally posted by shotamoose
While we're talking top-class economists, why not try reading some Joseph Stiglitz, like his book Globalization and its Discontents.

Legrain uses a broader canvas than Stiglitz and addresses connected issues like branding. For example : In one paragraph, he destroys Naomi Klein's thesis that brands are controlling us, rather nicely.

Far from being an emblem of corporate power over consumers, they are signs of companies' weakness. A monopolist has little need for branding: you have no choice but to buy its products. It is only because fickle consumers have a choice between so many competing products that companies rely on brands to try to win their loyalty. The hold that brands have over most of us is pretty tenuous: many people are happy to buy own-label cereal instead of Kellogg's; all of Coca-Cola's branding efforts could not convince people to drink New Coke. Compare it with the grip that patriotism, or love, have on us: many people are willing to die for those. If there is a problem with branding, it is that it convinces some susceptible people, mainly poor kids, to spend -- or convince their parents to spend -- money they can ill afford. Protecting children is an important issue. But it is far from the worry that brands are taking over the world.

He believes poor countries should be allowed choose their economic path, just like rich cointries have.

So rich countries should just hand over billions and billions in aid and loans to goverments that are already riddled with corruption and "let them choose their own path" and expect nothing in return? Wishy washy idealism.

Oh, and he's a Nobel laureate in Economics, so maybe he knows what he's talking about.

Unemployed nobel laureate?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Turnip
So rich countries should just hand over billions and billions in aid and loans to goverments that are already riddled with corruption and "let them choose their own path" and expect nothing in return? Wishy washy idealism.

Unlike you, some people don't believe development aid should be used as a bribe, as that opens up some rather obvious conflicts of interest. Instead, many think that developing countries should take aid and use it - in a transparent, accountable fashion - in the way that will best promote development. That's their development, not ours - their development will ultimately benefit everyone else anyway. What do we get in return for aid (which is, I shouldn't have to emphasise, a grant rather than a locan)? We don't get to dictate another country's entire economic policy - we get to help them develop. Hence the term Development Assistance Aid, rather than something like Economic Bribery Slush-Fund.

I'm also baffled how you manage to accuse all developing country governments of being corrupt at the same time as advocating the use of development aid as an economic bribe - ie, everyone who gives or receives aid should become more corrupt, according to you.

If you're so down on corrupt, incompetent and indebted governments that constantly flout the principles of free trade, you should really be complaining about the greatest transgressor of all, the USA. Though I doubt you will.

Look at America's trade deficit, budget deficit, debt and levesl of poverty - it is an economic basket-case and the only reason it manages to sustain its path is because it sets the rules for the rest of the world through its veto power in the World Bank and IMF and its dominant position in the WTO. America (and Europe) are sustained by the massive levels of debt servicing and capital flight from the poorest countries, which totally dwarf the meagre amounts we send to them in aid.

Rich country governments know that the free trade ideology is a load of bollocks - they didn't use free trade to develop, and they know it's not the best way for poor countries to develop. It's mainly a handy smokescreen for practices that kick the poor and reward the rich. I bet they think it's hilarious when someone actually believes the whole story.

Unemployed nobel laureate?

Brilliant. Typical free trader - reduced to incoherence when someone actually challenges their argument. Actually, you haven't even made an argument yet. So come on, give us some reason, some evidence beyond simple assertion to show that free trade actually helps poor countries. Start a new thread if you like, as we're in danger of going off topic here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
In one paragraph, he destroys Naomi Klein's thesis that brands are controlling us, rather nicely.

No, it doesn't. It takes a different angle. Neither side is completely correct, as both sides are taking a relatively one-sided position and interpreting and arguing in favour of it. Neither are simply anaysing the situation and drawing objective conclusions.

So rich countries should just hand over billions and billions in aid and loans to goverments that are already riddled with corruption and "let them choose their own path" and expect nothing in return? Wishy washy idealism.

Agreed, but I would say the issue here is that many people apparently believe it is equally not right to manipulate these nations into shapes of our choosing - oftentimes to their severe disadvantage. While "free" aid may be idealism, I know I find it hard to accept that "aid" is actually meant to be considered a euphemism for "purchase price".

Unemployed nobel laureate?

No. Professor in University of Columbia. Did a stint in Stanford as well, as well as some years as a Chief Economist in the World Bank, yadda yadda. You know - one of your average, run-of-the-mill, top-notch, highly-respected-in-his-field type of Nobel Laureates.

But then, if you had read the book you are so busy deciding is inferior to your choice, you'd know most of that, wouldn't you.

jc

Sand

That a protest isn't a march.

Youre implying that your rights differ depending whether your on a march or a protest. Whats the difference between a march and a protest? Why do you believe there *should* be differences in how the freedoms of exspression and assembly are exercsied - depending on whether theyre in a march or a protest?

Yes, but not one that has no limits.

So you agree there are limits? How does this sit with your refusal to sign away your rights to such freedoms? Or are there only limits that you set for yourself?

A non-universal right is called a privilege, isn't it?

Well it seems to be a privledge for the OO to parade down Garvaghy Road - It certainly isnt a right whatever their apparent rights to freely assemble and exspress themselves?

Evidently not, or we'd ban drinking...

Were certainly taking "draconian" steps against it - major reason that its not being banned is that would go far beyond pissing off society:|

Nope, my point was that "pissing off society" isn't a great metrestick for setting limits to civil rights.

Well I recall your original point being that you didnt understand why society shouldnt be pissed off - by protests etc etc. Soceity tends to ban or restrict things which piss it off - why not gangs of arts students protesting against something they dont understand?

Except that it's a legal definition, written to require the minimum amount of opinion possible. Which is rather the point of a legal definition. So you can say "no, it's not a war crime", but that won't matter if it meets the definition.

Define wanton for me? I believe its part of the legal definition - apparently wantonly destroying a town is bad, but not doing it wantonly is alright - so whats wanton? How is it measured?

What were you watching?

Watch the 5mb ish video which shows the view from behind the cops - itll show the cops standing, then the video will be edited to the point where the cops advance, as the cops reach under the bridge youll see objects flying through the air over the cops.

I wonder why the time just before the advance wasnt considered worth viewing by the camera man or editor?

The problem is that they operated outside both their RoE and the specific safety instructions for the baton rounds, thereby placing lives at risk (a shot to the head from a baton round is pretty serious from a medical standpoint).

What were their RoE? As for the injuries suffered by the protestors there were maybe 3-5 people i remember having actual wounds that were consistent with being hit by the batons - given the size of the crowd thats hardly a classic marksman display - quite possible such injuries were accidental.

Except that the Gardai could have been used, and weren't.

Werent they protecting the site when the protestors tresspassed and vandalised Shannon?

And why should the already undermanned Gardai be wasted babysitting some hippes when they should be out dealing with run of the mill crinimals? we cant use the army to replace the Gardai on their day to day duties - we can use them to protect Shannon. Effective and efficient use of manpower to my mind.

You're incorrect. I regard the whole Mary Kelly incident as being unnecessary had the government done the correct thing and told the US that logistical support for an illegal military action was not on the cards, the same way that every neutral state in the EU other than us did.

That doesnt say anything though really does it - so long as the government did things my way I wouldnt have to go down their and break the law. The government made the correct decision...thankfully that cant be reversed now.

Gay pride marches do not incite hatred or promote triumphalist sectarianism as neo-nazi marches do and orange order marches sometimes do. The civil rights marches were about demands for democratic equality not supremacy. I feel embarrassed to even have to point this out. Are you saying the civil rights marchers got what they deserved on bloody sunday or are you saying they shouldn't have marched at all?

Well now you see your advocating giving rights only to people you like..... sounds like anyone we know?

As for the civil rights marches you said yourself that the OO mnarches are restricted because their powder kegs and cause trouble - the exact same could be said of the civil rights marches and the unionist opinion of them - oh I know, they were wrong about the evil civil rights marchers, but today the OO really are evil bogeymen.

The law, and hopefully the principles behind it, have to be applied the same for all to my mind.

So come on, give us some reason, some evidence beyond simple assertion to show that free trade actually helps poor countries. Start a new thread if you like, as we're in danger of going off topic here.

Buy a textbook, evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists, read up on empirical data - that Legrain chap has a article on the exact subject on his webby handily enough.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

Buy a textbook, evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists, read up on empirical data - that Legrain chap has a article on the exact subject on his webby handily enough.

Actually, I'd like to hear you put the arguments and evidence forward, rather than just referring vaguely to 'the majority of economists' (from my reading, neoliberalism - free trade theory as a political project - has been fairly thoroughly discredited).

I've read that article by that Legrain chap, and there's various things wrong with it. I'd start a new thread to talk about it, but it's late. Maybe mañana ...

Sparks

Sand,

Youre implying that your rights differ depending whether your on a march or a protest.

No, I'm implying that a protest isn't a march.
Actually, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it.

Whats the difference between a march and a protest?

One is done to celebrate something - the other to protest something.
For example - the belfast gay pride march celebrates the validity of homosexuality as a lifestyle, whereas the shannon protests protested the use of shannon by US forces.

Why do you believe there *should* be differences in how the freedoms of exspression and assembly are exercsied - depending on whether theyre in a march or a protest?

I'm not sure I do - it's just that marches generally don't bring the matter to the fore. The gay pride march, for example, get's the odd bunch of homophobes protesting that it shouldn't take place. Fair enough, they have a right to protest, but there's a right for the gay and lesbian community to have their march too. And so far as I can see, the two rights are equal.

So you agree there are limits?

I'm not sure limits is the right word. You have the right to free speech and it has no limits as such - but when you abuse that right to cause harm to others, there are penalties. Not just the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" example, but libel laws as well.
So your rights don't override other people's rights.
So I'm not sure that the word "limit" is the right one.
Unfortunately, I don't have a better one...

How does this sit with your refusal to sign away your rights to such freedoms?

The concept of a right with inherent responsibility sits very well with me, thanks Sand.

Well it seems to be a privledge for the OO to parade down Garvaghy Road - It certainly isnt a right whatever their apparent rights to freely assemble and exspress themselves?

And did I make the decision to allow them to do that?
I notice you're using it as an example without asking if I support that decision....
(And before you do, I honestly don't know yet.)

Well I recall your original point being that you didnt understand why society shouldnt be pissed off - by protests etc etc. Soceity tends to ban or restrict things which piss it off - why not gangs of arts students protesting against something they dont understand?

Why select arts students as the group of interest?
And the original point was actually that free speech zones were a seriously bad idea. Which I still maintain. Either you have a universal right to free speech or you have a privelege to free speech that can be suspended. And we've shown that the right is the better option.

Define wanton for me?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wanton
"having no just foundation or provocation"

I believe its part of the legal definition - apparently wantonly destroying a town is bad, but not doing it wantonly is alright - so whats wanton? How is it measured?

I accuse you of wantonly destroying nagasaki. I bring the case to the ICC. I present my evidence (the peace offer being discussed by the japanese ambassador to Moscow and the russians prior to hiroshima; the demonstration of the bomb in hiroshima; the options available to demonstrate the bomb by attacking uninhabited atolls within sight of the Japanese forces; and so on) and then you present a defence (the peace offer was unacceptable because it had one condition, that the emperor in place; that the US wanted to show it could bomb all the cities in Japan; and so on), we present counter-arguemtns, and then a judge decides if the act was wanton or not.

Watch the 5mb ish video which shows the view from behind the cops - itll show the cops standing, then the video will be edited to the point where the cops advance, as the cops reach under the bridge youll see objects flying through the air over the cops.

Nope. There's one object. And that's a cop throwing a tear gas grenade. Watch closely again. Note where the crowd are going, where the object comes from, and the small flash as it hits the ground and the smoke that comes from it. It does get thrown back by the crowd, mind.

I wonder why the time just before the advance wasnt considered worth viewing by the camera man or editor?

Because they're fully covered from the POV of the crowd in the 10mb video perhaps? Where, btw, you see the tear gas grenade more clearly.

What were their RoE?

Not to open fire without provocation. That's pretty standard Sand.

As for the injuries suffered by the protestors there were maybe 3-5 people i remember having actual wounds that were consistent with being hit by the batons - given the size of the crowd thats hardly a classic marksman display - quite possible such injuries were accidental.

There were 3-5 people in the videos. Not all the wounded were on the video.
And those on the video were clearly shot in the back. Twice, in fact. In the still photos, there were people shot in the head as well.

Werent they protecting the site when the protestors tresspassed and vandalised Shannon?

They were. The one single garda that was meant to be in the hanger wandered off post. Had there been two gardai there, one could have wandered off to make tea without comprimising security.
In other words, the vandalism was an argument to bring in more gardai - not armed troops. That decision was like trying to get rid of gophers with dynamite.

And why should the already undermanned Gardai be wasted babysitting some hippes when they should be out dealing with run of the mill crinimals? we cant use the army to replace the Gardai on their day to day duties - we can use them to protect Shannon. Effective and efficient use of manpower to my mind.

Ah, so it's okay 'cos they were left-wing crustie long-haired free-lovin' hippies, is it?
And the fact that they were right is irrelevant, is it?
What about the fact that they weren't there when the army was called in?

That doesnt say anything though really does it - so long as the government did things my way I wouldnt have to go down their and break the law.

My way? Well gee, thanks there sand, but it wasn't my idea that we be a neutral nation, or that we should only support UN-sanctioned military action.

The government made the correct decision...thankfully that cant be reversed now.

No they didn't (what else is new?) and it can be. Troops are still going through shannon today.

Well now you see your advocating giving rights only to people you like..... sounds like anyone we know?

Yes. You.
*points to the hippies comment*

The law, and hopefully the principles behind it, have to be applied the same for all to my mind.

Except for hippies?
Or arts students?

Buy a textbook, evaluate the opinion of the majority of economists, read up on empirical data - that Legrain chap has a article on the exact subject on his webby handily enough.

That's not a reason or evidence, though, is it Sand?

Sand

No, I'm implying that a protest isn't a march.Actually, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it.

But do your right to freedom of exspression and assembly change if youre on a parade or if youre on a march? Or do you always have the same rights regardless?

The point is that if you have the right to march where you damn well please- then so do the OO, right down garvaghy road no matter what trouble/anger it causes. After all, whats wrong with pissing off society?

One is done to celebrate something - the other to protest something.

But theres no difference as far as your rights to exspression and assembly. See above.

The concept of a right with inherent responsibility sits very well with me, thanks Sand.

So do you set these limits/responsibilities for yourself ( and do the OO set their own limits as well? ) or do the lawmakers of the land set the limits? If you agree there are standard limits then whats the problem with obeying those limits to prevent inconvenience to others? If you feel there are only limits set by the individual or group based on how responsible they feel youve got a recipe for chaos surely?

So your rights don't override other people's rights.

Yeah, thats my position - people have a right to exspression and assembly but they dont have a right to inconvenience other people unduly whilst doing so. One set of rights does not over-ride another set, in principle at least.

I notice you're using it as an example without asking if I support that decision....

I used it as an example of a democratic society setting limits on the freedoms of exspression and assembly in the interests of a local community. There is an inconsistency in the position of the government between say an anti war march through london going ahead with no consultation with the local communities and the Garvaghy road which holds if not a veto over the march a real say in whether it goes ahead. If the law is to be applied equally and justly your rights shouldnt be dependant on your politics - thats the sort of enviroment that has always bred discontent.

If the Garvaghy road can stop an organisation marching through its area, any community should be able to imo.

Either you have a universal right to free speech or you have a privelege to free speech that can be suspended. And we've shown that the right is the better option.

So now you have decided whether the OO should be allowed to march down garvaghy regardless of the local communitys rights? - the decision being an emphatic yes?

accuse you of wantonly destroying nagasaki. I bring the case to the ICC. I present my evidence (the peace offer being discussed by the japanese ambassador to Moscow and the russians prior to hiroshima; the demonstration of the bomb in hiroshima; the options available to demonstrate the bomb by attacking uninhabited atolls within sight of the Japanese forces; and so on) and then you present a defence (the peace offer was unacceptable because it had one condition, that the emperor in place; that the US wanted to show it could bomb all the cities in Japan; and so on), we present counter-arguemtns, and then a judge decides if the act was wanton or not.

In the judges OPINION it was not wanton. You believe it was. Seeing as you are thus freed of any obligation to the law or other opinions to bring war crinimals to justice and prevent their crimes you freely ignore the Courts ruling/opinion.

In fact why are we going to a court at all? Were just wasting time because so long as you believe Nagasaki was wantonly destroyed you dont have to listen to any opinion or law that says otherwise under your interpretation of the nuremberg principles.

My point is that youd have a lot more "US vs Iraq no matter what the hell the UN Security Council thinks" and under your view, so long as the US *believed* the Iraqi regime was guilty of crimes against humanity etc etc ( and lets be honest, it was ) - theyd be justified in going it alone if they had to to bring down that regime.

At this point im sure youre choking on your cornflakes - do you now agree that personal belief should never give a carte blanche to protestors to do whatever it takes to stop what they *think* may be happening. Or will you argue that the protestors are clearly always right?:D

Nope. There's one object. And that's a cop throwing a tear gas grenade. Watch closely again. Note where the crowd are going, where the object comes from, and the small flash as it hits the ground and the smoke that comes from it. It does get thrown back by the crowd, mind.

Theres two but viewing it again more closely a couple of times Id have to agree that they were probably police grenades rather than anything else - theyre moving left to right across the screen so unless theres a group of protestors the police are ignoring then it must be the police.

Because they're fully covered from the POV of the crowd in the 10mb video perhaps? Where, btw, you see the tear gas grenade more clearly.

Theyre fully covered but there is a similar skip from them standing to them advancing. Call me a cynic but Im wondering why were not shown the immediate leadup ( i.e. anything up to 30-45 seconds) to the police being ordered to go forward to disperse the crowd. It would have seemed the most important part to show to my mind.

Not to open fire without provocation. That's pretty standard Sand.

Agains we get to definitions, this time of provocation - Ill guess the oakland police have a definition they use themselves. The three videos i watched with the weird "jump" dont really contradict the police story that they moved in when they started getting objects thrown their way. Both angles just show them standing watching, and a weird jump to the point where the police are on the move.....

There were 3-5 people in the videos. Not all the wounded were on the video.

Id have thought theyd have been getting as many casualties on filim as they could to sell their angle of events.

They were. The one single garda that was meant to be in the hanger wandered off post. Had there been two gardai there, one could have wandered off to make tea without comprimising security. In other words, the vandalism was an argument to bring in more gardai - not armed troops. That decision was like trying to get rid of gophers with dynamite.

But the size of the perimeter and the evident intent of the protestors meant youd require a pretty large force of Gardai to be taken off normal duties out catching crinimals and put babysitting hippies - whilst the army , which has a role in assisting the civil powers - sat in barracks on the tax payers exsepense.

Thats a scandalous and inefficient employment of manpower. Calling in the army was the correct and most effective decision.

Ah, so it's okay 'cos they were left-wing crustie long-haired free-lovin' hippies, is it?

No, if it was the Man United treble winning team out there trying to tresspass onto Shannon and try to vandalise property then Id still believe the army was the most effective and efficient means to protect Shannon and Irelands interests.

Yes. You.
*points to the hippies comment*
.

So I think hippies are twats - Ive not argued against their rights to exspress themselves so long as they A) Dont break the law Dont inconvenience others unduly with their inane ranting and silliness.

Bloody fascist I am.

Except for hippies?

See above.

That's not a reason or evidence, though, is it Sand?

Well you see, I cant be arsed giving some lecture on free trade - I had to pay to learn about it so why the shag should you get it for free? And anyway - youre not going to belive me anyway so why shouldnt you go out, grab a textbook, look up the empirical evidence and read a few articles/papers on the subject and come to the logical conclusion that free trade is a good thing for people.

Oh, except for the corrupt, inefficient and obsolete domestic manufacturers who otherwise can continue to freely screw their workers and pass off shoddy products to their fellow citizens whove no choice but to buy them because of protectionist trade polices making foreign imports too exspensive if available at all - assuming of course theyve got a job to begin with seeing as foreign multinationals are obviously the devil which must be cast out or bound severely.

Yes, fight the evil globalisation - together art students and corrupt native capitalists can save the world from the benefits of competition.

Keee - rist, next well have the KKK and the Nation of Islam marching arm in arm to demand a seperate black state:|