Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
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?

I would have to say that they're not altered.

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?

To be fair, I'd have to agree with that.
Of course, there's no reason why the residents can't protest the march themselves. And if they choose to protest it by staging a sit-in on the road, well, things get complicated.
Like I said, I'm still thinking on this one.

If you agree there are standard limits then whats the problem with obeying those limits to prevent inconvenience to others?

Who said the limits had anything to do with other people's convienence?

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.

Which would be logical if you could point out where in the constitution it says you have a right not to be inconvienced unduly. I mean I can see the right to free expression and free assembly in there, but nothing about convienence...

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.

I think those limits were more set to prevent violence on a large scale and more for pragmatic reasons due to the Troubles rather than on the basis of political ideals.

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.

Which is why pragmatism never sits well with me.

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?

I'm still not sure that the local community's rights were being violated by the march.

In the judges OPINION it was not wanton.

No, in the judges opinion, I'd have proved that it was wanton.
Subtle but important distinction.

In fact why are we going to a court at all?

Because we believe in the rule of law over the rule of the jungle. Or so we purport, at any rate...

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

Thing is Sand,
1) You're missing the whole "rule of law vs rule of jungle" point in that assertion, and
2) a court already came to a decision on the merits of Kelly's defence (which was based on the neuremberg principle of putting international law over national law). They didn't convict.
How're your cornflakes?

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.

Given that those are digitised excepts from video footage that has been submitted to a court in oakland, I think you can be reasonably sure that the skips are down to editing down for file size as opposed to nefarious subterfuge.

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

You would - but that would assume that stuff was that organised on the day. The photos are on those links I gave you though.

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.

Indeed? Then how come the army wasn't called out when 120,000 people marched through dublin? What if they'd rioted and tried to storm the Dail, or some such act of mass vandalism?

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

Nope.
It was the most aggressive decision legally possible - that doens't make it the best.

Bloody fascist I am.

Yup. :ninja:

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks


Indeed? Then how come the army wasn't called out when 120,000 people marched through dublin? What if they'd rioted and tried to storm the Dail, or some such act of mass vandalism?
[/B]

We didn't riot and there was no violence, but when we showed up at the Leinster house...they called in the riot squad (obviously it's below Bertie to have to witness the displeasure of the people)...with no provocation and no ID's. Not to mention Garda helicopters circling for hours.
Talk about effective use of resources.

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
We didn't riot and there was no violence, but when we showed up at the Leinster house...they called in the riot squad (obviously it's below Bertie to have to witness the displeasure of the people)...with no provocation and no ID's. Not to mention Garda helicopters circling for hours.
Talk about effective use of resources.

I don't remember that - we walked past Leinster house on Kildare street and didn't see any riot police.
The helo's were a bit naff alright, with the hovering so that the noise would drown out those speaking. Especially as I don't think they could have autorotated safely had they had an engine failure at that point.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't remember that - we walked past Leinster house on Kildare street and didn't see any riot police.
The helo's were a bit naff alright, with the hovering so that the noise would drown out those speaking. Especially as I don't think they could have autorotated safely had they had an engine failure at that point.

Sorry it wasn't the same day as you were refering to. Several thousand people gathered in front of the dail (seems like it was in March sometime). After approx an hour the riot squad showed up, even though no one so much as looked crooked at the many Garda already in place.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
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.

I'm pretty sure that if the residents of an entire Belfast street objected to having the gay pride march in their area, and the police agreed, then the organisers would be happy to alter the route. But gay pride marches do not cause trouble and do not create a violent hateful atmosphere. The same can't be said for the orange order. They don't think they should compromise over anything because they still think they own Northern Ireland. They're sad old religious fundamentalist 17th century throwback bully boys and they always have been. Of course, there wouldn't have been any need for trouble making civil rights marches if Northern Ireland had had a democratic political system in the first place anyway. Your whole reasoning is faulty. You would allow a Sinn Fein/IRA march to go down the Shankill Road?

MDR

We didn't riot and there was no violence, but when we showed up at the Leinster house...they called in the riot squad (obviously it's below Bertie to have to witness the displeasure of the people)...with no provocation and no ID's. Not to mention Garda helicopters circling for hours.

And if something had of happened, you would be here slighting the Garda for being incompetent, its a no win situation ... I take it the Garda didn't attempt to stop you from protesting ?

Turnip

Originally posted by shotamoose
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.

Unlike you I don't want to see tax I paid being sent to somewhere like Kenya where MP's make $6,000 a month. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2892089.stm We sjhould play hardball. Cut aid until they start cutting out this kind of outrageous corruption.

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.

Stiglitz is bitter because he lost his job at the World Bank. That's all. And what Sand said, except I'll say that no trade system is going to be totally equitable. There are going to be winners and and there are going to be losers (except in communist countries where everyone's a loser) for at least a while until wealth created by the clever and the industrious trickles down to the less talented.

shotamoose

Originally posted by 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.

Started a new thread on this here. Feel free to contribute.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Turnip

Unlike you I don't want to see tax I paid being sent to somewhere like Kenya where MP's make $6,000 a month. [/B]

You don't think anyone in Kenya should get aid from Ireland because their MPs get $6k a month? What if the aid doesn't go to MPs, or even directly to the government?

We sjhould play hardball. Cut aid until they start cutting out this kind of outrageous corruption.

No, let's be clear on what you're saying. You're saying that aid should be used to get what we want, ie to get poor people to do what we say, ie adopt the trade and economic policies we think are best for them. I want aid we send to developing countries to be used in an accountable way that produces positive results.

Stiglitz is bitter because he lost his job at the World Bank. That's all.

Well, whatever. Maybe he is. You obviously can't criticise his theories or arguments, though, so who cares what you think about his emotional state?

no trade system is going to be totally equitable. There are going to be winners and and there are going to be losers (except in communist countries where everyone's a loser) for at least a while until wealth created by the clever and the industrious trickles down to the less talented.

So everything's for the best as it is, then. I'd point you in the direction of this thread but you don't seem to actually have anything to say.

Sparks

Originally posted by MDR
I take it the Garda didn't attempt to stop you from protesting ?

To be fair MDR, that was hardly down to the moral ideals of the Gardai - they were expecting 10,000 and 120,000+ showed up. I have to say, it was the first time I've seen mounted gardai looking nervous. And oddly enough, I don't remember seeing one garda without at least one camera pointed at them, and several people pointed out quite helpfully to the gardai that it wasn't may

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
And what Sand said, except I'll say that no trade system is going to be totally equitable. There are going to be winners and and there are going to be losers (except in communist countries where everyone's a loser) for at least a while until wealth created by the clever and the industrious trickles down to the less talented.

Actually the point to free trade in capitalist economics is that it should be totally equitable. What corrupts this equity would tend to be State intervention (either economic or political), causing the exchange to be skewed in favour of one party over another.

Sand

Who said the limits had anything to do with other people's convienence?

What do they have to do with then? What principle are the limits based on or supposed to be based on?

Which would be logical if you could point out where in the constitution it says you have a right not to be inconvienced unduly. I mean I can see the right to free expression and free assembly in there, but nothing about convienence...

Our entire system of law is based on the fact people have a right not to be inconvenienced by others - You cant dump rubbish in the street, you cant play deafening jungle music at 4 am in the morning, you cant act drunk and disorderly, you cant build any sort of structure you want without getting permisson first, and as the organisers of the eminem gig found out you cant pursue money making schemes which inconvenenience other people.

And also your rights to free assmebly and exspression carry an important qualification....

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm

Article 40.6.ii

The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

I.E the general public have an explicit right not to be nuisanced by a group of citizens assembling peaceably and without arms. It makes me proud to be Irish.

I think those limits were more set to prevent violence on a large scale and more for pragmatic reasons due to the Troubles rather than on the basis of political ideals.

Blocking the marches has probably caused as much violence if not more than forcing the marches through would so I dont think it can be argued for on practical grounds.

No, in the judges opinion, I'd have proved that it was wanton.

But the judges opinion is meaningless.

Thing is Sand,
1) You're missing the whole "rule of law vs rule of jungle" point in that assertion, and
2) a court already came to a decision on the merits of Kelly's defence (which was based on the neuremberg principle of putting international law over national law). They didn't convict.
How're your cornflakes?

1)But the law doesnt matter - youve argued that the law can be broken if you feel a crime against humanity will occur. You cant argue against the law on one hand, then use it as a defence on the other.

2)The court is setting a precedent which you may not enjoy when its taken to its logical conclusion - any nation can take pretty much any action it feels necessary against any other nation regardless of international opinion or law, and justify itself under your interpretation of the nuremberg principles so long as they feel (or merely say they feel ) the opposing regime has committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

And I wouldnt confuse law with justice tbh - too many innocent convicted and too many guilty released for that.

Given that those are digitised excepts from video footage that has been submitted to a court in oakland, I think you can be reasonably sure that the skips are down to editing down for file size as opposed to nefarious subterfuge.

Hmmm, but they could have edited out the start with the protestors around the truck which wasnt terribly important given the conflict over what happened that caused the police to move in.

Indeed? Then how come the army wasn't called out when 120,000 people marched through dublin? What if they'd rioted and tried to storm the Dail, or some such act of mass vandalism?

Hey, Id have called in the army for them too tbh - saving Gardai resources and utilising the army most effectively. Seeing as were paying for a bunch of badly equipped light infantry might as well get some mileage out of them under the assisting the civil powers role.

It was the most aggressive decision legally possible - that doens't make it the best.

Sure it does - the Army cant go around arresting people and investigating crimes, they can establish a perimeter and keep people out. Which is what they did. It was the best employment of manpower.

Sand

You would allow a Sinn Fein/IRA march to go down the Shankill Road?

So long as the Shankill Road residents had no real problems with it why not?

If the residents didnt want a bunch of two faced sickening murdering scum walking down their street though blocking up traffic and making it difficult to get around then of course SF/IRA would have to find another place to exspress themselves.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Our entire system of law is based on the fact people have a right not to be inconvenienced by others - You cant dump rubbish in the street, you cant play deafening jungle music at 4 am in the morning, you cant act drunk and disorderly, you cant build any sort of structure you want without getting permisson first, and as the organisers of the eminem gig found out you cant pursue money making schemes which inconvenenience other people.

Our system of law allows you do to practically all of the above. You just need to do it "right".

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Actually the point to free trade in capitalist economics is that it should be totally equitable. What corrupts this equity would tend to be State intervention (either economic or political), causing the exchange to be skewed in favour of one party over another.

An absolute free economy cannot be self-sustaining as someone will either use their stronger position or physical force to gain advantage. Corruption will kill absolute capitism and absolute communism.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
An absolute free economy cannot be self-sustaining as someone will either use their stronger position or physical force to gain advantage.

That's not free trade/economy, though.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That's not free trade/economy, though.

Then you can't have free trade / a free economy, because there will always be inequalities of position or power.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
Then you can't have free trade / a free economy, because there will always be inequalities of position or power.

I never said you could. I was just correcting the use the erroneous use of the term “(absolute) free trade/economy”. What was being discussed would strictly be termed imperfect trade/economy.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand



Hey, Id have called in the army for them too tbh - saving Gardai resources and utilising the army most effectively. Seeing as were paying for a bunch of badly equipped light infantry might as well get some mileage out of them under the assisting the civil powers role.

I guess we shouldn't allow pop stars in this country then.
Sorry...couldn't help it.

chill

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.

The topic is anti globalisation protests and yes it is true. 90% are dedicated rioters.

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
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...

I'd take the Garda's, the Canadian Police's or the Italian Police's word over yours any day.:p

chill

Originally posted by Victor
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.

And in what post and context exactly did I use both Anarchy and Fascism ?

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
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)

You need to learn what fascism means and what it's aims are. These rioters are fascists and anti democratic rioters. Get a dictionary ffs.

chill

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!"

Amusing, but missing the point that the word that describes these rioters is fascist. IT isn't stalinist or maoist or any other -ist.

chill

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/

Absolutely.

However it should not take such a book to demostrate to any literate or common sense person why the garbage peddled by the anti globalisation 'protestors' is worth any consideration.

They demonstrate a complete ignorance of economics, world trade and world history.

Anyone with half a brain can see that what the poor nations of the world need is more globalisation and free trade, not less. It is the cance of trade restrictions and protectionsim that keeps the poor starving.

chill

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

And what exactly does this prove ? Have you never noticed that economists are like hack scientists... anyone can line up 50 to argue black is white while their neighbour can line up 50 that will argue it isn't.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
You need to learn what fascism means and what it's aims are. These rioters are fascists and anti democratic rioters. Get a dictionary ffs.

Actually, Fascism would not have a monopoly on either violence or anti democratic sentiment. Pretty much any non-mainstream political movement, including Anarchism or Communism, would be much the same in this regard and has historically proven itself to be so. Common usage of Fascism to describe these traits is due more to Russia rather than Germany winning the Second World War, than any attribute unique to Fascist ideology.

It is however, unlikely that many, if any, of the anti-Globalisation protesters would follow a Fascist ideology. Many would tend towards Anarchism, which would be at odds with Fascism’s favouring of strict social engineering and control.

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
The topic is anti globalisation protests and yes it is true. 90% are dedicated rioters.

You were asked to provide some evidence for this and you didn't. Yet you're asserting it again. Without evidence.

I think you're wrong, and I've actually got some evidence. 90% of the protestors in Seattle didn't riot. 90% of the protestors in Prague didn't riot. 90% of the protestors in Genoa and Barcelona didn't riot.

Myabe some of the protestors do "demonstrate a complete ignorance of economics, world trade and world history". But you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the basics of debate or even simple human communication.

So, I'll ask you once more, give us some evidence for your oft-repeated claim. Or we can go back to assuming you're just trolling.

chill

Originally posted by shotamoose
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.

And how exactly do you propose these governments are to be persuaded to act in this transparent and accountable fashion when none of them have done so in the past ?

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.

If taxpayers are to 'give' money to developing countries than they/we have a right to make sure it is used for the purpose in which it is given. There has been no attempt to control these country's entire economic policy.

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.

So how many non corrupt developing countries are there or have there been ? Can you offer a few names ? Maybe a long list ?

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.

And exactly how much of the USA's debt are they asking to be cancelled ? And exactly how much aid are they seeking from other countries ? And I would love to hear your explanation of how the USA is more corrupt than the rest of the world and how exactly they are flouting free trade more than the rest of the world ?

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.

Your point is meaningless because however bad their finances are, and that is very debatable, they are not seeking anyone to cancel their debt or to offer 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.

A hilarious caricature of Western Governments of the type we usually only read on the sad and outdated socialist and marxist press. The truth of course is exactly the opposite.

Brilliant. Typical free trader - reduced to incoherence when someone actually challenges their argument.

Well you haven't actually done much to challenge the argument at all. But I look forward to reading your responses to my above points. It should be interesting.

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.

If you don't understand how free trade and allowing poor countries to trade and sell their product without tarrifs and taxes in the huge western economies is the key to helping the poorest countries then it's a bit of a waste of space trying to explain it.

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It is however, unlikely that many, if any, of the anti-Globalisation protesters would follow a Fascist ideology. Many would tend towards Anarchism, which would be at odds with Fascism’s favouring of strict social engineering and control.

Not very relevant however. It is their behaviour that concerns me and most people not their naive political confusions. Their behaviour is fascist in it's intent and essence.

chill

Originally posted by shotamoose
I think you're wrong, and I've actually got some evidence. 90% of the protestors in Seattle didn't riot. 90% of the protestors in Prague didn't riot. 90% of the protestors in Genoa and Barcelona didn't riot.

Gee I didn't notice this 'evidence' that you claim to have .. ? where is your evidence that 90% didn't riot ? because it was the complete opposite.