Worried - Anti Globalisation and Ireland

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
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.

But the problem it’s not particularly Fascist. Calling anything that is either violent or does not favour democracy Fascist is a rather lowbrow and simplistic definition, which given that the target of your criticism is to be found on the opposite end of the political spectrum, serves only to confuse and debase your argument.

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
But the problem it’s not particularly Fascist. Calling anything that is either violent or does not favour democracy Fascist is a rather lowbrow and simplistic definition, which given that the target of your criticism is to be found on the opposite end of the political spectrum, serves only to confuse and debase your argument.

Your elitist attitude doesn't help your argument. Sometimes the truth is simple and your version of complex analysis only appears to confuse you.

Their behaviour was and is fascist. It is accurate and true, hoowever much trouble you have with 'low brow' reasoning.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
Your elitist attitude doesn't help your argument. Sometimes the truth is simple and your version of complex analysis only appears to confuse you.

Sometimes the truth is based on facts rather that wishful stereotypes. I suggest you do some research before ascribing labels that will simply confuse and contradict your argument - a point that has been made by others in this thread.

Personally I would tend to agree with the underlying point you made; I’m just saying that the analogy you used to put it forward did it a disservice.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Get a dictionary ffs.

...

Originally posted by chill
Your elitist attitude doesn't help your argument.

Chill,

go and read the rules for our forum please. You will notice some comments about attacking the post, and not the poster, civility, etc.

I would strongly suggest you follow those rules.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
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.

And I notice you have still not even pretended to back up your own claim.

But that's okay, I'll go and dig out the actual news stories to back mine up, though I doubt that will change your mind. A prejudice as dearly-held as yours won't be swayed by something so insignificant as the facts.

Barcelona:running battles conclude EU summit ... The BBC's Malcolm Brabant says it is not clear how the clashes began, but the vast majority B]That means more than 10%, Chill[/bof the marchers, from anti-globalisation campaigners to Basque nationalists, were not involved.

Genoa:
A small core of violent protesters has clashed with police for a second day in the Italian city of Genoa, where up to 150,000 peaceful activists demonstrated during the G8 summit b]No sign of over 100,000 people rioting, then[/b.

Prague:
Compared to the demonstrations in the United States, they were more red and less green, with a variety of small left-wing political parties from Germany, Italy, France and Britain taking part. And the small minority who were bent on confrontation with the police, possibly led by the Italian anarchist group Ya Basta!, showed that it was all too easy to turn the mood from a festive atmosphere into violence.

Seattle:The protestors were mainly peaceful

I don't think I'm being selective. I've never, anywhere, seen any reports about these events which described 90% or more of protestors rioting. If you have, please, for the umpteenth time, enlighten us.

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
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 ?

You're basing this, I presume, on your close study of development policy down the years? Actually, it's not that hard for donor governments to keep tabs on what recipients do with their aid, and in fact they usually insist on it. Recipient governments usually see it as in their interests to provide this information. Ireland's government has a pretty good aid agency ([/B][/QUOTE] Development Cooperation Ireland) which produces annual reports (not yet on the site, which is new) describing to a very detailed level exactly where the money goes and what the outputs are. See, transparency and accountability.

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.

Donor countries have a right to ensure that the money goes towards developmentally useful projects. They have no right, if you ask me, to use it as a bribe in multilateral trade negotiations, as happened in 2001's WTO ministerial conference in Doha, and as institutionalised in the US's 'Millennium Challenge Account' among other schemes.

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

There's probably more corruption in developing countries alright - I never said there wasn't. And the activities of foreign companies and foreign governments in developing countries are frequently more corrupt than they are in developed countries. Poverty and corruption tend to go together and mutually support one another, especially when there's extremes of wealth around. Corruption helps keep developing countries poor, but it's certainly not the only reason they're poor. And it's all the more reason for aid to be used in an accountable and transparent fashion.

And exactly how much of the USA's debt are they asking to be cancelled ?

The US's massive debt is sustained because of the dominance of the dollar as the international hard currency. Foreign governments keep billions worth of dollar reserves that keep the dollar strong. Tens of billions in interest on these reserves and on historical debt, and tens of billiions more in capital flight from poor countries, help keep the US economy afloat. The US has thus never had to ask for debt relief, and it has never asked for aid, as poor countries in fact finance the US more than the US finances poor 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 ?

Never said the US was more corrupt, just that it was corrupt. How are they flouting free trade???? Are you serious? Jeebus. The entire system of agricultural protectionism, for one, most notably the cotton and sugar subsidies that depress world prices at the cost of billions handed over to a few thousand plantation owners. Jumped-up steel tariffs, for another. There's more, I just think you should try reading some of this for yourself rather than have me telling you.

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.

As you will now go on to prove, I'm sure.

Oh wait. That was just another unsupported assertion. How surprising.

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.

Access to the markets of rich countries would probably help developing countries. So, far 'globalisation' has provided very little of this, and a whole lot of access to the markets of poor countries, which has helped rich countries lots, thanks very much. When the rich talk about free trade, they mean free trade for others and protectionism for themselves. Anyway, this is more suited to the other thread specifically about free trade.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by shotamoose
Access to the markets of rich countries would probably help developing countries. So, far 'globalisation' has provided very little of this, and a whole lot of access to the markets of poor countries, which has helped rich countries lots, thanks very much. When the rich talk about free trade, they mean free trade for others and protectionism for themselves. Anyway, this is more suited to the other trade specifically about free trade.

I agree. However not everyone arguing for free trade has that view. Just because one group abuse a term is not, in itself, an argument against it.

sovtek

Originally posted by MDR
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 ?

Nope and the Garda already present were handling the situation just fine. Bringing in the riot squad knocked everything up a notch, besides the fact that they forcibly removed people in the street., and could have easily been the instigation for a nasty situation.
Luckily the protest organizers were more experienced at crouds and made sure everyone kept their head.

MDR

so people where obstructing the street ?

therefore the Garda present couldn't have been 'handling the situation'.

and could have easily been the instigation for a nasty situation.

hence its would be sensible to wear some riot gear ?

sovtek

Originally posted by MDR
so people where obstructing the street ?

therefore the Garda present couldn't have been 'handling the situation'.

The Garda closed off the street and the protest was peaceful.
The only reason to remove everyone forcibly was to keep Bertie from having to see them. Not a good reason to start something.

hence its would be sensible to wear some riot gear ?

It would have been sensible to let everyone stay until the ministers left and then everyone would have demonstrated their frustration with the government. Aftewards everyone would have left and the street could have been opened.
When you introduce riot squad you risk causing a riot, not preventing one.

MDR

Would the protestors sitting in the middle of kildare street, not be an attempt to stop ministers cars leaving the Dail, indeed would the sight of ministers cars not provoke a reaction from the protestors, would this not be dangerous ?.

It wouldn't be just a case of we will sit their until the ministers leave, is it fairer to say, its more a case of we will attempt to make our point be preventing minister from leaving.

When you introduce riot squad you risk causing a riot, not preventing one

It sounds to me as though you like the police, when they make no attempt to police the situation (i.e. stop people from blocking up kildare street) . If the sight of a police presence, granted in riot gear, is enough to cause the company you are keeping to riot ... perhaps the company you are keeping is spoiling for a fight ?

sovtek

Originally posted by MDR
Would the protestors sitting in the middle of kildare street, not be an attempt to stop ministers cars leaving the Dail, indeed would the sight of ministers cars not provoke a reaction from the protestors, would this not be dangerous ?.

There is no reason to assume that to be the case. Organizers were constantly in the croud keeping people at ease and reminding them that this is meant to be peaceful even before the riot squad showed up. They were the reason why people did keep their heads when people started being forceably removed.

It wouldn't be just a case of we will sit their until the ministers leave, is it fairer to say, its more a case of we will attempt to make our point be preventing minister from leaving.

No it's not because after the garda closed the street (not the protestors) they kept a path open for them to leave.
The ministers were even more irresponsible by letting a tense situation continue, by waiting hours to leave, therefore increasing the likelyhood something would go wrong.

It sounds to me as though you like the police, when they make no attempt to police the situation (i.e. stop people from blocking up kildare street) . If the sight of a police presence, granted in riot gear, is enough to cause the company you are keeping to riot ... perhaps the company you are keeping is spoiling for a fight ?

Again, the POLICE blocked the street off.
The company were people from all walks of life that were frustrated by the governments position of completely ignoring the people in regards to an obvious violation of neutrality, much less stating their plans for breaking neutrality and how far Ireland was going to be involved in an illegal invasion of Iraq. Had they not done that, there wouldn't have been a protest. Not only are these people utilizing their right to gather and protest, they are also being good citizens.
Polcing the situation was keeping order and making sure no-one/nothing got hurt. That's what they were doing...until they introduced the dynamic of bringing out the riot squad.
In this situation making sure people weren't hurt was much higher priority than keeping one street open.
The sight of armed/armoured police in the midst of a large group of unarmed/peaceful civilians and removing them by force is a great way to increase the chances of someone/something getting hurt.

People in large crouds aren't that much different than animals and will act in a somewhat predictable pattern (be they hippies, bus drivers or system administrators).
The scenario I described above is one such predictable pattern.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sovtek
When you introduce riot squad you risk causing a riot, not preventing one.

That’s much the same logic as arguing that putting police on the streets is going to encourage violent crime.

The only way that a riot is going to be encouraged by riot police being present is because there would be elements present looking for a confrontation within the demonstrating crowd.

If this is the case, then the issue is with the demonstrators not the police.

sovtek

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That’s much the same logic as arguing that putting police on the streets is going to encourage violent crime.

Nope entirely different situation altogether.

The only way that a riot is going to be encouraged by riot police being present is because there would be elements present looking for a confrontation within the demonstrating crowd.

If this is the case, then the issue is with the demonstrators not the police.

Putting riot police in a situation where they apply force to an unarmed and peaceful group of civilians just doesn't require "elements" of said peaceful civilians. In this case the provacateurs are the riot police, not the people.
Riot gear is for riots, not peaceful demonstrations or gatherings.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sovtek
Nope entirely different situation altogether.

Why not? You seem to be implying that the riot police encourage lawless behaviour by their mere presence.

Putting riot police in a situation where they apply force to an unarmed and peaceful group of civilians just doesn't require "elements" of said peaceful civilians.

Except riot police do not apply force to an unarmed and peaceful group of civilians. Riot police apply force to a violent and often crudely, but effectively, armed group of political activists.

If a riot takes place it’s not the police that is rioting, it’s a part of your ‘unarmed and peaceful group of civilians’. To argue that this would be the fault of the riot police is ridiculous - riot police may often be heavy handed, but they are reactionary - they react to the actions of the crowd. It’s the crowd that casts the first stone.

In this case the provacateurs are the riot police, not the people.
Riot gear is for riots, not peaceful demonstrations or gatherings.

A correlation does not imply causation. Of course riot gear is for riots and not peaceful demonstrations or gatherings, but that does not mean that the presence of riot gear will result in a riot or even significantly increase the chances of one anymore than the absence of riot gear will mean that a riot will not occur.

Even if one would consider their presence to be provocative, it does not excuse those they provoke. That’s the argument of an apologist for hooligans.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Except riot police do not apply force to an unarmed and peaceful group of civilians.

RRRRRROFL!!!! Wrong! Grow up! *Sigh* Are you watching too much Heartbeat or something? Even by your laughably low standards, that’s a ridiculous statement to make. The police and security services do what they’re told. If they’re ordered to break up a demonstration that, outwardly peaceful or not, is perceived to be a threat to the status quo then they’ll do it no questions asked. I’ve no problem with spoilt misguided anti-globalisation window smashers getting the odd clip round the ear, they’re just silly kids throwing toys out of their prams – but what about Derry (or any one of the other innumerable atrocities in Irish history) Tianenmen square, East Timor, South Africa etc etc where masses of brave defenceless people demonstrated peacefully and heroically for democracy and freedom (things spoilt over privileged brats take for granted) and got beaten, shot and tortured for their trouble? Oh I forgot. You said that democracy is a fundamentally bad idea so no doubt you approve of that kind of barbarism. Next you’ll be saying that Saddam’s police only tortured and killed people who attacked them first. LOL... There is nothing more absolutely pathetic about human nature than this tendency to submit mindlessly to the authorities, whatever the nature of the regime.


Read. Learn. Remember.

East Timor massacre.
Peterloo massacre, demonstration in favour of free trade. Inspired Keats.
1968 Derry civil rights march.
Tianenmen Square

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
RRRRRROFL!!!! Wrong! Grow up! *Sigh* Are you watching too much Heartbeat or something? Even by your laughably low standards, that’s a ridiculous statement to make.

You need to calm down m8, before I have to do something because of your apparent continued inability to be civil.

In the meantime - answer me this :

Are you saying that the riot police caused the riot by initiating the violence, or that their mere presence sparked it off?

If it is the former, then the problem is not the riot police, because - as you said - they are only doing what they are told. Indeed, if they initiated the violence, your argument would tend to indicate that some "controller" somewhere sent them out with an instruction to beat up the protestors.

If this is the case, then you should focus your blame accordingly, and not try implying that it was the riot police themselves who caused anything.

On the other hand, if they incited violence (i.e. they did not cast the first whatever[/i]., then Corinthian's point would appear to be valid - you would appear to be blaming the police for someone deciding to attack them.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
RRRRRROFL!!!! Wrong! Grow up! *Sigh* Are you watching too much Heartbeat or something? Even by your laughably low standards, that’s a ridiculous statement to make.

Wasn’t I on your ignore list? Or was that just a way to get out of responding to my post last time we locked horns :rolleyes:

The police and security services do what they’re told. If they’re ordered to break up a demonstration that, outwardly peaceful or not, is perceived to be a threat to the status quo then they’ll do it no questions asked.

One can disperse a crowd without need for a baton charge, you know - Ever been in a pub/nightclub at closing time?

but what about Derry (or any one of the other innumerable atrocities in Irish history) Tianenmen square, East Timor, South Africa etc etc where masses of brave defenceless people demonstrated peacefully and heroically for democracy and freedom (things spoilt over privileged brats take for granted) and got beaten, shot and tortured for their trouble?

Both in East Timor and Tianenmen square involved military, and even heavy artillery, not riot police, so the comparison is invalid.

In the cases of Derry and South Africa, then one could make the comparison, but what you would be implying is that the use of riot police anywhere will always be akin to the situations in Derry and South Africa, which just would not make sense.

Oh I forgot. You said that democracy is a fundamentally bad idea so no doubt you approve of that kind of barbarism. Next you’ll be saying that Saddam’s police only tortured and killed people who attacked them first. LOL.

You’re misquoting me. And what other than insecurity has brought on this need for a personal attack?

There is nothing more absolutely pathetic.about human nature than this tendency to submit mindlessly to the authorities, whatever the nature of the regime.

That’s ironic.

MDR

Organizers were constantly in the croud keeping people at ease and reminding them that this is meant to be peaceful even before the riot squad showed up. They were the reason why people did keep their heads when people started being forceably removed.

Given the non-accountable nature of such a protest it is unlikely that any Garda SuperIntendent commanding the situation is going to put his faith in the likelyhood of the protestors or their organisers to comply with reasonable requests. I much prefer that he has a firm police backing to enforce the law should it become absolutely necessary.

No it's not because after the garda closed the street (not the protestors) they kept a path open for them to leave.
The ministers were even more irresponsible by letting a tense situation continue, by waiting hours to leave, therefore increasing the likelyhood something would go wrong.

I should imagine the path was kept open for the protestors to leave. As far as I am aware most government ministers enter and leave Dail Eireann by car, thus the protestors would have be preventing their exit. Plus the business of the democratically elected Dail Eireann cannot start and stop at the whime of a protest, whose to say they didn't slip out the back door and go home for tea.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
You need to calm down m8, before I have to do something because of your apparent continued inability to be civil.

Apologies. Got carried away. Merely responding to stimulus Bonkey.

Are you saying that the riot police caused the riot by initiating the violence, or that their mere presence sparked it off?

In some cases riot police will have been ordered to break up peaceful demonstrations which are actually more dangerous to overly authoritarian regimes than riots are. Whether they're backed up by the military is irrelevant. Security forces are security forces.

If it is the former, then the problem is not the riot police, because - as you said - they are only doing what they are told. Indeed, if they initiated the violence, your argument would tend to indicate that some "controller" somewhere sent them out with an instruction to beat up the protestors.

Corinthian is arguing that security services do not mount offensive (or pre-emptive if you like) operations. Of course they do. It's normal police procedure to infiltrate far left and far right groups so it's not inconceivable that they would be present within demonstrations and be the ones who initiate violence in order to provide the police with a handy pretext to break up what is otherwise a large, popular, peaceful, and therefore dangerous demonstration. I cannot subscribe to this notion that the police in any country will not stoop to mounting offensive operations or fabricating evidence or torturing innocent people.

On the other hand, if they incited violence (i.e. they did not cast the first whatever[/i]., then Corinthian's point would appear to be valid - you would appear to be blaming the police for someone deciding to attack them.

There are correct procedures for dealing with unrest. Having poorly disciplined and badly trained officers using poor intelligence, excessive force and a swaggering gang mentality is not a professional or particularly effective policing method.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Apologies. Got carried away. Merely responding to stimulus Bonkey.

Monkey See, Monkey Do :rolleyes:

Corinthian is arguing that security services do not mount offensive (or pre-emptive if you like) operations.

No I’m not. I’m saying that riot police do not in themselves mount offensive or pre-emptive operations. The discussion was on the use of riot police over normal civil police, not military, Special Forces or an armoured division - that the use of riot police over normal civil police engenders rioting, or not.

The only exception to the above is where riot police are used by an oppressive regime, in which case all bets are off as they’re going to mount offensive or pre-emptive operations whether they’re riot police, normal civil police or the scouts, as they would be under orders to do so.

Victor

Introducing riot police into a previously calm protest does up the ante, while not quite akin to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, it does introduce psychological elements (stress, fear, anger) not there previously. So introducing riot police can provoke a situation.

Theres a saying along the lines of "humans are intelligent, people are stupid", this applies to overly anxious riot police as well as protestors. In the May Day debacle last year, the whole thing got out of hand when some Garda reported that another Garda was injured and had his arm broken. In fact no Garda received such injuries - it was a matter of "Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" ("Send reinforcements we are going to advance"). This combined with the deaths of two Gradaí a few weeks previously turned nominally professional Gardaí into thugs. It is all to easy for the introduction of riot police to go wrong.

One of the basics of good riot control is underreacting to the crowd. Responding in kind or with greater force only provokes an uncontrollable spiral.

MDR

This combined with the deaths of two Gradaí a few weeks previously turned nominally professional Gardaí into thugs.

Are you refering to the two Garda killed in the Finglas joyriding incident. (BTW I agree with everything you said, to add to it I don't think the Garda call out the riot police lightily, unless they feel there is going to be a problem).

Victor

Originally posted by MDR
Are you refering to the two Garda killed in the Finglas joyriding incident. (BTW I agree with everything you said, to add to it I don't think the Garda call out the riot police lightily, unless they feel there is going to be a problem).

It was two Donnybrook Gardaí in Stillorgan. Anthony Tighe and Michael Padden. Apparently the Garda driver was in excess of the legal limit for alcohol.

The problem was it was an ad-hoc group acting as a riot squad. They were organised enough to infiltrate the crowd with undercover officers, but not organised enough to have a plan to deal with the crowd.

MDR

Apparently the Garda driver was in excess of the legal limit for alcohol.

Where was that reported ?

Victor

Originally posted by MDR
Where was that reported ?

Apparently it hasn't, it wa sin teh coroner's report. The media don't want to raise the wrath of the Gardaí. Nice country we live in.

MDR

it wa sin teh coroner's report.

Did you see a copy of the report or is this good old hearsay ?

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
No I’m not. I’m saying that riot police do not in themselves mount offensive or pre-emptive operations.

Depends on their orders and the stakes. You can't possibly know what orders riot police have been given so stop pretending that you do. The miners strike was a good example. The only way to break the strike was to change tactics significantly and adopt a more aggressive offensive approach.

The only exception to the above is where riot police are used by an oppressive regime,

And who's to say what's an oppressive regime and what isn't? You? Like I said, it depends on the stakes and the orders of the day.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Victor
Apparently it hasn't, it wa sin teh coroner's report. The media don't want to raise the wrath of the Gardaí. Nice country we live in.

Yes, it is indeed terrible that journalists are afraid to publish anything that might paint the Gardaí in a bad light.

Before I go on, is there any evidence that journalists didn't report on it for that reason or is this all made up?