Suppression of free speech in Galway, Ireland

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

If anyone seriously believes that Tommy was shouting obscenities or calling the israeli tourist a "murderer", then you need your head examined.
Tommy has had that stall there for a number of years and i don't recall ever a fuss being made.
You obviously aren't giving any credibility to the 2 yanks statements to the gard, that clearly said Tommy was doing absoluetly nothing.


If i were in a public place, on a public road speaking to a gard over a contentious issue, it woudn't surprise me. And i wouldn't believe i had some right to privacy not to be filmed/recorded.

Red, I've seen that lad on the couple of occasions that I've been in Galway and usually just pass on by. It's the same with protesters here in Dublin, I just walk on by I don't let them bother me.

I do remember the American talking to the garda about what had happened. Obviously the garda listened to him and appeared to be writing into his notebook whenever the protester didn't have the camera at them. From what has happened the garda obviously didn't think what he had to say wasn't enough to save the protester from arrest.

The garda is hardly going to make a wrongful arrest on camera, with a large crowd of on-lookers. If he was on shaky legal ground then he looked and sounded smart enough to walk away rather than risk a wrongful arrest and a date in the High Court. If the protester has a problem with his arrest then he should make a complaint to GSOC, a complaints body independant of the Gardai.

Regarding the recording in the street, I should have clarified that it was the aspect of recording of the audio of the conversation which would have been an issue. It is a private conversation which shouldn't be recorded. I've no problem in the video aspect. He could have stayed back behind his table and videoed from there.

kmick

kmick wrote: »

Hard to know who was in the wrong here because I was not there but if any Garda ever tells me to stop filming or taking pictures in a public place I wont be complying. Some things are worth going to court for and that for me is one of them. Its outrageous that the gardai feel they can order people to stop taking a record under any circumstances.

He wasn't arrested for recording in public, he was arrested for failing to comply with the direction of a member of the garda siochana. He commited an offence under section 7 of the public order act and was directed to leave under section 8 of the same act. He failed to comply and was arrested under section 24 of the act. The garda's only issue with the camera was when it was brought up to him when he was trying to have a conversation with the two complainants and the other witness. He asked him to move away on each occasion, not to stop filiming.

prinz

Tommy was peacefully distributing leaflets and collecting signatures when he was approached by a couple of elderly and angry Israeli tourists. The man took exception to the IFPAL placard which displays the incontrovertible message that the Israeli Occupying Forces killed some 300 children when they invaded Gaza last December and January, a figure that the Zionist tourist claimed was false..... having been subjected to abuse and intimidation by the Israelis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x362079

Another man, who said that he was a Jewish theology professor from France, was also screaming that the posters were lies. The man behind the table had a video camera pointing at the screamers. He said only, Stop harassing me.
The woman (who I later learned was married to an Israeli) went off and got a garda (cop).

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/suppression-of-free-speech-in-galway-ireland.html

On a side note, even the people on one side here can't even get their story straight.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

Hard to know who was in the wrong here because I was not there but if any Garda ever tells me to stop filming or taking pictures in a public place I wont be complying. Some things are worth going to court for and that for me is one of them. Its outrageous that the gardai feel they can order people to stop taking a record under any circumstances.

When you're in the bank dealing with a cashier and someone sticks a camera in your face you'll be ok with that would you? Or even walking down the street, someone is recording your conversation with a friend? It's all well and good condemning rules and regulations until you're the one who wants it enforced..

OldJay

Bogger77 wrote: »

Since most of the main telco's in Ireland use Israeli billing software, who will the "Boycott the Zionists" use for telephone, mobile and landline?

Dunno. I guess they mean 'Boycott Israeli Trade...except the ones we need' lol

RedPlanet

prinz wrote: »

When you're in the bank dealing with a cashier and someone sticks a camera in your face you'll be ok with that would you? Or even walking down the street, someone is recording your conversation with a friend? It's all well and good condemning rules and regulations until you're the one who wants it enforced..

Since when is the inside of a bank the same as a public road?

the_syco

cornbb wrote: »

It seems to me like the pro-Palestine/cameraman guy was just hoping to get arrested as if it would make him some sort of martyr. He was hysterical, shoving a camera in everyone's face, looking for attention, and he got it.

Agreed.

=-=

What is the law with filming Gardai, without their permission? Also, I wonder how the Garda viewed the guy trying to film him taking a statment off witnesses?

If I'm doing shopping in town I'd rather mot listen to protesters tbh,no matter who they represent.

kmick

prinz wrote: »

When you're in the bank dealing with a cashier and someone sticks a camera in your face you'll be ok with that would you? Or even walking down the street, someone is recording your conversation with a friend? It's all well and good condemning rules and regulations until you're the one who wants it enforced..

A bank is a private institution not a public area so I am not sure what you mean by that. I would not a have a problem with someone filming me in a public place. There is no rules or regulation which prohibits someone from filming or taking pictures in public as far as I know so how could I be condemning something that does not exist??

prinz

RedPlanet wrote: »

Since when is the inside of a bank the same as a public road?

Even on a public road you have the right not to be recorded You have the right to a conversation with someone, without a third party who has been explicitly asked to refrain from recording it, without it being recorded. Even on a public street. Even if he wasn't recording anything, you have the right to a private word with someone with some other prat listening in on a private conversation, yes, even on a public street.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

A bank is a private institution not a public area so I am not sure what you mean by that. I would not a have a problem with someone filming me in a public place. There is no rules or regulation which prohibits someone from filming or taking pictures in public as far as I know so how could I be condemning something that does not exist??

Again, if someone wants to follow you with a videocam around Dublin while you're out shopping you think they have that right? And yes nobody has the right to record a Garda when they are dealing with a sensitive issue in the line of duty. He was repeatedly asked to move away and refrain. He didn't.

raindog.promo

rarnes1 wrote: »

If I'm doing shopping in town I'd rather mot listen to protesters tbh,no matter who they represent.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to protest an issue. Not that I'm saying you're saying that.

There is the threat that without people protesting the events portrayed in First The Came can be repeated

On the Galway incident, I think everyone could have handled the situation better on all sides.

Is it legal or not to film police in the street?
Can someone link to the legislation that makes it lawful/unlawful?

kmick

prinz wrote: »

Again, if someone wants to follow you with a videocam around Dublin while you're out shopping you think they have that right? .

All I said was there is no law against it I am sorry if you are confused about that.

prinz wrote: »

And yes nobody has the right to record a Garda when they are dealing with a sensitive issue in the line of duty. He was repeatedly asked to move away and refrain. He didn't.

He was arrested for breach of the peace not for filming.

RedPlanet

prinz wrote: »

Even on a public road you have the right not to be recorded

I don't think so prinz.
Think about it, everytime RTE records the news outside the Oireachtas, or outside the High Court or even of Grafton St, they might film some members of the general public, and even pickup some of their conversations.
If any of these people object or complain the the gards do you think the gards should get involved and shut them down?

How do you think the paparazi can make a living if they can't record and publish pictures of people out and about in public?

Nope, when you're in a public space, you, your image and the distance your voice carries, is FAIR GAME.
Having said that, i have a feeling the gards have a sneaky little law for themselves which precludes any member of the public from filming them.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

All I said was there is no law against it I am sorry if you are confused about that.

Actually there is.And no I am not confused.

kmick wrote: »

He was arrested for breach of the peace not for filming.

Exactly, I never said he was. However he wouldn't have been arrested if he had listened to the garda and followed his instructions in the first place would he? The garda gave him plenty of opportunities.

Slydice

edit: I realise this post is off topic to the thread in full so I created an after hours thread on it. Sorry Mods
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055667889
end edit.

PomBear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9ORXw8ulw

just watched this.

can anyone else make out what is being said in the background between 2mins 25secs and 2mins 35secs?

here's a link to jump to 2mins 25secs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9ORXw8ulw#t=2m25

so far I think it's

woman: what is it danny, like?
man: heh?
woman: what is it?

now this is where I get confused... I can't make out the start of what the man in the background replies but it ends with "of the ****ing jews"

does he reply with "a high cat of the ****ing jews"?

or is it "a high cap of the ****ing jews"?

or is it something else? I just can't make it out

edit: I realise this post is off topic to the thread in full so I created an after hours thread on it. Sorry Mods
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055667889
end edit.

lugha

RedPlanet wrote: »

I don't think so prinz.
Think about it, everytime RTE records the news outside the Oireachtas, or outside the High Court or even of Grafton St, they might film some members of the general public, and even pickup some of their conversations.
If any of these people object or complain the the gards do you think the gards should get involved and shut them down?

How do you think the paparazi can make a living if they can't record and publish pictures of people out and about in public?

It would be interesting to here if someone has the definitive word on what you can and cannot do re recording people. My understanding is that the broadcast / print media must get your permission if they are to broadcast your image or alternatively make an argument that the public interest is served by so doing. Whatever about the law it is pretty rude to stick a camera in someones face especially if they ask you not to.

prinz

RedPlanet wrote: »

I don't think so prinz.
Think about it, everytime RTE records the news outside the Oireachtas, or outside the High Court or even of Grafton St, they might film some members of the general public, and even pickup some of their conversations.
If any of these people object or complain the the gards do you think the gards should get involved and shut them down?
How do you think the paparazi can make a living if they can't record and publish pictures of people out and about in public?

If you go back about 4 pages you will find where I pointed out this was subject to various licenses etc which permit people to operate. TV, film crews, etc, usually these are governed by bye-laws etc in local authorities. If I wish to film a tv show in x public place, I would require the appropriate authorisation to film there.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Nope, when you're in a public space, you, your image and the distance your voice carries, is FAIR GAME.
Having said that, i have a feeling the gards have a sneaky little law for themselves which precludes any member of the public from filming them.

Er no it's not fair game. I have the right to talk to someone on the street without a thid party on the spot intentionally recording visual or audio of that without our permission.

LordSutch

In my opinion the Video stinks! the guy with the camera was far too cocky, and with a big chip on his shoulder :mad: He was obviously asking for trouble - (camera conviently in hand), & with the verbals to match. In any other European country the guy would have ended up in the paddy wagon within mins of giving verbal grief to the Police!

If you look at the set-up (sorry Video) you will notice that the camera guy has Giant Palestinian flags draped all over the walls behind him, with giant Anti-Israeli plackards, shouting to all & sundry To boycott all Israeli goods from all & any stores that sell goods that originate in Israel > for Christ sake "this guy was asking for trouble", and like a red rag to a bull two Jewish people understandably got annoyed & had a go at the camera toting idiot. And then the Northern guy achimes in at the end saying that he couldn't understand the Guards arresting "one of their own"

Well done to the very young cop who kept his cool in the face of major provocatuion.

RedPlanet

prinz wrote: »

Er no it's not fair game. I have the right to talk to someone on the street without a thid party on the spot intentionally recording visual or audio of that without our permission.

I honestly don't think so.
I think if you want to have a private conversation then a public space is not where you should be.

kmick

prinz wrote: »

Actually there is.And no I am not confused.

"Actually there is" is not very convincing Im afraid.
If you can point me in the direction of the laws you talk of then great.

lugha wrote: »

It would be interesting to here if someone has the definitive word on what you can and cannot do re recording people. My understanding is that the broadcast / print media must get your permission if they are to broadcast your image or alternatively make an argument that the public interest is served by so doing. Whatever about the law it is pretty rude to stick a camera in someones face especially if they ask you not to.

This outlines what you can and cannot do.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/pamphlets/

bubonicus

lugha wrote: »

It would be interesting to here if someone has the definitive word on what you can and cannot do re recording people. My understanding is that the broadcast / print media must get your permission if they are to broadcast your image or alternatively make an argument that the public interest is served by so doing. Whatever about the law it is pretty rude to stick a camera in someones face especially if they ask you not to.

Not sure about this, I recently had a camera crew push camera and micrphone into my car while stopped at traffic lights. And without my permission been asked, I found myself on the TV3 news.

lugha

bubonicus wrote: »

Not sure about this, I recently had a camera crew push camera and micrphone into my car while stopped at traffic lights. And without my permission been asked, I found myself on the TV3 news.

I wonder if permission is taken as implied if you actually engage in the interview? I have half a recollection that these wind up "Naked Camera" type shows had to subsequently get peoples permission to use their image. Or maybe I'm thinking of what is required in other countries?

source

1) A public place according to the Public Order act 1994 is:

3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
"public place" includes—
( a ) any highway,
( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and
( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

So to answer someones question about the bank, yes it is a public place.

2) He was not arrested for a breach of the peace, he was arrested for failing to comply with the directions of a member of an Garda Siochana.

3) Anybody can protest against anything they like in a peaceful manner on a public street, the issue is when that protest causes offence to others sharing said public place, while yes there is a right to free speech in this country, it is conditional, ie that you observe the laws of the state in doing so.

4) The point of filming on a public street, If in a public place, it is perfectly legal to film anyTHING in a public place, however if filming a person, and said person asks you to stop filming them, you must or it can be construed as an invasion of privacy. You most certainly don't film a Garda who is talking to the witness of an incident you are involved in. How can somebody be expected to give a full and frank account of what happened if one of the main people involved in the incident is filming them.

5) The Garda was correct in what he did, he received a complaint and attempted to investigate it, only to be shouted down by the protester, he then issued a direction under Section 8 for the protester to desist what he was doing and to leave the area,or he would be arrested which the protester refused to do. Now desisting what he was doing in this instance would include filming. He completely ignored the direction of the Garda and from what i can see from the video i agree with a number of other posters that he only wanted to be arrested.

_ZeeK_

dlofnep wrote: »

A man then lies to the Gardaí in an attempt to suppress the information, and it seemingly works - because based on his lies, the man his arrested.

Lets get one thing straight... Thats not why he was arrested! He was arrested because he was being abusive to the garda. Theres a manifest difference between standing up for your right of free speech and refusing to allow a garda to conduct a reasonable investigation. he was being self-defeating. He was being argumentative and uncooperative. He probably wouldn't have been arrested, and the demonstration would probably have been allowed to continue, if the Garda could have spoken without interruption to the American couple and established that the Jewish man's claims were false.

raindog.promo

foinse wrote: »

The Garda [...]issued a direction under Section 8 for the protester to desist what he was doing and to leave the area,or he would be arrested

So could he have left the area and returned 5 minutes later and set up his stall again?

source

raindog.promo wrote: »

So could he have left the area and returned 5 minutes later and set up his stall again?

The section does not specify a time limit, so technically yes he could so long as he is not engaging in the activity which had him removed from the area in the first place.If he continues to do what had him moved on then he can be arrested again because the original direction would still stand.

meathstevie

RedPlanet wrote: »

Since when is the inside of a bank the same as a public road?

If you're refering to the part of the bank to which someone can walk into from the street without any restrictions you would be talking about a public place or a place to which the public has access.

kmick

foinse wrote: »

So to answer someones question about the bank, yes it is a public place.

A bank is private property not a public place.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

"Actually there is" is not very convincing Im afraid.
If you can point me in the direction of the laws you talk of then great.

Article 8 ECHR, and various case law regarding same.


This outlines what you can and cannot do.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/pamphlets/[/quote]

Up to now, the right to privacy has been largely determined by a mixture of Constitutional rights, and ECHR caselaw - the Minister for Justice has previously said that the private interactions of a person - even in a public place - may be covered by the right to privacy -

it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs, unless your subject was in a situation where a reasonable person would believe that they’d brought their ‘portable sphere of privacy’ out with them

Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed - however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Important to note all these relate to photographers. I would argue that repeatedly asking someone not to record / photograph you establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also dealing with a member of the gardai IMO also establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy not to have our conversation recorded and put on Youtube.

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/IP%20Ezine%20-%20Ireland%20Considering%20Statutory%20Right%20of%20Privacy%20-%20G%20Kelly%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

This relates to the mentioned Privacy Bill, which is yet to be passed.


Privacy LawAlthough the Irish Constitution of 1937 does not contain an explicit right to privacy, its existence has been recognised by the Irish courts, notably by the High Court in Kennedy & Arnold v Ireland [1987] IR 587. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.
http://www.ictlaw.com/dp.htm

Article 40.3.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937 is the section normally used to guarantee the right to privacy in this jurisdiction.

kmick

prinz wrote: »

Article 8 ECHR, and various case law regarding same.
This outlines what you can and cannot do.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/pamphlets/

Important to note all these relate to photographers. I would argue that repeatedly asking someone not to record / photograph you establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also dealing with a member of the gardai IMO also establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy not to have our conversation recorded and put on Youtube.

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/IP%20Ezine%20-%20Ireland%20Considering%20Statutory%20Right%20of%20Privacy%20-%20G%20Kelly%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

This relates to the mentioned Privacy Bill, which is yet to be passed.


Privacy LawAlthough the Irish Constitution of 1937 does not contain an explicit right to privacy, its existence has been recognised by the Irish courts, notably by the High Court in Kennedy & Arnold v Ireland [1987] IR 587. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.
http://www.ictlaw.com/dp.htm

Article 40.3.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937 is the section normally used to guarantee the right to privacy in this jurisdiction.

All of this and it still comes back to the same point. There is no specific Irish law that can stop you taking pictures in public. All you have mentioned there is a bill that has not been passed and some waffle from a minister who thinks it 'may be covered by the right to privacy.' You have even taken some out of context like

prinz wrote: »

Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed - however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

continues on with
Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed - however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You’re perfectly entitled to take a photograph of someone walking down the street - but hiding in a tree to take a photo of them in their home may get you into trouble.

mikom

kmick wrote: »

You’re perfectly entitled to take a photograph of someone walking down the street

Does that include schoolchildren on their way to the playground?

I know one or two people who would disagree.

timmywex

Stupid video with terrbile editing, totally scripted aswell make it nearly funny to watch! Espicially the end with the lad witht he northern accent talking! Classic!

Aparently the"protester" wasnt abusing anyone, looked to me as if he was abusing the garda tbh!

timmywex

kmick wrote: »

A bank is private property not a public place.

Its private property AND a public place

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm going to set up a stall in Galway saying that people should boycott Palestinian goods because Palestinians blow up innocent civilians (in Israel).

I wonder how long I'll last (will possibly be attacked by the pro Palestinian majority before the guards arrive)

Galway would be a great location to use if you wish to highlight the case of Private Kevin Joyce who was kidnappened (and presumed murdered) by Palestinians (The PLO) in South Lebanon in 1980.

He's officially considered the longest held hostage in Lebanon.

Pte Joyce was only 18 yrs old and a native of Inisheer (Aran Islands).

As for the guards actions, for such a young man he firmly stood his ground in the face of an aggression because he knew he was in the right - fair play to the chap, I admire his attitude.

.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

All of this and it still comes back to the same point. There is no specific Irish law that can stop you taking pictures in public. All you have mentioned there is a bill that has not been passed and some waffle from a minister who thinks it 'may be covered by the right to privacy.' ....

(a) The quotes from digital rights relate to photographers

(b) Taking a picture of someone walking down the street, i.e. bystanders at a monument etc is not comparable to making a video with picture and audio of a specific member of the public dealing with a garda. "a reasonable expectation of privacy" are the key words. I'm talking to a friend and some lula sticks a microphone on our table in a restaurant, and says don't mind me I'm within my rights Well I'm perfectly within my rights under Irish and international law to tell him to f*** off and get that camera/microphone/video out of my face, and have a garda enforce my wishes if I so choose.

_ZeeK_

For a campaign that is seeking to capture or influence public opinion, it seems that this chap hasn't done the best PR job, as it seems from here that a lot of people are opposed to the actions he took.

prinz

As an aside having just watched it again and taken it all in our man Tommy needs to learn a lot of things, starting with what a zionist is.

imokyrok

Justind wrote: »

Have to laugh at all this 'outrage'.

Left-wing political 'action' groups, such as this fella's, are going to be more visible now simply because they are involved in the 'No' Vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Thats all. They're selling a 'No' vote on emotional blackmail and conveniently tilted views.

Something very sanctimonious and hypocritical about said ilk. If they really gave a stuff about what goes on in Israel and/or Palestine, they'd be camped outside the Israeli Embassy protesting.
I work beside that Embassy and haven't seen anyone there since january.

Are Coir a leftwing action group? I think it's a fairly mixed bunch on both sides of the debate. I'm considered a leftie and I'm totally in favour of Lisbon and the EU generally. I've no idea why the protestor is against Lisbon.

chalkitdown

prinz wrote: »

As an aside having just watched it again and taken it all in our man Tommy needs to learn a lot of things, starting with what a zionist is.

You should teach him, you appear to have most of the attributes.

OldJay

imokyrok wrote: »

Are Coir a leftwing action group? I think it's a fairly mixed bunch on both sides of the debate. I'm considered a leftie and I'm totally in favour of Lisbon and the EU generally. I've no idea why the protestor is against Lisbon.

Coir are not members of the group I was referring to.

imokyrok

Miya Powerful Searchlight wrote: »

Galway would be a great location to use if you wish to highlight the case of Private Kevin Joyce who was kidnappened (and presumed murdered) by Palestinians (The PLO) in South Lebanon in 1980.

He's officially considered the longest held hostage in Lebanon.

Pte Joyce was only 18 yrs old and a native of Inisheer (Aran Islands).

.

Yes, it is believed that Private Joyce was kidnapped by a PLO faction that wanted to embarrass Arafat who had good relations with UNIFIL at the time. Most of the dificulties the Irish Army had during peacekeeping in Lebanon were at the hands of Israel and militia supported by Israel. The murders of Privates Derek Smallhorn and Justin Barrett and shooting of John O'Mahony at the hands of Saad Haddads men was a case in point. The Israelis refused to hand over the two suspects for questioning and later assisted them to leave the area, through Israel, and settle in Detroit. The Irish Army also had intelligence which suggested a Shin Bet officer had been present at those murders. Private Stephen Griffin was another Irish soldier shot dead by Haddads men. Irish officers believed Israel was complicit in all these killings.

the_syco

PomBear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9ORXw8ulw

What a heavily edited load of sh|te. And he still acts like an ignorant pr|ck. He talks over the Garda on multiple occasions, and still thinks he should get away scot free?

zing zong wrote: »

A pamphlet listed stores in Galway that sold Israeli goods and how to spot them.

I wonder does this pamphlet get updated? Or does he get people to boycott stores wen when they have stopped selling such goods? In these times, when shops are closing, his efforts are no doubt putting innocent people out of a job.

prinz

chalkitdown wrote: »

You should teach him, you appear to have most of the attributes.

Such as...?

wes

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder does this pamphlet get updated? Or does he get people to boycott stores wen when they have stopped selling such goods? In these times, when shops are closing, his efforts are no doubt putting innocent people out of a job.

Hyperbole, much? You making a massive stretch here tbh and are basically accusing the guys of causing people to lose there jobs, which is quite frankly a ridiculous accusation to come up with. Sure, you may as well blame him on swine flu. as I am sure the guy has sneezed sometime in his life.

imokyrok

the_syco wrote: »

What a heavily edited load of sh|te. And he still acts like an ignorant pr|ck. He talks over the Garda on multiple occasions, and still thinks he should get away scot free?


I wonder does this pamphlet get updated? Or does he get people to boycott stores wen when they have stopped selling such goods? In these times, when shops are closing, his efforts are no doubt putting innocent people out of a job.

Boycotting Israeli goods is an excellent non violent means of protesting. It's just a shame the EU don't join in as they did with South Africa. Before the anti-semitism charges are made I am also in favour of economic sanctions on countries which conduct gender apartheid like Saudi Arabia, especially wealthy ones.

wes

imokyrok wrote: »

Boycotting Israeli goods is an excellent non violent means of protesting. It's just a shame the EU don't join in as they did with South Africa. Before the anti-semitism charges are made I am also in favour of economic sanctions on countries which conduct gender apartheid like Saudi Arabia, especially wealthy ones.

Arabs are Semites too :P.

Joking aside, boycotts against regimes like the Israeli and Saudi ones are perfectly legitimate.

lugha

wes wrote: »

Arabs are Semites too :P.

Joking aside, boycotts against regimes like the Israeli and Saudi ones are perfectly legitimate.

What about regimes that seek to annihilate another state?

source

kmick wrote: »

A bank is private property not a public place.

I posted a legal definition of a public place, which would include the service area of a bank.this section of the bank is considered a public place however the "back rooms" where the public do not have a right to enter is a private place.

My name is Mud

Let me get this straight...

If I dont buy avocados, Iran will stop supplying weapons to Hizbollah and Hamas?

I do like avocados though.