Irish Communism today

Treason

Valmont wrote: »

Although, per your point regarding the wholesome and favourable elements of totalitarianism, we really have it exceptionally brilliant if all we have to put up with is a few break-ins from the police.

From your own personal experience is it, hard man. Im sure many of the totalitarian bureaucrats and police chiefs had it exceptionally brilliant also. Indeed I doubt most people who lived in totalitarian societies faced any type of break-ins from the secret service like I have experienced. Indeed, as per the evidence, most people prefered the totalitarianism that they once lived in.

Their daily experiences are a far cry from your biblical partisan imagination of eternal hell, which of course, is complete nonsense.

Btw Valmount, do you personally know anyone who lives under an authoritarian dictatorship? Half of my family does, in a state once aligned to the soviet bloc, and which proclaims itself 'socialist' - my father and three brothers, grandad, grandmother, uncles, aunties. Their existence is far from brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive. Infact it was so attractive that my father went back to live there having spent nine years in Ireland. Amazing isnt it.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

I cannot provide statistics on this. I can tell you that I and three other people I personally know have had their houses raided and have been arrested for our political views.

You can tell me that, but unless the charge you were arrested on was "political views", all you are doing is making an unsubstantiated claim.

I am sure the process is similar to what may have occurred in totalitarian systems. Justifications are "created" to remove or oppress political opponents.

strange that Enda Kenny has never been arrested on trumped-up charges, isn't it?

I have no criminal record, I am not a member of any organisation and never was. There was not reasonable basis to connect me with the crime. A significant portion of the interview was about my political views.

No doubt you've lodged several complaints with the GSOC?

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can tell me that, but unless the charge you were arrested on was "political views", all you are doing is making an unsubstantiated claim.

Unfortunately only those who sought and planned the arrest can 'substantiate' their intentions and motives. Such substantiations will never be made public or admitted - no more so than a gardai admitting used illegal methods while not being filmed during my interrogation.

The arrest does not have to have been legally for political views for it have occurred due to those political views. To believe otherwise is to be entirely naive to how the Irish secret service operates.

I can only tell you in the frankest way possible that that was why they targeted me for arrest. I would have not belived it fully, or understood it until it hapened to me.

If the secret service want to act then they will wait for an opportunity or reason to act, but within legal parameters which allow and justify those actions - despite other motives.

strange that Enda Kenny has never been arrested on trumped-up charges, isn't it?

Enda Kenny does not live in a totalitarian dictatorship so why would he be arrested?

The Irish social system is different. It targets different people for arrest and controls the populace differently. The political structures are different and allows organisations to participate within the boundaries established by the state.

Does that mean acts of brutality, dehumanisation and political targeting does not occur? - of course not. They do, it happened to me and many others.

No doubt you've lodged several complaints with the GSOC?

In futility yes. I consulted with solicitors and contacted the state claims agency looking for compensation for property damage also, to no avail

The GSOC are a complete joke. Their remit includes:

"Investigate any practice, policy or procedure of the Garda Síochána with a view to reducing the incidence of related complaints. "

Iv only been in a garda station once in my life and I can suggest one simple measure to avoid the sort of police brutality that occurred to me - have continuous CCTV filming during interrogations.

Of course, that does not happen. Instead, the gardai can do almost what they like before and after the formal interview tapes are placed.

Also, the statistics in relation to the GSOC are abysmal. 2000 complaints per year resulting in 9 referrals.

Besides, It is completely futile to complain to anyone about the motives of the Irish secret service when only they can substantiate their motives and intentions.

Catch22. But that is the complexity and malevolence of state power. My naivity has been washed away through experience with it.

Valmont

Treason wrote: »

Indeed, as per the evidence, most people prefered the totalitarianism that they once lived in.

You haven't provided any evidence that is even close to suggesting that people prefer living in totalitarian states. Where is it? I look at the election results in former Soviet Bloc countries that clearly indicate that people do not want to return to totalitarian communism. I'm aghast that we're arguing here about the desirability of living under totalitarianism. The Great Terror? Gulags? You fob them off simply because the people hurt were smaller in numbers than those who were! That's a distortion of the maddest kind.

Treason wrote: »

Btw Valmount,

Agh people always call me Valmount. Valmont, please. I'm not going to mount anything.

Treason wrote: »

do you personally know anyone who lives under an authoritarian dictatorship?

No, but it doesn't conveniently weaken our argumentative stance as you seem to think it does. I've read Aleksander Solzhenitsyn but you don't see me furnishing that as evidence.

Treason

You haven't provided any evidence that is even close to suggesting that people prefer living in totalitarian states. Where is it? I look at the election results in former Soviet Bloc countries that clearly indicate that people do not want to return to totalitarian communism. I'm aghast that we're arguing here about the desirability of living under totalitarianism. The Great Terror? Gulags? You fob them off simply because the people hurt were smaller in numbers than those who were! That's a distortion of the maddest kind.

You must think people are stupid. Do you actually think that those voting in elections believe that by voting in the "Communist" Party of X that there will be a return to the totalitarianism for which they have previously lived? - what do you take them for, mugs?

Pressing the button or ticking the box "Communist Party of Serbia" does not = Yugoslavia 1985.

You are comparing elections - which reflect peoples preferences of this or that organisation or personality - to what was in actuality a working system that people have experienced.

The opinion polls I have already posted are reflections of peoples views and experiences of the actual real life systems which existed.

There is no comparsion.

And since your mad about Ukranian electoralism, who topped the Ukranian parliamentary elections in 1998? - Who came second in the presidential elections of 1999?

The answer kinda defeats your whole "argument", flawed as it is.

No, but it doesn't conveniently weaken our argumentative stance as you seem to think it does. I've read Aleksander Solzhenitsyn but you don't see me furnishing that as evidence.

You have no argument. You are throwing around pieties of the universal and eternal hell people faced in these systems despite the experiential evidence to the contrary.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

Unfortunately only those who sought and planned the arrest can 'substantiate' their intentions and motives. Such substantiations will never be made public or admitted - no more so than a gardai admitting used illegal methods while not being filmed during my interrogation.

The arrest does not have to have been legally for political views for it have occurred due to those political views. To believe otherwise is to be entirely naive to how the Irish secret service operates.

I can only tell you in the frankest way possible that that was why they targeted me for arrest. I would have not belived it fully, or understood it until it hapened to me.

If the secret service want to act then they will wait for an opportunity or reason to act, but within legal parameters which allow and justify those actions - despite other motives.

Sorry, but from where I'm sitting all you're doing is putting forward conspiracy theories. You're claiming that there's a brutally oppressive regime at work in Ireland, which apparently is targeted exclusively at the tiny handful of people who happen to share your political views. I'm sure if you look at it objectively, you can understand how that sounds.

The comparison was made earlier with those Republicans who oppose the GFA. That's an interesting comparison, because such Republicans - pretty much by definition - express support for achieving political change through terrorism. Now, you can claim that people who express support for terrorism are being targeted for their political views, but the bottom line is that they are being targeted for their support for murder as a political strategy.

I'm not going to claim that you support murder as a political strategy, but I'm tempted to assume that if the police are as interested in you as you claim they are, it's not because you voted for Joe Higgins last time out.

Enda Kenny does not live in a totalitarian dictatorship so why would he be arrested?

Enda Kenny lives in Ireland. I thought we were talking about the Irish police.

The Irish social system is different. It targets different people for arrest and controls the populace differently. The political structures are different and allows organisations to participate within the boundaries established by the state.

Yes, that's how states work. You can pretend that you don't operate within the strictures of the state, but I'm pretty damn confident you spend its currency.

In futility yes. I consulted with solicitors and contacted the state claims agency looking for compensation for property damage also, to no avail

The GSOC are a complete joke. Their remit includes:

"Investigate any practice, policy or procedure of the Garda Síochána with a view to reducing the incidence of related complaints. "

Iv only been in a garda station once in my life and I can suggest one simple measure to avoid the sort of police brutality that occurred to me - have continuous CCTV filming during interrogations.

Of course, that does not happen. Instead, the gardai can do almost what they like before and after the formal interview tapes are placed.

I don't know about you, but if I was arrested for something I didn't do, the only words I would say to the arresting officer would be "I want my solicitor present".

Also, the statistics in relation to the GSOC are abysmal. 2000 complaints per year resulting in 9 referrals.

Do you have reliable statistics that show that more complaints than this had merit?

Besides, It is completely futile to complain to anyone about the motives of the Irish secret service when only they can substantiate their motives and intentions.

It's pretty futile to come onto this forum claiming that there's an entire Gestapo headquartered in Phoenix Park with the sole purpose of oppressing you and the handful of people who share your political views, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

Catch22. But that is the complexity and malevolence of state power. My naivity has been washed away through experience with it.

And yet, mine hasn't, and neither has that of anyone I know. I guess we're just not expressing the right set of political views. Maybe all I need to do is post on here that the Soviet Union was an idyllic paradise, and the Gestapo will kick my door in too?

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but from where I'm sitting all you're doing is putting forward conspiracy theories.

Well it is impossible to 'prove' anything unless the Irish secret police were to admit to it.

So since that is never going to happen, one can only deduce a position based upon the known facts of what occurred.

I was targeted because of my political views and was arrested for something entirely unrelated to my politics, that involved people I never saw in my life, that occurred in a seperate county to where I live and despite never having committed any offence before. I know the facts of what occurred and if you do not believe them then I cannot prove one way or another.

You're

claiming that there's a brutally oppressive regime at work in Ireland, which apparently is targeted exclusively at the tiny handful of people who happen to share your political views.

I never said they shared my political views. I said we were targeted for our political views.

And yes, it is brutally oppressive - I should know.

The comparison was made earlier with those Republicans who oppose the GFA. That's an interesting comparison, because such Republicans - pretty much by definition - express support for achieving political change through terrorism.

Well I wouldnt say Eirigi or the RNU express support for change through terrorism.

Now, you can claim that people who express support for terrorism are being targeted for their political views, but the bottom line is that they are being targeted for their support for murder as a political strategy.

It is one thing to arrest people for support/engaging in terrorism and another using an entirely unrrelated crime as justification to arrest lawful people for expressing political views.

That is what happened.

I'm not going to claim that you support murder as a political strategy, but I'm tempted to assume that if the police are as interested in you as you claim they are, it's not because you voted for Joe Higgins last time out.

Well your claims are wrong. I do not support murder as a political strategy.

Really, you claim to be objective? - that is becoming laughable with such claims.

Enda Kenny lives in Ireland. I thought we were talking about the Irish police. Yes, that's how states work.

No. We were talking about the claim that totalitarian systems were universally brutal. I claimed, quite logically, that they were not - and that whether something is brutal depends on who and where you are within such a system. I also claimed that Ireland is arguably brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive for this reason.

You can pretend that you don't operate within the strictures of the state, but I'm pretty damn confident you spend its currency. I don't know about you, but if I was arrested for something I didn't do, the only words I would say to the arresting officer would be "I want my solicitor present".

I did have a solicitor present - being a legal entitlement.

Do you have reliable statistics that show that more complaints than this had merit?

My complaints had merit because I know what happened to me, and of the abuses during my confinement. They were dropped by the GSOC.

If they dropped my comlaints then I believe it is reasonable to assume many others had merit. The failures being the inability of victims to prove their case against the word of a gardai - particularly when there is no continuous CCTV in operation.

It's pretty futile to come onto this forum claiming that there's an entire Gestapo headquartered in Phoenix Park with the sole purpose of oppressing you and the handful of people who share your political views, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

The irish state operates differently to that of totalitarian states, as do the mechanisms of social control.

But no, despite their oppression I will not let it stop me. I have the courage of my convictions.

And yet, mine hasn't, and neither has that of anyone I know. I guess we're just not expressing the right set of political views. Maybe all I need to do is post on here that the Soviet Union was an idyllic paradise, and the Gestapo will kick my door in too?

Oh im sure the irish secret police monitor internet communications quite closely. The secret police may come knocking when you least expect it. And dont expect the redtop media to let the likes of others who hold views like yours to know the extent of it when they do.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

Well it is impossible to 'prove' anything unless the Irish secret police were to admit to it.

The "Irish secret police" are a figment of your imagination.

You can claim that me saying this shows that I'm hopelessly naive, but that's the same thing I hear from people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job or that lizards are running the world.

If you're going to continue to claim that there's an Irish secret police, adduce some evidence other than your unsubstantiated story, otherwise please stop it.

I was targeted because of my political views and was arrested for something entirely unrelated to my politics, that involved people I never saw in my life, that occurred in a seperate county to where I live and despite never having committed any offence before. I know the facts of what occurred and if you do not believe them then I cannot prove one way or another.

I don't believe that you've told us the full story, no. I don't believe in the existence of an "Irish secret police" that kicks down the doors of law-abiding citizens who happen to express particular political views. For one thing, you haven't made it clear what those particular views are, or why they should be so utterly terrifying that the police (on whose orders, by the way?) should feel the need to try to intimidate you into holding your tongue.

Well I wouldnt say Eirigi or the RNU express support for change through terrorism.

If there's an alternative explanation for being vehemently opposed to a peace process other than a desire for violence, I'm all ears.

It is one thing to arrest people for support/engaging in terrorism and another using an entirely unrrelated crime as justification to arrest lawful people for expressing political views.

That is what happened.

Allegedly.

Well your claims are wrong. I do not support murder as a political strategy.

Really, you claim to be objective? - that is becoming laughable with such claims.

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. If you have such trouble understanding what others are saying, it may be understandable that you believe you're being singled out by the "secret police" for your views.

No. We were talking about the claim that totalitarian systems were universally brutal. I claimed, quite logically, that they were not - and that whether something is brutal depends on who and where you are within such a system. I also claimed that Ireland is arguably brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive for this reason.

No system is universally brutal. Some systems are brutal on a horrific scale; others on a miniscule scale. You are conflating your alleged mistreatment at the hands of the police with the gulags of Siberia and other such atrocities. I think you need to adjust your sense of perspective.

The irish state operates differently to that of totalitarian states, as do the mechanisms of social control.

Given a choice between the Irish state's mechanism of social control and that of totalitarian regimes, I guess I'll take my chances in Ireland, thanks.

Now, maybe you feel differently. Maybe you feel you'd be better off in a totalitarian state. The question is: would you feel better off in a totalitarian state if you disagreed with the views of the regime? Would you feel safer publicly expressing contrarian political views in Ireland or North Korea?

No, despite their oppression I will not let it stop me. I have the courage of my convictions.

Me too. Strangely, it hasn't gotten me arrested yet, despite my repeated public denunciations of the government. I wonder what I'm doing wrong.

Oh im sure the irish secret police monitor internet communications quite closely. The secret police may come knocking when you least expect it. And dont expect the redtop media to let the likes of others who hold view like you to know the extent of it.

I don't read the red-top media. And the police can monitor my Internet communications to their heart's content - I too have the courage of my convictions.

I'll sit here and hold my breath - I'm sure it will only be a matter of minutes before my door is kicked down on a trumped-up charge.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "Irish secret police" are a figment of your imagination.

LOL. As fictitious as the Gestapo.

You can claim that me saying this shows that I'm hopelessly naive, but that's the same thing I hear from people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job or that lizards are running the world.

I am not one for conspiricy theories myself. Gardai abuse of powers is well documented and with historical precident. Your comparisons to lizzards and remote control planes are a non-runner.

If you're going to continue to claim that there's an Irish secret police, adduce some evidence other than your unsubstantiated story, otherwise please stop it.

There is a well researched article recently in 'The Phoenix' entitled "Gardai: No Cuts No Scrutiny" in which it gives details of the Irish secret police.

It says that it's exact designation is unknown. The article states that they "have wide ranging powers. These now include the right to burgle and search without warrant and to intercept phones, emails and text messages." The CSB have a budget of 500,000 euro annually and have a UAV system which performs electronic and multi-spectral surveillance. It mentions "the Lawful Interception (LI) centre at Garda HQ, where 100 staff are employed on eavesdropping, internet spying and related duties". It also states that security and intellgence accounts for 20% of Garda resources, and that operational details are only reported to the minister for justice in an unpublished annual report compiled by the garda commissioner.

All very secretive indeed.

I don't believe that you've told us the full story, no. I don't believe in the existence of an "Irish secret police" that kicks down the doors of law-abiding citizens who happen to express particular political views.

That is what happened.

For one thing, you haven't made it clear what those particular views are, or why they should be so utterly terrifying that the police (on whose orders, by the way?) should feel the need to try to intimidate you into holding your tongue.

I advocated the creation or maintaining of a revolutionary organisation capable of excerting military force when necessary for tactical and short term political objectives. This was at a highly sensitive time when the INLA began to wind up late 2008. My late uncle was a member of the IRSP.

Again, arresting me for something entirely unrelated was motivated because of my political views. If I did something illegal then they should have arrested me on that basis.

If there's an alternative explanation for being vehemently opposed to a peace process other than a desire for violence, I'm all ears.

Where is the peace process? - state forces breaking down doors and forcefully arresting people is not peaceful. Not in my book anyway. Both the PSNI and gardai do this regularly.

Any solution must first emerge from an objective analysis of social problems, not through the repeating of dominant concepts of violence.

No system is universally brutal. Some systems are brutal on a horrific scale; others on a miniscule scale. You are conflating your alleged mistreatment at the hands of the police with the gulags of Siberia and other such atrocities.

I did not conflate my treatment to the gulags. I gave my treatment as an example of brutality to support my argument that systems are not universally brutal - as someone had claimed.

Clearly, from the opinion polls, most people's memories of totalitarianism were not of horrific treatment in gulags. No more than that Irish peoples experiences were of being in the "Irish Gulags" where state supported pedo priests inflicted the worst kind of abuses imaginable on thousands of young Irish people.

To make a caricature of Ireland based upon such incidents comes from propagandists and people with an axe to grind. Totalitarianism is tainted in a similar fashion.

I think you need to adjust your sense of perspective. Given a choice between the Irish state's mechanism of social control and that of totalitarian regimes, I guess I'll take my chances in Ireland, thanks.

So would I. that does not justify brutality by state forces however, no matter how much you want to sweep it under the rug.

Now, maybe you feel differently. Maybe you feel you'd be better off in a totalitarian state. The question is: would you feel better off in a totalitarian state if you disagreed with the views of the regime? Would you feel safer publicly expressing contrarian political views in Ireland or North Korea? Me too.

I never said I would prefer to be in a totalitarian state.

Strangely, it hasn't gotten me arrested yet, despite my repeated public denunciations of the government.

Why do you keep comparing totalitarianism with Ireland?

Just because you may get arrested for repeated "public denunciations of the government" in totalitarianism does not mean it happens in Ireland.

Nor have I ever claimed that this was the case. Indeed there are more to 'political views' than denouncing whatever gombeens are elected to leinster House.

I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I don't read the red-top media. And the police can monitor my Internet communications to their heart's content - I too have the courage of my convictions.

Well you wont know until the secret police come knocking.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

What started as a discussion on communism in Ireland today has become a discussion about the Irish Secret Police?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

Ah, so the poster I'm responding to believes in the Irish "secret" police. in fact he claims to have been subjected to its "iron grip" or whatever the effect of it is.

Hm.

All this reminds me of this poem:

The annual air show protest (Kevin Higgins)

U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds are God
taking pneumatic drills to the sky.
The cat covers his ears and retires
to the back of the wardrobe.
Elsewhere, a demo gives old friends
somewhere to put their anger.
The man who, every chance he gets,
ticks you off for bearing false witness
against East Germany, hands out red balloons.
His moustache stops to congratulate itself.
His heartbeat hammers: Long Live Stalin!
Long Live Stalin! A guy with purple hair
offers Food Not Bombs to an elderly
white woman with dreadlocks.

You uproot weeds, tell yourself
if their dream republic got born,
the cat wouldn't be crouching
in the dark, but cold between slices
of questionable brown-bread
- all you'd have to eat - know
you're more likely to go
into the night on a unicycle
screaming: Free Paris Hilton!
Free Paris Hilton! than accept
another red balloon from them.

Treason

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, so the poster I'm responding to believes in the Irish "secret" police. in fact he claims to have been subjected to its "iron grip" or whatever the effect of it is.

What point are you making? - if none then do not bother posting. We can all post poems and repeat what other posters have said.

Treason

Treason wrote: »

What point are you making?

This one re: Your dream republic.

If their dream republic got born,
the cat wouldn't be crouching
in the dark, but cold between slices
of questionable brown-bread.
All you'd have to eat.

Communism isn't happening.
There is nothing you can do about it.
If you try to "educate" us, we will ignore your rants.
If you try to force it on us, we will ignore you and laugh.
If you try to force it upon us by disruption to our lives, we will arrest you.
If you try to force it upon us by endangering lives, we will arrest you, or even kill you if that is impossible.

Communism is dead. Live with it.

Treason

Deleted User wrote: »

Communism isn't happening.

I am not sure what you mean. Struggles of resistance against capitalism and social antagonisms are continuous, and with the communist movement being at the fore of it in Ireland. Be it the anti-war movement, shell to sea, anti-bintax, anti-water tax, pro palestine etc. The list of activities by the large anti-capitalist left in this country are endless.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Communists can only try. Indeed they are successful in many respects.

If you try to "educate" us, we will ignore your rants.
If you try to force it on us, we will ignore you and laugh.
If you try to force it upon us by disruption to our lives, we will arrest you.
If you try to force it upon us by endangering lives, we will arrest you, or even kill you if that is impossible.

Are you taking sequence from Gandhi?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

Communism is dead. Live with it.

Clearly it is not. Communism is very popular right across europe. Here are just some of photo's I took while in Catalonia this year.

Left right and centre are left wing murals and Graffiti right throughout Catalonia - and indeed the Basque country and Cantabria where I also visited.

Ireland is quite conservative politically, but across europe communism has quite a presence. This is not always reflected in elections - particularly when the left is so divided, and with many communists - such as council communists and anarchists opposing the whole notion of electorlaism.

Communism is more alive than you may think.

Hmm. A bunch of murals on a bunch of walls and he calls it alive.

Sure thing Joe, sure thing. You keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile the rest of us will get on with our lives.

I'm bowing out and leaving it to Mr. Lefty-crazy here :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

Treason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

Capitalism: The end of history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUyib7FeuF4

dsmythy

Treason. Sir, are you a member of the Communist Party?

Treason wrote: »

I advocated the creation or maintaining of a revolutionary organisation capable of excerting military force when necessary for tactical and short term political objectives. This was at a highly sensitive time when the INLA began to wind up late 2008. My late uncle was a member of the IRSP.

On a more serious note we don't need the police force to be secret to ask questions of certain things people advocate.

Treason

dsmythy wrote: »

Treason. Sir, are you a member of the Communist Party?



On a more serious note we don't need the police force to be secret to ask questions of certain things people advocate.

Ask away dsmythy. But when the Gardai use underhanded methods - that is, using another unrelated crime as an excuse to arrest and raid people's homes because they hold or have expressed political views, then one must ask questions about the transparency of the whole thing.

I can see why having views such as those which I have expressed are unpalatable for most people, and that the state itself is fundamentally against them.

But there is no limit to such underhanded tactics like these. They could be used against anyone just the same way they have been used against me - all it could depend on is the political climate which may exist at any one time. If there was a problem of a culture of racism amongst members of gardai, for example, such measures could easily be used to harrass minorities and there is not one thing anyone could do about it as the justification for taking such actions is all above board. is it beyond reasonable doubt that the gardai use such methods frequently - against suspected gang members, drug dealers? - or against inner city youth who the Gardai take a dislike of?

"Raid their homes" on another pretext in the off chance they may find something incriminating to really throw at them?

I am telling you it happened to me. The actual process for the Gardai to be able to undertake it is so very simple - and not something to be vehemently skeptical of. And considering gardai abuses of power historically one should not be skeptical of it.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

I advocated the creation or maintaining of a revolutionary organisation capable of excerting military force when necessary for tactical and short term political objectives.

That's not a political view, that's a subversive one. Frankly, I'm pretty happy that the police force ("secret" or otherwise) is keeping tabs on people who advocate violence because they can't achieve their political objectives through democratic means.

That's what the police are for: to protect people like me from people like you. If you don't want the police to bother you, don't advocate sedition. I don't want your proposed armed revolutionary organisation to exist, and I want the police to do what's necessary to prevent it from existing.

If you can't achieve your objectives through peaceful means, perhaps you should consider whether they're worth spilling blood to achieve them in the first place.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a political view, that's a subversive one. Frankly, I'm pretty happy that the police force ("secret" or otherwise) is keeping tabs on people who advocate violence because they can't achieve their political objectives through democratic means.

That's what the police are for: to protect people like me from people like you. If you don't want the police to bother you, don't advocate sedition. I don't want your proposed armed revolutionary organisation to exist, and I want the police to do what's necessary to prevent it from existing.

If you can't achieve your objectives through peaceful means, perhaps you should consider whether they're worth spilling blood to achieve them in the first place.

If the expression of my views are deemed illegal or criminal then the state should within it's own legal framework take action against me.

Using underhanded methods to arrest people for expressing a political view is simply wrong - by the states own definition. As I have said - it could be me one minute - anyone else the gardai or government regime take a disliking to another.

Nor should they illegally abuse people while in custody.

There is no accountability to the whole thing.

And if you are 'happy' about such actions then you being hypocritical and contradicting yourself - being the 'democrat" that you are.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

If the expression of my views are deemed illegal or criminal then the state should within it's own legal framework take action against me.

I agree. I think the expression of such views should be punishable by law. At the very least, you have to admit that it was pretty ill-advised (to put it kindly) to advocate the creation of an organisation such as we've been working hard to get rid of for decades.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

And if you are 'happy' about such actions then you being hypocritical and contradicting yourself - being the 'democrat" that you are.

In order of preference: I think that there should be a clear criminal law under which you can (and should) be prosecuted for advocated the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of my country. Failing that, it comes to a choice between allowing such an organisation to exist, and using such tactics as are necessary to disrupt its operation.

I'd rather see terrorists and wannabe terrorists dealt with under clearly-articulated laws, but at the end of the day I still want to be kept safe from you. If my choice is between having you allegedly harassed to prevent you from creating the paramilitary organisation you advocate, and being at risk from that organisation, my choice is clear.

Why do you need to kill people to achieve your political aims? Are they so obviously unattractive that the only way you can bring them about is to bully people into submission rather than persuading them to vote for you?

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

I agree. I think the expression of such views should be punishable by law. At the very least, you have to admit that it was pretty ill-advised (to put it kindly) to advocate the creation of an organisation such as we've been working hard to get rid of for decades.

What my views are is completely irrelevent.

The issue is that the Gardai can use another pretext to justify the raiding of homes and arrest people for whatever reason they may have.

Such methods could be used beyond ones political views - a persons religion, race or any legal activities the gardai or government regime take a disliking to.

Some democrat you are.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do you need to kill people to achieve your political aims? Are they so obviously unattractive that the only way you can bring them about is to bully people into submission rather than persuading them to vote for you?

I never said I advocated killing people to achieve political aims. I advocated military force.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

What my views are is completely irrelevent.

Not if your views are that it's OK to pursue a political agenda through violence, no. Again: that's not a political view, it's a subversive one. It's a rejection of politics, and of democracy.

You are advocating the use of violence against the state - in other words, against the people of Ireland. I would rather not see such a view dealt with by underhanded means; I would rather see such a view punishable by law.

You, on the other hand, seem to feel that it is perfectly acceptable to threaten violence against the people of my country, but get all upset when the police don't talk nicely to you.

And then you accuse me of hypocrisy.

I ask again: why do you advocate political views which are so repugnant that people won't vote for them, but that require violence to implement?

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

I never said I advocated killing people to achieve political aims. I advocated military force.

Military force involving the aggressive wielding of feather dusters?

What's the point of a military force that can't and won't kill anyone?

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not if your views are that it's OK to pursue a political agenda through violence, no. Again: that's not a political view, it's a subversive one. It's a rejection of politics, and of democracy.

You are advocating the use of violence against the state - in other words, against the people of Ireland. I would rather not see such a view dealt with by underhanded means; I would rather see such a view punishable by law.

You, on the other hand, seem to feel that it is perfectly acceptable to threaten violence against the people of my country, but get all upset when the police don't talk nicely to you.

And then you accuse me of hypocrisy.

I ask again: why do you advocate political views which are so repugnant that people won't vote for them, but that require violence to implement?

It seems you are having great difficulty grasping the issue here.

Let me repeat what I have made very clear:

What my views are is completely irrelevent.

The issue is that the Gardai can use another pretext to justify the raiding of homes and arrest people for whatever reason they may have.

Such methods could be used beyond ones political views - a persons religion, race or any legal activities the gardai or government regime take a disliking to.

Now if you are happy with a section or gang of Gardai using what are quite most likely illegal methods, and what are certainly unaccountable, then you are no democrat.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Military force involving the aggressive wielding of feather dusters?

What's the point of a military force that can't and won't kill anyone?

The same "point" for which military action was taken against the unmanned Mount Gabrial Radar station.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

It seems you are having great difficulty grasping the issue here.

Let me repeat what I have made very clear:

What my views are is completely irrelevent.

The issue is that the Gardai can use another pretext to justify the raiding of homes and arrest people for whatever reason they may have.

Such methods could be used beyond ones political views - a persons religion, race or any legal activities the gardai or government regime take a disliking to.

Your point might just rise above the level of farce if you were actually claiming to have been subject to Garda harassment because of your religion, race or legal activity. Instead, you're claiming to have been subject to Garda harassment as a result of advocating the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of this state.

Now, maybe there's no difference in your mind between a gay rights parade and blowing up the property of the Irish state, but I'm afraid all that does is illustrate your state of mind.

Now if you are happy with a section or gang of Gardai using what are quite most likely illegal methods, and what are certainly unaccountable, then you are no democrat.

I'll give you this: you're a gas man. I bet you're sitting there with a straight face typing about the police using "illegal methods" while advocating violence against the people and property of the state.

And, again, you have the bloody nerve to accuse me of hypocrisy and challenge my democratic credentials.

Treason wrote: »

The same "point" for which military action was taken against the unmanned Mount Gabrial Radar station.

By those peace-loving, cuddly psycopaths and gay rights activists, the INLA. And if someone had "accidentally" been killed in that "military action", would the bombers have shown up at Schull Garda station in sackloth and ashes? Spare me.

I'm not going to keep asking why you espouse a cause that's so unpopular it has to be expressed through wanton destruction and murder (you are aware the INLA murdered people, right?) instead of through democratic means, because your refusal to answer the question perfectly illustrates the point. You can't sell it; you can only mouth slogans.

I'll let you have the last word. Feel free to use it to call me a hypocrite and an anti-democrat. The irony is faintly amusing.

Wolfe Tone

The comparison was made earlier with those Republicans who oppose the GFA. That's an interesting comparison, because such Republicans - pretty much by definition - express support for achieving political change through terrorism. Now, you can claim that people who express support for terrorism are being targeted for their political views, but the bottom line is that they are being targeted for their support for murder as a political strategy.

Just because someone rejects the GFA does not make them a terrorist, or even a supportive of what you have termed terrorism.
Many believe that the GFA is simply not the right way to go about things, and that a better system could be put in place.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your point might just rise above the level of farce if you were actually claiming to have been subject to Garda harassment because of your religion, race or legal activity. Instead, you're claiming to have been subject to Garda harassment as a result of advocating the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of this state.

Now, maybe there's no difference in your mind between a gay rights parade and blowing up the property of the Irish state, but I'm afraid all that does is illustrate your state of mind. I'll give you this: you're a gas man. I bet you're sitting there with a straight face typing about the police using "illegal methods" while advocating violence against the people and property of the state.

I expected nothing better from the state. I viewed it as an oppressive and brutal instrument even before I got arrested.

And that is the difference. You, the so called "democrat" favours the Gardai using underhanded, unaccountable and what are most likely illegal methods.

I do not proclaim my views to be anything but what they are. You are a hypocrit - denouncing my views while supporting the misuse of police powers.

And, again, you have the bloody nerve to accuse me of hypocrisy and challenge my democratic credentials.

Nerve? - re-read your posts. Your hypocrsy is crystal clear.

By those peace-loving, cuddly psycopaths and gay rights activists, the INLA. And if someone had "accidentally" been killed in that "military action", would the bombers have shown up at Schull Garda station in sackloth and ashes? Spare me

Do you have something against homosexuals? Why you have brought them into this I do not know.

I'm not going to keep asking why you espouse a cause that's so unpopular it has to be expressed through wanton destruction and murder (you are aware the INLA murdered people, right?) instead of through democratic means, because your refusal to answer the question perfectly illustrates the point. You can't sell it; you can only mouth slogans.

I do not wish to "sell it" here. All I want to do is expose your hypocritical claims that you are a "democrat" while supporting police abuse of powers for political ends.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Just because someone rejects the GFA does not make them a terrorist, or even a supportive of what you have termed terrorism.
Many believe that the GFA is simply not the right way to go about things, and that a better system could be put in place.

Accepted(ish), but we're talking about the INLA as the role model in this thread.

And anyone who rejects the GFA is, unequivocally and unarguably, rejecting the democratically-expressed will of the people. Maybe they feel there's a better way forward that doesn't involve killing people, but I'm very far from convinced that most of those who reject the GFA are implacably opposed to the idea of killing people if they thought it would be advantageous to do so.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

I expected nothing better from the state. I viewed it as an oppressive and brutal instrument even before I got arrested.

Yeah, how brutal and oppressive, trying to stop people blowing up aircraft navigation aids. I mean, who the hell do they think they are?

How does police brutality and oppression compare with the INLA version? If the INLA discovered an informer in their midst, you think they would have been so downright nasty as to question them without CCTV?

And that is the difference. You, the so called "democrat" favours the Gardai using underhanded, unaccountable and what are most likely illegal methods.

You clearly missed the bit where I said that I had an order of preference, at the top of which would be robust laws under which you would be prosecuted for your self-confessed sedition, and at the bottom of which is allowing your paramilitary organisation to operate unhindered. In the middle is the only bit you seem to have actually noticed, which is that - as a lesser preference - I would rather run the risk of the Gardaí violating your civil rights than the risk of your paramilitary organisation killing someone I care about.

Now, you'll probably still manage to mentally edit out the bits of that that don't feed into your argument, but - again - that just serves to illustrate your frame of mind.

I do not proclaim my views to be anything but what they are.

You accept that they are seditionist, and border on treason?

You are a hypocrit - denouncing my views while supporting the misuse of police powers.

Do you accept the hypocrisy of denouncing the misuse of police powers, while promoting the destruction of public property, and accepting the risk of killing innocent civilians in the process?

Do you have something against homosexuals? Why you have brought them into this I do not know.

Oh, I beg your pardon. When you talked about the police discriminating against people for their race or religion, I assumed you'd have a problem with them discriminating against gays also. Clearly not.

I do not wish to "sell it" here.

Just as well, 'cos I ain't buying.

All I want to do is expose your hypocritical claims that you are a "democrat" while supporting police abuse of powers for political ends.

I guess it would be so much better if I joined you in rejecting democracy outright.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Accepted(ish), but we're talking about the INLA as the role model in this thread.

And anyone who rejects the GFA is, unequivocally and unarguably, rejecting the democratically-expressed will of the people. Maybe they feel there's a better way forward that doesn't involve killing people, but I'm very far from convinced that most of those who reject the GFA are implacably opposed to the idea of killing people if they thought it would be advantageous to do so.

You phrase that as if you are saying anti gfa people are fascists, thats a bit harsh. Are those advocating abortion fascists? Those who advocated divorce? Once people vote should it never be questioned or challenged?

eamo12

Treason wrote: »

Suppose they ransacked your home and took you to a cell where they photographed you and took your finger prints, abusing you on the way. Suppose while imprisoned they used techniques to disorientate and deprive you of sleep, and then later took you in and interrogate you over a three day period using methods of mental and personal abuse and manipulation.

And suppose they did this due to you expressing a political opinion, and for which you receive no compensation for your three day imprisonment, nor for repairs to your home when released.

Sounds like Cuba to me. Explains what happens in all communist countries where they talk about equality and human rights for all, but only if you support those in power. The rest get bumped off or imprisoned. You should move to one of these 'enlightened' countries if you think communism works so well. Thankfully, this sort of backward thinking is limited in Ireland except in the unions - look at the corruption with them running the public services. disgraceful...

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, how brutal and oppressive, trying to stop people blowing up aircraft navigation aids. I mean, who the hell do they think they are?

But that would be illegal wouldnt it?

Arresting people and crow baring the back door off someones house on another pretext because one disagrees with their politics is something you seem to support.

For all your mouthing off about about totalitarianism you seem to have a bit of a totalitarian streak yourself.

How does police brutality and oppression compare with the INLA version?

And how does an INLA volunteer who puts a bullet through a copper compare to me?

I never held a gun in my life, nor have any record of committing criminal activity.

So that is some comparison there. Almost as bad as your crazy lizzard comparisons.

You clearly missed the bit where I said that I had an order of preference, at the top of which would be robust laws under which you would be prosecuted for your self-confessed sedition, and at the bottom of which is allowing your paramilitary organisation to operate unhindered. In the middle is the only bit you seem to have actually noticed, which is that - as a lesser preference - I would rather run the risk of the Gardaí violating your civil rights than the risk of your paramilitary organisation killing someone I care about.

No I am more interested in where you said

"That's not a political view, that's a subversive one. Frankly, I'm pretty happy that the police force ("secret" or otherwise) is keeping tabs on people who advocate violence.....If you don't want the police to bother you, don't advocate sedition."

Does this mean you support "bothering" people who express sedition or their political views?

I personally never got arrested for sedition, but I believe I have sufficient basis to believe that I got arrested for my political views. I find that brutal.

You either support such underhanded tactics or you do not. If you do then you are a clear hypocrit.

If not, then i think such actions are clearly brutal.

You seem to be an apologist for it though.

You accept that they are seditionist, and border on treason?

I would have thought that is for the courts to decide. Then again, you prefer unaccountable garda gangs taking the law into their own hands.

Do you accept the hypocrisy of denouncing the misuse of police powers, while promoting the destruction of public property, and accepting the risk of killing innocent civilians in the process?

If one favours or promotes the actions of a non-state actor against a state then one automatically, by definition, rejects the authority and legitimacy of that state.

Whether something is 'misused' comes under the terms of the state which is rejected in the first place by the non-state actor.

You are a hypocrit because you both accept that states terms while supporting or being apologetic to rougue elements of the state who use underhanded, unaccountable and most probably illegal methods

I am using 'misuse' as per the terms of the state, who you support, to outline your crystal clear hypocrisy.

Treason

eamo12 wrote: »

Sounds like Cuba to me.

It does dosnt it?

At least someone agrees with me. Thank you.

Explains what happens in all communist countries where they talk about equality and human rights for all, but only if you support those in power. The rest get bumped off or imprisoned. You should move to one of these 'enlightened' countries if you think communism works so well. Thankfully, this sort of backward thinking is limited in Ireland except in the unions - look at the corruption with them running the public services. disgraceful...

Why would I want to move to a totalitarian dictatorship?

I have never expressed support for such systems.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You phrase that as if you are saying anti gfa people are fascists, thats a bit harsh. Are those advocating abortion fascists? Those who advocated divorce? Once people vote should it never be questioned or challenged?

I'm saying that anyone can question anything they want, as long as they make it abundantly clear that they are advocating its replacement through exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

There may be organisations opposed to the GFA who are also permanently, implacably and vocally opposed to the use of violence in the achievement of their political aims. Such organisations, if they exists, have my respect (if not my agreement).

We're well off-topic though. In fact, the whole discussion of "secret police" is off-topic, although it does make it clear that the would-be communists realise that they'll never achieve their aims through democracy, and understand that they're ever going to run the country it will be through violence and oppression. Which is pretty much par for the course for communist regimes to date.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're well off-topic though. In fact, the whole discussion of "secret police" is off-topic, although it does make it clear that the would-be communists realise that they'll never achieve their aims through democracy, and understand that they're ever going to run the country it will be through violence and oppression. Which is pretty much par for the course for communist regimes to date.

I would have thought the arrest of people and the crowbaring of peoples doors off by underhand, unaccountable and most likely illegal methods by the secret police, or at least some sinister elements of the state, for their political views would be viewed as some form of oppression. Or at least non-communists like eamo12 do, believing it to be akin to totalitarian methods.

Remember, Oscar Bravo. Whether something is 'subversive' or seditious depends on what your 'democratic' state and courts decide.

Using another pretext to carry out arrests and brutality for someones political views is what appears to have happened - despite them not being seditious, treasonous or illegal. If they were, then they wouldnt have needed a pretext.

But you seem to be apologetic to such unaccountable totalitarian police state methods.

That brings into question your whole facade of being a democrat. A hypocrit more like.

And my views are certainly not typical of the communist movement. Trying to portray it otherwise is counter to any evidence available - but your ilk do not care about evidence do they, as it has become clear.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I did not "plot" to committ any subversive, destructive or murderous acts.

And until your 'democratic' state says otherwise then your barn yard amateur legal 'expertise' is a load of crap.

If my political views were illegal then no pretext would have been required to arrest and burgle my home.

The relaity is that your 'democratic' state uses totalitarian police state methods to crack down on legally expresed and held political opinion.

Are you an apologist or supporter of totalitarian police state methods too donegalfella? - will you join the hypocrit room with Oscar Bravo?

Even non-communists like emo12 recognise totalitarian methods when they see them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you need to get your school boy dictionary out.

"Advocate:

1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate

If one advocates something, that is very different from "attempting to establish" something as your bizzare post claims. Stop digging a hole for yourself.

Holding political views per se is not illegal. Setting up "a revolutionary organisation capable of excerting military force" is an entirely different matter.

Who set up, or even attempted to set up a revolutionary organisation?

It certainly was not me.

I am not a supporter of unwarranted police intervention. But I entirely support the right of the Gardaí to crack down on terrorist militia groups such as you appear to be involved with.

Your apologetic attitude to totalitarian police state measures which crack down on legally expressed political opinion is sickening.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

Remember, Oscar Bravo. Whether something is 'subversive' or seditious depends on what your 'democratic' state and courts decide.

Clearly, it would be a lot better to have a bunch of armed thugs deciding what's acceptable. After all, it's much better to have psychopaths destroying aircraft navigational aids (presumably to kill time between murders) than to have a democratic state and its police and courts trying to keep law-abiding citizens safe from the same psychopaths.

I find myself at a loss to understand the sheer level of cognitive dissonance involved in holding the views you do. It must be hard work.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clearly, it would be a lot better to have a bunch of armed thugs deciding what's acceptable.

And this is exactly your position.

You believe it is acceptable for armed thugs to crack down on legally expressed political opinion.

Please, stop calling yourself a democrat. Admit to your totalitarian streak.

I find myself at a loss to understand the sheer level of cognitive dissonance involved in holding the views you do. It must be hard work.

Trying to hold up a democratic facade while supporting methods to crack down on legally held political views must be far harder to maintain than anything I have written.

You are a hypocrit. Do the honourable thing and own up.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

And this is exactly your position.

You believe it is acceptable for armed thugs to crack down on legally expressed political opinion.

No, I don't. I've made it clear that I don't. I've made it clear that I don't consider the views you've expressed to be political opinion, but subversive sedition.

I've said this before. You've ignored it before. You will doubtless ignore it again.

You use phrases like "legally expressed" while rejecting the entire structure of democracy and law that gives such a phrase meaning. You express disdain for democracy, while complaining about my lack of democratic credentials. You express support for the destruction of public property while complaining about the destruction of your personal property.

Then you try to shy away from your blatant and clearly expressed hypocrisy and rejection of democracy by carping on and on about the alleged hypocrisy and imperfect adherence to democracy of others.

Please, stop calling yourself a democrat. Admit to your totalitarian streak.

Please, quote one single post on this thread where I called myself a democrat.

As for my totalitarian streak: how about you start by admitting that your political views are so utterly repugnant that they could only be implemented through terrorism.

Trying to hold up a democratic facade while supporting methods to crack down on legally held political views must be far harder to maintain than anything I have written.

You are a hypocrit. Do the honourable thing and own up.

Dude, you've advocated terrorism. You're going to do a lot of damage, throwing rocks around in that greenhouse.

encyclopedia

Its strange to think that if James Connolly had not been killed when he was or if he had been successful in his own revolution we may now be a communist state. It was believed at the time that if he had been successful many mainland countries throughout Europe would have followed suit. That could have changed communism worldwide and then it could have been a serious contender against capitalism as a political structure. If that had happened it would be a very interesting world today.

In Ireland today it would be very difficult to achieve such goals as the people have changed and become americanised and hugely materialistic. I'm not saying everybody has but there are portions of the public and especially within our own politicians that have. Consider how much money politicians are paid, how many people have large cars or second homes for example.

Communism in Ireland is nearly considered a swear word these days and people forget that it stands for Community. Although ideally I would welcome a proper communist structure with caution I honestly don't think that it could work right now but I do think that we should be finding our community spirit and helping each other out during this difficult financial period. Capitalism has failed Ireland so in the future we should consider other options.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I don't. I've made it clear that I don't. I've made it clear that I don't consider the views you've expressed to be political opinion, but subversive sedition.

If it is sedition then, by your terms, people should be arrested for it.

If this does not happen then what has occurred is that the state is using another crime as an opportunity to arrest someone for their legally held political views.

How more clear can that be?

You use phrases like "legally expressed" while rejecting the entire structure of democracy and law that gives such a phrase meaning. You express disdain for democracy, while complaining about my lack of democratic credentials. You express support for the destruction of public property while complaining about the destruction of your personal property.

I am using "legally expressed" because it is the terms by which you, having support for that state, base your views.

I have outlined how what are, by your terms, legally held views (in my situation) have been cracked down upon through underhanded methods.

All I am asking is for you to recognise that that is wrong. It is a throw back to totalitarianism.

Political opinions are either legal or they are not.

Then you try to shy away from your blatant and clearly expressed hypocrisy and rejection of democracy by carping on and on about the alleged hypocrisy and imperfect adherence to democracy of others. Please, quote one single post on this thread where I called myself a democrat.

My position has been consistent. I do not claim to accept the Irish state and whateverit labels it applies to people.

You on the other hand do - and despite what has been the crack down on legally held opinion, as per the terms of your state, you seem to think that that is acceptable.

How you cannot see the inconsistency, or indeed hypocrisy in your position I do not know.

As for my totalitarian streak: how about you start by admitting that your political views are so utterly repugnant that they could only be implemented through terrorism. Dude, you've advocated terrorism. You're going to do a lot of damage, throwing rocks around in that greenhouse.

My views are not the issue here as they are consistent. You and donegalfella, on the otherhand, have the gall to expound the brutality of totalitarianism while accepting totalitarian police state measures against legally held political opinion - as per the terms of your own marker, the state.

I do not want to get into a mud slinging match. But at least recognise the blatent inconsistency of your position.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it is then the state, under its own terms, can arrest me for it.

But that is not what happened. They used another entirely unrelated crime to crack down on my legally held political opinion.

Until such a time that I were found guilty of such an offense, my views are legally held.

Very simple to understand.

Legally expressed?

Article 40.6.1(i) of Bunreacht Na hÉireann: "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

It would appear that your so-called "legally expressed political opinion" was actually illegally published or uttered sedition.

How you interpret the law is entirely irrelevant.

What has already occurred is.