Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?

IrishHomer

Luke Ming flannigan is currently involved at a protest on Clonmoylon Bog in Galway. he rushed down last night to get involved with the protest in preventing National Parks & Wildlife Service and Gardai from implementing the law.

I want to know how come he can stay down there supporting the protest is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? Is his role in the Dail not as important as his passion for promopting anarchy?:mad:

Stabshauptmann

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

b]edit for maximum clarity[/bI'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Examples would be this protest re: the bogs, the bin tax protests, the house hold charge tax protests, etc. where sitting TDs publicly call on the public to break the law.b]/edit[/b

Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

creedp

IrishHomer wrote: »

Luke Ming flannigan is currently involved at a protest on Clonmoylon Bog in Galway. he rushed down last night to get involved with the protest in preventing National Parks & Wildlife Service and Gardai from implementing the law.

I want to know how come he can stay down there supporting the protest is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? Is his role in the Dail not as important as his passion for promopting anarchy?:mad:

Would we be better off if he headed off to Poland with Wallace!

Auguste Comte

 
Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?


Maby because he is supporting his constitutants who feel, rightly or otherwise that they have been shafted out of their rights to use their own land in the way it has been used for generations.

Probably a more representitive and honest use of time spent away from the dail than most of the party men who blindly follow the whip with no questions as to right or wrong.

Just my view.

crusher000

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

I'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

If this was the case we would have very few sitting TD's in the dail as let's face it alot of them have flaunted the law. Can we isolate one politican for flaunting the law by joining a protest v a politican that owes money for work rendered on their house v politicans whom haven't paid taxes due or found guilty of drink driving. I could go on but I think you see what I'm getting at.

crusher000

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Why is elected member of the Dail causing havoc at Protest not sitting in Dail?


Maby because he is supporting his constitutants who feel, rightly or otherwise that they have been shafted out of their rights to use their own land in the way it has been used for generations.

Probably a more representitive and honest use of time spent away from the dail than most of the party men who blindly follow the whip with no questions as to right or wrong.

Just my view.

Some people forget the emotional ties country people have with the land and how it's used. Penal law only allowed the cutting of turf for certain number of days a year. I have heard of farmers whom were jailed because they flouted this law. I know, I know it's way back and move on etc. but some people may relate these stories to what's happening now.

Stabshauptmann

crusher000 wrote: »

If this was the case we would have very few sitting TD's in the dail as let's face it alot of them have flaunted the law. Can we isolate one politican for flaunting the law by joining a protest v a politican that owes money for work rendered on their house v politicans whom haven't paid taxes due or found guilty of drink driving. I could go on but I think you see what I'm getting at.

And you missed my point.
Which was that TDs who break the law should lose their seats. I was not targeting ming

Stabshauptmann

Actually I referred to at least 5 other TDs;
Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Joan Collins.

Though my list would go on, hence the "etc."
Why didnt I refer to these people by name?
A) I'm really only interested in having a discussion with informed people, so I assume there is sufficient background knowledge that I would not need to provide an exhaustive list every TD who took part in every protest
Its a philosophical / hypothetical argument over a principle, I do not want to argue to merits of individual protests or the politics of individual TDs.

amcalester

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

A related though not specifically this case thought:

Does it not undermine our governance system that TDs publicly flout, and encourage others to break, the laws that they disagree with? Is it not an essential part of our democracy that even if you disagree with a law, if it has been passed then you agree to be bound by the will of the majority?

I'm thinking of Ming and the bogs, the bin tax, house charges etc.
Surely this is a fundamental part of democracy, and those wishing to sit in either house of our republic should not be allowed to ignore laws just because they voted against them.

Just because something is signed into law does not make it just. While I may not agree with the actions of the politicians you have mentioned I do see the benefits to society by allowing people, even elected representatives, protest against certain laws they feel are unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

MadsL

Well, local Gardai have plenty of practice in dealing with protesters in that neck of the woods. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Personally I find it hysterical the amount of victim playing. Ten years to sort this out and crocodile tears over compensation and here we are wrestling in a bog over machinery. Pathetic.

Stabshauptmann

amcalester wrote: »

Just because something is signed into law does not make it just. While I may not agree with the actions of the politicians you have mentioned I do see the benefits to society by allowing people, even elected representatives, protest against certain laws they feel are unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

MadsL

Ming claims this machine was burnt out. Political stunt? I can't see NPWS setting fire to things.

http://twitpic.com/9yrabt

He also tweeted that this is now a police state. Really Ming?

On my way to clonmoylan bog. Armed response unit present. Attempts being made to confiscate machinery. welcome to the police state.

Dirk Gently

IrishHomer wrote: »

is he not being paid to sit in the Dail today? :

perhaps he thought he'd do something productive for his wages instead?
I've no interest in the turf situation but I can't fault a TD for getting involved in something he primarily campaigned on over sitting in the Dail, which is just a glorified rubber stamp and yields no democratic or accountability merits. You could argue that sitting in the Dail is a waste of his time given the centralised power structure we have.

doopa

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

Perhaps he disagrees with the legitimacy of the democratic process. Perhaps he and others don't find it very legitimate. You clearly do. Others don't.

amcalester

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Thats the obvious counter. Civil disobedience is held up as the best form of protest.
I'm wondering though if there is a difference in what one should expect from a TD and an ordinary citizen.

What is or is not an unjust law is a matter or opinion (obviously, or the law would not have been passed).
I have protested in the past, and have no reason to think that I wouldnt in the future.

But for a TD to encourage the breaking of a law, or for them to do so themselves, is a bit like a child saying if I cant have it my way then I'm not playing at all.
I wonder if it undermines the legitimacy for our democratic process for a TD to be unwilling to be bound by the will of the majority.

I dont think it does undermine the legitimacy of our democratic process, if anything it only strengthens it. Whats the point in having an opposition if they are bound to go along with the decisions of the sitting government.

Stabshauptmann

doopa wrote: »

Perhaps he disagrees with the legitimacy of the democratic process. Perhaps he and others don't find it very legitimate. You clearly do. Others don't.

I think I'll ask him. But while I'm waiting for his answer, would someone like to explain to me why this is an example of an "illegitimate" process.
[edit]Radio Interview:
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120621,3324008,3324008,flash,257

Question: You're a paid TD, why are you stopping the guards from doing their jobs.
Luke Flannagan TD: I won't answer that as its not relevant.

The question was put to him again and he dodged it. I don't think Mr Flannagan thinks the democratic process is illegitimate. This particular protest is outside his constituency I think. He is breaking the law because he doesnt agree with it, not because of any short coming in the democratic process[/edit]

amcalester wrote:

I dont think it does undermine the legitimacy of our democratic process, if anything it only strengthens it. Whats the point in having an opposition if they are bound to go along with the decisions of the sitting government.

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

doopa

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I think I'll ask him. But while I'm waiting for his answer, would someone like to explain to me why this is an example of an "illegitimate" process.
[edit]Radio Interview:
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120621,3324008,3324008,flash,257

Question: You're a paid TD, why are you stopping the guards from doing their jobs.
Luke Flannagan TD: I won't answer that as its not relevant.

The question was put to him again and he dodged it. I don't think Mr Flannagan thinks the democratic process is illegitimate. This particular protest is outside his constituency I think. He is breaking the law because he doesnt agree with it, not because of any short coming in the democratic process.

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

I don't know what he thinks so I won't answer for him.

To the second point - the concept of a social contract. I think its a great idea, since it will always have problems we therefore require civil disobedience - as best espoused by Thoreau - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
You seem to be suggesting you disagree with the concept? Or that there exist a universally agreed set of conditions when it can be employed?

Stabshauptmann

doopa wrote: »

I don't know what he thinks so I won't answer for him.

How about answering for yourself. Can you make an argument for why laws passed by the Dail should be considered illegitimate?

doopa

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

How about answering for yourself. Can you make an argument for why laws passed by the Dail should be considered illegitimate?

What exactly is the question? Is it possible that the state can create illegitimate laws?

I think the answer is obviously yes they can.

Wishbone Ash

Auguste Comte wrote: »

he is supporting his constitutants

That's not his constituency and therefore presumably those involved are not his constituents.

Sponge Bob

How do you know his constituents are not among the protestors????

It is not so long ago that Jailbirds (and their families) were invited en masse to Green Party Conferences and even invited to speak. Did anyone condemn the Greens for that???

http://www.shelltosea.com/node/756

Members of the Rossport 5 and their families are guests at the Green Party Annual Convention, which is being held at the Newpark Hotel in Kilkenny this year. The convention takes place on Saturday and Sunday 25th/26th March, and Miceál Ó Seighin is scheduled to speak at 4PM on Saturday 25th.

Auguste Comte

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's not his constituency and therefore presumably those involved are not his constituents.

That's why maby was at the start of the sentence you selectively edited.

I should have said supporting a cause on behalf of his constitutants, in order to keep the pedants at bay.

Einhard

I don't have a problem with anyone, ordinary citizens or members of the Oireacthais, engaging in protest. What I do, however, have a problem with, is when people believe they have the right to flout or break the law with impunity in pursuance of that protest. I don't think, frankly, that one has the right to knowingly break the law in a liberal democracy, and then screm blue murder about tyranny and the police state when one is faced with the consequences of that action.

Also, Ming is rather prone to hysterical analogies between Ireland and repressive, absolutist regimes. I would argue that, in his disregard for the will of the democratically elected parliament, that he shows far more disdain for democracy than any of those against whom he rails.

Wishbone Ash

Auguste Comte wrote: »

That's why maby was at the start of the sentence you selectively edited

I've never heard of the term/word "maby".

Why couldn't you have said "may be" or used "perhaps" and it would have added much more clarity to your point?

crusher000

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Actually I referred to at least 5 other TDs;
Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Joan Collins.

Though my list would go on, hence the "etc."
Why didnt I refer to these people by name?
A) I'm really only interested in having a discussion with informed people, so I assume there is sufficient background knowledge that I would not need to provide an exhaustive list every TD who took part in every protest
Its a philosophical / hypothetical argument over a principle, I do not want to argue to merits of individual protests or the politics of individual TDs.

Thats fair enough but I think any politician that went to the people seeking election on a certain issue be it water charges, potholes whatever and then when elected to turn their back on their mandate would be selling out those that elected them. Our current sitting government sold out on their promises so I applaud politicans that stand by the mandate that they sought election for in the first place even if they flaunt the law enforced on us by un elected EU politicans

MadsL

crusher000 wrote: »

the law enforced on us by un-elected EU politicans

Are seriously claiming that EU politicians are un-elected???

Seriously? No, really?

I'm astounded that you clearly have absolutely no clue as to how the European Union operates.

You might wish to educate yourself http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/georgia/documents/virtual_library/08_euro_en.pdf

The three main decision-making institutions are:
• the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;
• the Council of the European Union, which represents the individual member states;
• the European Commission, which seeks to uphold the interests of the Union as a whole.

monument

I disagree with the TD in question, but...

Einhard wrote: »

I don't have a problem with anyone, ordinary citizens or members of the Oireacthais, engaging in protest. What I do, however, have a problem with, is when people believe they have the right to flout or break the law with impunity in pursuance of that protest. I don't think, frankly, that one has the right to knowingly break the law in a liberal democracy, and then screm blue murder about tyranny and the police state when one is faced with the consequences of that action.

Also, Ming is rather prone to hysterical analogies between Ireland and repressive, absolutist regimes. I would argue that, in his disregard for the will of the democratically elected parliament, that he shows far more disdain for democracy than any of those against whom he rails.

So the line or bar here is once a state is generally a "liberal democracy" you must follow all of its laws, even an unjust law?

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I believe in the social contract. I must agree to be bound by the laws I disagree with because I need the instruments of the law to protect me from those who would break other laws and harm me. I cannot choose to obey only the laws I like, because if everyone did that society would crumble.

One of three things has happened here: [1] The idea of civil disobedience has gone over your head, [2] you disagree with civil disobedience but instead of just saying so you're going off on a tangent, [3] you agree with civil disobedience but are being selective.

Einhard

monument wrote: »

So the line or bar here is once a state is generally a "liberal democracy" you must follow all of its laws, even an unjust law?

In actually worded my post quite carefully to avoid such miscomprehension. I didn't criticse anyone for breaking the law, but rather for expecting to do so with impunity. If someone flouts a law that they believe to be unjust, that's fair enough; however, I would expect them to then face the consequences, without screaming at the top of their lungs about how they are being oppressed.

To address your point more fully- yes, in a liberal democracy, I expect people to uphold the law, and be prepared to face the consequences if they choose not to. One might argue that some laws are manifestly unjust, but the idea that subjective personal disapproval of a law grants one the right to act illegally. When that happens, the tail very much wags the dog, and one would have the likes of Shell to Sea dictating energy policy in this land, and Ming Flanagan et al dictating the environmental.

In a modern, liberal democracy such as ours, with all the safeguards of personal rights in place, redress can be sought for perceived wrongs, and I therefore don't think there is any excuse to willfully break the law, and expect no sanction. Otherwise, where does it end?

monument

Einhard wrote: »

In a modern, liberal democracy such as ours, with all the safeguards of personal rights in place, redress can be sought for perceived wrongs, and I therefore don't think there is any excuse to willfully break the law, and expect no sanction. Otherwise, where does it end?

Err in a lot of cases you have to break the law in order to be in a position to legally challenge it.

As an aside: you can also break the law with a legal excuse (ie defending somebody, which goes as far as attack aircraft).

Einhard wrote: »

Otherwise, where does it end?

When the courts says it does.

johngalway

I don't agree with Ming on much, but fair play to him for supporting the turf cutters, nice to see people stand up for rural Ireland for a change. We don't have a bog any longer, it was blanket bog and cut by hand, have to buy it in now.

MadsL

.

MadsL

johngalway wrote: »

nice to see people stand up for rural Ireland for a change.

You are kidding right? Rural Ireland runs the country right now.

This from 2007 but it tells the story

http://politicalreformireland.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fgsupport2007.jpg

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

You are kidding right? Rural Ireland runs the country right now.

This from 2007 but it tells the story

It shows nothing except a single political party with less than 50% of the vote in EVERY constituency it contested. That is what it shows.

The green party got an average of about 2% in that election in Rural Ireland. Despite being roundly rejected by the entire rural electorate they ended up in government, which is a calculated insult if you ask me.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It shows nothing except a single political party with less than 50% of the vote in EVERY constituency it contested. That is what it shows.

The green party got an average of about 2% in that election in Rural Ireland. Despite being roundly rejected by the entire rural electorate they ended up in government, which is a calculated insult if you ask me.

Would you prefer first past the post? Of course a single party will have less than 50% of the vote under a PR system. Whether you think it true or not rural TDs have a great deal of power (perhaps had) Look at the likes of Healy-Rae and Lowry.

By the way did you forget to respond to the other thread? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79351766&postcount=85

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It shows nothing except a single political party with less than 50% of the vote in EVERY constituency it contested. That is what it shows.

The green party got an average of about 2% in that election in Rural Ireland. Despite being roundly rejected by the entire rural electorate they ended up in government, which is a calculated insult if you ask me.

From The Irish Times:

"Three-fifths of the State's population now lives in urban areas that take up just 2.4 per cent of the country’s land mass, according to a further breakdown of Census 2011 statistics released by the CSO today."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0426/breaking48.html

jimmycrackcorm

johngalway wrote: »

I don't agree with Ming on much, but fair play to him for supporting the turf cutters, nice to see people stand up for rural Ireland for a change. We don't have a bog any longer, it was blanket bog and cut by hand, have to buy it in now.

Poor rural Ireland - it's almost like watching a re-run of The Field.

Sponge Bob

Aw here, less of the rural ad hominem.

There are no Urban Independents is why they had no deal, except Finian McGrath who had a deal post 2007.

2/3 of the Cabinet members represent Cork Limerick and Dublin only. The only _really_ rural cabinet ministers are Deenihan and Hogan.

County Dublin, Limerick City and Cork city have around 1/3 of the population between them, that is all. The rest of the country has 2/3 of the population and is largely unrepresented at cabinet.

If rural means everyone not living in a town with 5000 people or more ...over half the population is rural. The 2/3 urban measure referred to by Monument includes metropolitan Woodford and Ahascragh in Galway and Lyre in Cork.

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2/3 of the Cabinet members represent Cork Limerick and Dublin only. The only _really_ rural cabinet ministers are Deenihan and Hogan.

Simon Coveney isn't rural minded? And...

Sponge Bob wrote: »

County Dublin, Limerick City and Cork city have around 1/3 of the population between them, that is all. The rest of the country has 2/3 of the population and is largely unrepresented at cabinet

Kenny and Gilmore are in the key positions -- Kenny may be from a mid-size town but is as rural minded as you get and Gilmore is from the "metropolitan area" of Caltra, County Galway. Then there's Coveney as mentioned above, Rabbitte grew up in Ballindine, Fitzgerald is from a village, Noonan is from a country area, and even Reilly is from the most rural of Dublin constituencies.

Then there's junior ministers. Kehoe went to agricultural college, McGinley is from Donegal, O'Sullivan may represent Limerick City but comes from Clare, Perry is from Ballymote, Ring is likely one of the rural minded people in the Dail, O’Dowd is very rural minded, Hayes might represent Dublin West but went to school in Ballinasloe, McEntee is a county lad, Creighton is a Mayo FG girl at heart, Sherlock is also from a country town and Kelly is from a village.

Sponge Bob

Ah yeah Monument, correct origination data ( and the Ahascragh I mentioned a whiel back IS the Urban bit of Caltra ) but those people play to their own electorates which are Urban. Enda represents Castlebar in the main. I drove past his ancestral home in Islandeady last week.

Nothing that Rabbitte or Gilmore did in their entire political careers has benefitted Ballindine or Ahascragh...they have both spent 2/3 of their lives either in Galway or Dublin.

If I suddenly arrived in DSE (Creighton) or DLD (Gilmore) explaning Turbary rights &c I'd hardly be electable would I.?? I'd tend to know my frappa from my mocha on day 1 I would.

And Junior Ministers have no clout in our system, we have a Cabinet and a Chief Whip to organise the backbenches......many of whom harbour dreams of a junior ministry in 2014 or so.

nice_guy80

fair play to Ming

if other politians cared as much about the organisations they purport to be members of...

MadsL

Are we going to rehash the rural vs urban whinging or discuss turfcutting and TDs civil disobedience?

@Sponge Bob - You still haven't answered my questions by the way .

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Enda represents Castlebar in the main. I drove past his ancestral home in Islandeady last week.

Enda is very, very rural or 'country' focused. You're joking your self if you think otherwise.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nothing that Rabbitte or Gilmore did in their entire political careers has benefitted Ballindine or Ahascragh...they have both spent 2/3 of their lives either in Galway or Dublin.

You've jumped from the idea of been rural or urban minded to the idea of clientelism. Big difference.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

If I suddenly arrived in DSE (Creighton) or DLD (Gilmore) explaning Turbary rights &c I'd hardly be electable would I.?? I'd tend to know my frappa from my mocha on day 1 I would.

No, but one of my local very central Dublin FG TDs voted for stag hunting not because he cared about it, but because it was the FG party line.

And not every rural area in the county cares about Turbary rights.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

And Junior Ministers have no clout in our system, we have a Cabinet and a Chief Whip to organise the backbenches......many of whom harbour dreams of a junior ministry in 2014 or so.

Err... yes, yes they do have clout in the system. Everything from day-to-day clout in their offices to a closer working link to cabinet and, more importantly, a closer link to the political system of the top tier of government than others.

Since you mentioned chief whip: As already mentioned, FG's whip went to agricultural college and is from a country area.

southsiderosie

MadsL wrote: »

Would you prefer first past the post? Of course a single party will have less than 50% of the vote under a PR system. Whether you think it true or not rural TDs have a great deal of power (perhaps had) Look at the likes of Healy-Rae and Lowry.

By the way did you forget to respond to the other thread? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79351766&postcount=85

MOD NOTE:

Please don't pull up issues from other threads.