Re-Occupy Galway discussion [Mod warning in post #1]

endacl

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd say this thread has run it's course seeing as the only member of the Re-occupy movement is gone!

Indeed. He appears to be otherwise occupied.....







I'll get me coat....

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

Freedom of Assembly is entirely different to what OG did. They occupied (the clue is in the name) public property and excluded others from it. In fact, they preventing others from assembling there should they have chosen to.

So people shouldn't assemble because they will prevent others from assembling?
Bogus argument.

It's also worth noting that Freedom of Assembly is not an absolute right. While it is constitutionally protected, there are limitations to its exercise in the interest of the common good i.e. the 100%.

Was OG inciting people to riot? I don't think so.

Jimmy Garlic

zarquon wrote: »

Right to free assembly is one thing but rights to squat is another. Do you believe that if i get a group of people together i can use my right to free assembly to setup a nice little holiday camp on the square, use if for as long as i need and then vacate leaving the city to pick up the cleaning bill?

How could they have cleaned it up when they were forcibly removed from the area?

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

So people shouldn't assemble because they will prevent others from assembling?
Bogus argument.

No, it's not. The point is that they were not just assembling. They were forcibly occupying public property. Marching and protesting are perfectly acceptable to any right thinking person. Setting up "camp" is not.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Was OG inciting people to riot? I don't think so.

What? Who said anything about rioting? You don't honestly think that the only limitation that should exist in relation to assembling is to prevent rioting? Can I and twenty of my closest friends come and camp in your backyard or on the beach in Salthill for 6 or 7 months provided we don't riot? :rolleyes:

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

How could they have cleaned it up when they were forcibly removed from the area?

That's a

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Bogus argument.

If they didn't vandalise the area in the first place, there'd be nothing to clean up.

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

No, it's not. The point is that they were not just assembling. They were forcibly occupying public property. Marching and protesting are perfectly acceptable to any right thinking person. Setting up "camp" is not.

So something is only acceptable if self proclaimed "right thinking people" like yourself agree with it? You can only protest in the way that "right thinking people" deem fit?

What? Who said anything about rioting? You don't honestly think that the only limitation that should exist in relation to assembling is to prevent rioting? Can I and twenty of my closest friends come and camp in your backyard or on the beach in Salthill for 6 or 7 months provided we don't riot? :rolleyes:

My backyard is private property, so no, you're not welcome. You can camp on the public beach for 7 months if you like. Doesn't bother me.

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

If they didn't vandalise the area in the first place, there'd be nothing to clean up.

So they smashed up the place did they?.. Or did they just write stuff with chalk on the paving? Oh, the humanity! If I ever see children/vandals playing hopskotch I shall ring the relevant authorities to put a stop to their heinous actions at once.

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

So something is only acceptable if self proclaimed "right thinking people" like yourself agree with it? You can only protest in the way that "right thinking people" deem fit?

You're extrapolating illogically again. Protest is acceptable if it is within the bounds of the law. What I wrote was that "Marching and protesting are perfectly acceptable to any right thinking person" I did not write "You can only protest in the way that "right thinking people" deem fit".

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

My backyard is private property, so no, you're not welcome. You can camp on the public beach for 7 months if you like. Doesn't bother me.

Exactly! You're getting it now. Your private property rights trump my right to occupy your land. That's balancing rights and limiting rights for the common good.

Redhairedguy

Last warning to everyone to keep it kosher. Just because the 'official' representative of Occupy has decided that they're done with us; doesn't mean we can start getting nasty.

Calling the Occupy movement smelly hippies or insinuating that they all sit around smoking weed, isn't exactly too nice. Whether there may be a modicum of truth to it is irrelevant; tarring everyone with the same brush leads to a broken brush, and then you're just left staring at a handle and a half empty barrel of tar.

Philosophical Redhairedguy is philosophical. :pac:

Edit: Keep the sarcasm and strawmanning in check, guys. It's not appreciated.

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

So they smashed up the place did they?.. Or did they just write stuff with chalk on the paving? Oh, the humanity! If I ever see children/vandals playing hopskotch I shall ring the relevant authorities to put a stop to their heinous actions at once.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/55862/taxpayers-will-not-pay-legal-fees-of-occupy-galway-vandalism-accused-says-ludge

"When it was put to McKenna that his parents, who are farmers, would like many other parents help him financially, McKenna then admitted that the family own “a couple of hundred acres” of land prompting an eruption of laughter, and disbelief, from the body of the court.

“You’re very honest. I’m sure there’s a cow that will pay for the legal fees,” quipped Judge Fahy before refusing the legal aid applications."

I wonder how he'd feel if some of the couple of hundred acres were occupied?

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

You're extrapolating illogically again. Protest is acceptable if it is within the bounds of the law. What I wrote was that "Marching and protesting are perfectly acceptable to any right thinking person" I did not write "You can only protest in the way that "right thinking people" deem fit".

You were hinting that anyone who supported OG was a "wrong thinking person". You were up on your high horse so you were. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits encampment as a form of protest.

Exactly! You're getting it now. Your private property rights trump my right to occupy your land. That's balancing rights and limiting rights for the common good.

Eyre Square is not private property. Your point is?

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/55862/taxpayers-will-not-pay-legal-fees-of-occupy-galway-vandalism-accused-says-ludge

"When it was put to McKenna that his parents, who are farmers, would like many other parents help him financially, McKenna then admitted that the family own “a couple of hundred acres” of land prompting an eruption of laughter, and disbelief, from the body of the court.

“You’re very honest. I’m sure there’s a cow that will pay for the legal fees,” quipped Judge Fahy before refusing the legal aid applications."

I wonder how he'd feel if some of the couple of hundred acres were occupied?

You are confusing the issue. Private land is private. Public land is public. It is that simple.

As for the so called "vandalism" - it was chalk on the pavement, a good shower of rain would wash it away.

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You were hinting that anyone who supported OG was a "wrong thinking person". You were up on your high horse so you were.

I'm not too fond of horses...anyway, let's try not to get personal. I have no reason to personalise anything against you so please try to reciprocate.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits encampment as a form of protest.

And there doesn't need to be to make it illegal. The Constitution doesn't refer to larceny, burglary, assault, rape, murder etc. etc. but they're still illegal, much the same as setting up camp for seven months in a public (i.e. for 100% of people) area is.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Eyre Square is not private property. Your point is?

My point, already made, is that there is no absolute right to Freedom of Assembly. Just because an area is public property does not mean that anyone can set up camp on it. I gave the example of private property rights to help with an understanding that certain rights are balanced against other rights for the common good.

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You are confusing the issue. Private land is private. Public land is public. It is that simple.

It's not. I can't put this any more clearly than to say you're missing the point completely. You seem to be suggesting that the regulation of conduct on private "land" is subject to the owner's rules, whereas the regulation of conduct on public "land" is subject to no such rules. Nothing could be further from the truth.

?Cee?view

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

As for the so called "vandalism" - it was chalk on the pavement, a good shower of rain would wash it away.

Who had to pay to remove the camp? Or would the people of OG have taken it with them and disposed of it responsibly?

biko

churchview wrote: »

If they didn't vandalise the area in the first place, there'd be nothing to clean up.

I'm with Garlic here - you're wrong. Don't hyperbole this into something it's not.
They didn't vandalise anything. Vandalism means destruction, there were no destruction going on.
They were forced off the camp without any chance to take their stuff with them. Then blamed that they didn't? How does that work out?

Afaik they actually made the square safer during their stay since the scummers stayed away.

?Cee?view

biko wrote: »

I'm with Garlic here - you're wrong. Don't hyperbole this into something it's not.
They didn't vandalise anything. Vandalism means destruction, there were no destruction going on.
They were forced off the camp without any chance to take their stuff with them. Then blamed that they didn't? How does that work out?

No sorry. I completely disagree with you. They erected an enormous structure and saying that they weren't allowed to take it away makes little sense. If they had to be forcibly removed (how much did that cost?) they were hardly going to volunteer to take away the structure.

Vandalism does not just mean destruction. It includes destruction but also includes wilful and deliberate damage. The place had to be put back to its original state when they left.

?Cee?view

biko wrote: »

Afaik they actually made the square safer during their stay since the scummers stayed away.

That's a highly subjective statement particularly in the context of this discussion.

biko

churchview wrote: »

Vandalism does not just mean destruction. It includes destruction but also includes wilful and deliberate damage. The place had to be put back to its original state when they left.

Once the tents and some pallets had been shipped off and the place swept by council workers brought in, that was it.

You make it out to sound like OG tore something apart, spray painted walls or generally scared people. None of those things happened afaik.

Can you show me any examples you have of vandalism or damage of property? I mean real damage now, not taping a tarp to a couple pillars.

The only damage or vandalism I can think of is the eye-sore created by tents, fences and that shack. That hardly constitutes any type of damage.

You keep exaggerating, "vandalism", "enormous structure". The enormous structure you mention, is that the tents, the shack or some other thing?

Is it on this picture? Is it all of it?


Anyway, I think we may be getting bogged down in semantics.
Once you have pointed out this vandalism with a source or a link perhaps I hope we can move on.

biko

churchview wrote: »

That's a highly subjective statement particularly in the context of this discussion.

Do you contest it? Do you mean they made it less safe or about the same as before?
I got it from here

The gardaí have complimented us on keeping the camp clean and they have also told us that Eyre Square is safer at night-time because of our presence,” camp occupant Liam Heffernan told the Galway Advertiser. “It is a testament to the Gardaí that we have been allowed to remain here. In other countries government and police have come down hard on protesters, but here the vital part of democracy - the right to assemble and protest - is recognised.

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

I gave the example of private property rights to help with an understanding that certain rights are balanced against other rights for the common good.

How did OG impact the common good? Were they a danger to the public?

Jimmy Garlic

churchview wrote: »

Who had to pay to remove the camp? Or would the people of OG have taken it with them and disposed of it responsibly?

How could they have removed items when they weren't given the chance to?
You make it sound like they just decided to leave and leave everything behind them, that is not the case.

wexie

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

How could they have removed items when they weren't given the chance to?
You make it sound like they just decided to leave and leave everything behind them, that is not the case.

You're kinda forgetting to mention that they had to be forcibly removed after having been asked politely numerous times to leave peacefully.

They were given plenty of opportunity to leave and take all their crap with them.

But nooooo.....it had to get to the stage where they had to be muscled off the square. Who's fault was that then ey?

Bobeagleburger

I wouldn't say OG vandalised Eyre Square.

However, they made it look like a tip.

I have no problem with people protesting but actually setting up camp? Seriously? gtf

biko

wexie wrote: »

You're kinda forgetting to mention that they had to be forcibly removed after having been asked politely numerous times to leave peacefully.

They were given plenty of opportunity to leave and take all their crap with them.

But nooooo.....it had to get to the stage where they had to be muscled off the square. Who's fault was that then ey?

This is a very valid point and something that the OG did wrong. They put themselves in a position that could only (almost) be concluded by being forcibly removed.
Their demands were much too general and wide. To want to bring an end to a capitalist system isn't going to happen overnight.

Eman Resu

The only thing that will bring an end to the capitalist system is an extinction level asteroid strike, as long as there are people we will have greed and injustice.

yara

biko wrote: »

This is a very valid point and something that the OG did wrong. They put themselves in a position that could only (almost) be concluded by being forcibly removed.
Their demands were much too general and wide. To want to bring an end to a capitalist system isn't going to happen overnight.

we weren't forcibly removed though, 100 garda swooped in to remove 9 protestors at 4 in the morning, shutting down all roads into eyre square until they got everyone out of the camp, there was no standoff so where was this force used to remove 9 people when seriously outnumbered by garda everywhere??

General General

yara wrote: »

we weren't forcibly removed though, 100 garda swooped in to remove 9 protestors at 4 in the morning, shutting down all roads into eyre square until they got everyone out of the camp, there was no standoff so where was this force used to remove 9 people when seriously outnumbered by garda everywhere??

Will we settle on: unwillingly removed?

So you're back after announcing (more than once) that you're not coming back.

You certainly are not someone who says what you mean & means what you say, are you?

zarquon

yara wrote: »

we weren't forcibly removed though, 100 garda swooped in to remove 9 protestors at 4 in the morning, shutting down all roads into eyre square until they got everyone out of the camp, there was no standoff so where was this force used to remove 9 people when seriously outnumbered by garda everywhere??

There was no force because they had no choice. Would the protestors have left peaceably if only 1 or 2 gardai showed up? It took overwhelming numbers of Gardai to get them to leave without resistance.

yara

General General wrote: »

Will we settle on: unwillingly removed?

So you're back after announcing (more than once) that you're not coming back.

You certainly are not someone who says what you mean & means what you say, are you?

so i'm not allowed repost in a thread i started?