Sargent attends in Green Summit Brussels for talks on War

by Real Green Fri Mar 21, 2003 13:18

We've had enough of GP posturing - Your TD's have attacked direct action protesters again and again. Seargent attacked Mary Kellys actions and another one of your TD's attacked the protesters at the Dail yesterday. Green Party members should resign in protest at their TD's actions.

by Danny Walsh - Green Party Member Fri Mar 21, 2003 13:22

So we can count on your support then.

by Janus Fri Mar 21, 2003 13:38

While agreeing that their attacks on Mary Kelly were atrocious, the Green TD yesterday Paul Gogarty didn't attack the protestors as much as ask them to clear a lane of traffic to allow out those TDs who voted against the war. I'm not saying I agree with his actions, I don't, but I don't think it amounts to attacking the protestors, and I am no fan of the Green party.

On a broader point though, the Green party are opposed to the war, why do people who claim to be anti-war spend more time attacking other groups for not being anti-war enough? Or for not living up to some ill-defined and not clearly understood level of revolutionary aggression nd then indulging in hysterical demands that all Green party TDs resign from their party.

It occurs to me that if a group is opposed to the war this is a good thing and we should all be working together, including the Greens not attacking direct action protestors. Then again, that only holds true if the aim of everyone in the anti-war movement is to stop the war, for many, it seems to be simply another battleground for sectarian infighting.

by Eamonn Crudden Fri Mar 21, 2003 13:42

Patricia Mckenna Speech where she at least had the decency to mention and remember and contextualise Mary Kelly's Actions - and her very interesting post US embassy rally experience with a young gentleman obviously sent to intimidate her G. - I'll have it done this evening with photos and video transcript if GP don't do it first - She has integrity but GP needs to decide which side they are relaay on

Also coming - accidentaly recorded IMCer frank exchange of viewpoints on steps of Dail Erron with Joe Higgins on the subject of Civil Disobedience and 'Virtual Warriors'.

Transcripts only - no posturing

by Peaceful person Fri Mar 21, 2003 16:11

Bertie Ahern and FF couldn't care less about what a group of angry young people do outside the Dail or anywhere else for that matter. That is a problem for the gardai.

Anti-war protest is only an issue for FF and the PDs if the public get their back up and, since spitting and screaming anger really turn people off (even those opposed to war and FF's policies), there's little chance of that happenning.

The massive turnout in February was because of the normal, reasonable, relatively mainstream groups that supported the march, and so it attracted people who are not interested in 'the revolution' or 'direct action' and who are very uncomfortable with members of the gardai being called 'pigs'. These people, who number far more than the extremists, are entitled to their point of view.

Some of the more angry protestors seem to realise how irrelevant they are and, unable to contol their anger at their own impotence, lash out at the few policiticians who will give them the time of day - i.e. SF and Greens. Its like the man who can't kick his boss and so goes home and hits his kids.

Its sad, but true.

How can so-called peace campaigners be so full of anger and hate?

Peace!

by Joe Fri Mar 21, 2003 16:24

One organisation has been using the media to spread lies about protesters it disagrees with. It's called the Green Party. Take your accusations of 'anger and hate' and lay it at their door.

As for marches, they were good but they did not stop refuelling. The direct actions the GP attacks have driven out 3 troop carriers. So if you want to stop the war its clear what is needed, and its not a popularity contest.

by Janus Fri Mar 21, 2003 16:36

I strongly agree with Joe here. The protests and the marches and all have been great and have mobilised a lot of people, but on the simple practical issue of stopping planes going through Shannon, direct action is the only thing to have actually accomplished anything in terms of stopping planes.

My point is though that the Greens are by and large anti-war, and shouldn't be targeted for abuse for not being aggressive enough. The other side of the coin is that they should show similar respect to those people who choose to use non-violent direct action.

by Joe Fri Mar 21, 2003 16:44

Janus we are not criticising the Green Party for being unwilling to go further then marches (but such a criticism is legtimate).

We ARE criticising them for attacking those who are willing to go further. And spreading lies as part of doing this.

by Graham Caswell Fri Mar 21, 2003 17:06

I agree with 'peaceful person'. I doubt if Bush or Rumsfield or Franks or any senior US official is even aware that a couple of charter airlines changed a refueling stop somewhere. While the movement of the charters lessens Irish complicity in the war, in terms of preventing or hindering the war itself its pretty irrelevant.

What wouldn't be irrelevant would be an Irish governmant decision to remove refueling privileges to US forces. This would make worldwide news and clearly illustrate opposition to war.

However the only thing that would force the government to withdraw refueling facilities at Shannon would be vast public pressure - like that on F15. But that will only happen if the mainstream are on board and they are turned off by direct action and angry scenes in the streets.

Reasonable, well-informed argument; examples of passion, committment and sacifice; the words of trusted and respected people; hard work on the phones and with the press releases - all of these have a real effect on mainstream public opinion. Screaming about the 'pigs' preventing 'direct action' doesn't.

Finally, Joe, do you have any real examples of anybody in the GP "using the media to spread lies about protesters it disagrees with". That's not how the Green party operates and, unless some of the GP representatives have suffered a complete change of personality, I doubt it's true.

by Joe Fri Mar 21, 2003 17:39

I can see why they have you in the press office. You clervelly manage to suggest that the succesful removal of some of the carriers from Shannon is unimportant but at the same time promote the unsuccessful attempt to pressure the government as the way forward.

Really "However the only thing that would force the government to withdraw refueling facilities at Shannon would be vast public pressure - like that on F15" gives the game away. F15 and 100,000 on the streets is not a theory that is untested. It happened and refuelling is still happening. And direct action is not a theory that is untested either. It has also happened and resulted in 3/4 of the tropp carrying airlines pulling out. You can spin those two tests in anyway you like but one have cleary had an impact and the other has not.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Mar 21, 2003 23:29

QUOTE:However the only thing that would force the government to withdraw refueling facilities at Shannon would be vast public pressure - like that on F15.
ANSWER:So, F15 happened and it did NOT "force the government" to do anything.

QUOTE:But that will only happen if the mainstream are on board and they are turned off by direct action and angry scenes in the streets.
ANSWER: I assume that you have some evidence to back up this assertion? Or is it your omniscient insight into the mind of the "mainstream" that enables you to make this statement.

QUOTE:Reasonable, well-informed argument; examples of passion, committment and sacifice; the words of trusted and respected people; hard work on the phones and with the press releases - all of these have a real effect on mainstream public opinion.
ANSWER:Are you saying that mainstream opinion which is now solidly anti-war must be convinced to be anti-war? Are you saying that there has been no reasonable, well-informed argument or examples of commitment and sacrifice?

QUOTE:Screaming about the 'pigs' preventing 'direct action' doesn't.
ANSWER: So far the people that have been most instrumental in preventing direct action have not been the pigs. They've been people like Trevor Sargent, Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett who have spent their time screaming about "violence". It may have escaped your notice in the bubble of sanctimonious delusion that you occupy but the streets of the USA are boiling over with peaceful committed activists who have failed to stop their government. Furthermore it's quite clear from historical examples and recent events that reason and well-informed argument is no use when dealing with the un-reasonable and un-informable criminals that hold power in Ireland.

by Crudden Watcher Sat Mar 22, 2003 02:15

Crudden, you are a virtual warrior. You are not active in the workers' movement. You are nothing but some bum that goes around hassleing genuine activists with your pathetic attempts at 'direct action'