Dail protest - the truth

by Deirdre Reynolds Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:50

I concur. Finally some clarity among the anti-Gardai spin initiated by Indymedia in the aftermath of the May Day incident. Certain anti-war protesters are misdirecting their anger, don't scapegoat ordinary men and women doing their jobs. A peaceful protest means peaceful assembly. Remember,ultimately, its in aid of PEACE.

by Deirdre Reynolds Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:52

I concur. Finally some clarity among the anti-Gardai spin initiated by Indymedia in the aftermath of the May Day incident. Certain anti-war protesters are misdirecting their anger, don't scapegoat ordinary men and women doing their jobs. A peaceful protest means peaceful assembly. Remember,ultimately, its in aid of PEACE.

by ec Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:57

while offside after being dragged off. Why were there ambulances there? Did my friend send photos of 3 different ppl being put in ambulances on stretchers from Italy or Spain?

Young people loud and rawkus - they should be - they are following the principles of Nuremburg Charter - NVCD in face of Warcrimes in which because of McDowell and all - we are implicated. DU, Cluster Bombs, Shock and Awe, Starvation, Making a whole country's children sick and terrified.

Wouldn't it be great if RTE would show raw videotapes after controversial events like the dail so people can make up their own minds!

Back clad nightstalkers with no numbers are a deliberate provocation and attempt at bintimidation and this marks their second ever appearance inIreland - 1st time Shannon march 1st.

If they appear without numbers again then they are unaccountable and their senior officers should be held personally full accountable for their actions.

How hard is it to write a number on a sticker and stick it on breast or shoulder.

McDowells rubbish about the lack of numbers being down to uniforms being 'new' is an insult to the intelligence of citizens and only serves to confirm that he is of the Hard Right.

by ec Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:02

rte and tv3 got raw tapes from imc covering 30-40 min leadup to the dame street incident. the protesters offered no violence and were beaten publically by gardai - it is not spin - if you have questions or doubt this then contact the mainstream broadcasters who broadcast the footage and confirm it with them -

by justathought Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:08

It was bad policing, they should have just written off the area for a couple of hours. People would probably have got bored and gone home. Instead they did a bit of trainging for the WEF conference coming up.

The SWP stewarding was pretty pathetic....none of the leadership was leading from the front. They stood at the back chanting peaceful protest over and over....one would think the role of a strewrd is to get in between the cops and folks you are stewarding not just monopolising the palatform for your political party etc etc.

Overall pepople were very courageous, resolute and nonviolent.

Hard to know what the cops hoped to achieve (besides the priority of TD's driving home..rather thasn leaving form the other side of the building and catching a cab as many did...the SWp did weren't willing to have the proposal put to block both entrances because they wanted to control and evangelise a captive audience etc etc)

Tye garda failed to clear either street.....retreated when a deal was struck with the SWP (without any consultation with the crowd) that if they left the crowd would leave...this was spun as a victory by the SWP etc etc

by Church and State Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:24

Those clerics are playing a rotten role in the movement. If it's not a bishops bashing the anti-war movement, its some turbulant priest.

I think we should ask these people not to come to any of our demos anymore. They only ever back up the word of the Gardaí and the State.

by Jonno - none Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:28

I think that Stewards did well. There were not enough of them unfortunatly. But they did do their best to hold back the Gardai and they did defend people. Next time we will probably have more stewards, and they will not find it easy to attack us again.

by Curious Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:29

Why were 2 ordinary protestors charged and the leaders left alone. There was no organised protest at Pearse Street Garda Station in support of those who had been arrested.

Why did the leadership abandon these people.

by jo blogger - eye whitness Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:42

The PEACE Protesters were just that peaceful, the cops were once again the only ones to use violent means. Anyone who says the protesters weere violent wasnt there, there is no evidence at all of any protester violence, none.#
some religious nut saw someone play acting, so what - right off a movement?

why is it always the people who wernt even there who seem to think they know what happened?

Great protest, dont let the bully-boy NAZI tactics of the State put you off your work. The people of Iraq need you to keep the pressure on FF/PD.

See you at Berties clinic at 6

by RIGHT MINDED Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:49

Michael Greally, Fr Iggy O'Donovan and Pat Kenny show
Oh well it must true!!!!!!!!!

what kind of an idiot are you? Did you not see the Pictures on the news/indymedia.
Same old shit all over the world, harassment of the PEACE MOVEMENT.

Stand strong, we have them rattled
Look at how scared of us they are

by Deirdre Reynolds Thu Apr 03, 2003 13:02

wOW! How open-minded. If a priest gives his version of events, he's clearly a "religious nut-job". If a dogmatic protester does the same it's obviously gospel.Yet more bigotted spin from the Indymedia school of logic...
What makes you think your sources are any more objective or credible than a priest on Pat Kenny's show. One of the first traits of good journalism is not to value any sources version over another, be they Garda, priest, protester... Shoody journalism in full evidence here so...

by S Thu Apr 03, 2003 13:17

I agree, Deirdre.

I'm saying this as someone who is not remotely religious, but to dismiss someone like Iggy O'Donovan ( if you'd done your homework you'd find that he is a dedicated anti-war activist) because he is a priest is the worst kind of ignorant bigotry. I am no more a fan of the Catholic church than most of you, but through history, a lot of clerics have been heavily involved in civil rights movements, peace movements and general good causes, whatever you think of their religious beliefs.

One of the most outspoken critics of our government's right wing, tax-cutting, fuck-the-poor economic policies over the past 6 years has been the Council of Religious in Ireland. I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with them but I've come to admire their stance.

Some of the most radical civil rights activists in Latin America and the Phillipines have been Catholic clergy.

Don't be a bigot; it makes you sound as bad as someone from Youth Defence.

by pot kennedy Thu Apr 03, 2003 13:18

event reported properly here not on PK : Pk office and Comment line not taking comments during show - comment line engaged constantly - Michael McDowell / A Priest / Joe higgins used as the sources - church/state/organised left - none of which have much to do with massive surge of anti war protest here in Ireland (well the state does cos of criminal support for an illegal genocidal war for oil) - why no ordinary protesters voices - chomsky calls this a filter and that is what it is - no mention of the words stretcher or ambulance either - and pot kennedy said Joe Higgins was from the SWP - fuck sake that's desperate

by MG Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:00

"One of the first traits of good journalism is not to value any sources version over another, be they Garda, priest, protester..."

As a qualified journalist, I can say categorically that this is bullshit. A good journalist would know which sources are trustworthy and which are not. Most journalists have good anonymous sources within Garda headquarters because the official line spun by the garda press office is usually lies. The same goes for all the main political parties. Why do you think newspapers refer to "a government source" or "a party source" every time they write a story that contradicts the party line?

To claim that all souces must be treated equally is ridiculous.

Also, a good journalist would be able to tell what happened if he/she witnessed it first-hand. He/she wouldn't need to get information from secondary sources like the Gardai or the church. I wasn't there last night, but Indymedia reporters were. They took pictures and recorded video. This is good journalism. I have seen no pictures or video from any other media organisation which contradict the version of events on indymedia, so therefore, the overwhelming majority of the evidence (with the exception of Fr Iggy's contribution) shows that the protestors were not violent. Blocking a road may be against the law, but this does not mean it is violence. Attacking a peaceful protest, while dressed up in helmets and boody armour, leaving three people needing hospital treatment - now that's violence.

by Dave O'Connor Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:28

I have been on two anti-war protests and all I can say is that basically I am sick and tired of the scum element that are determined to break the law on these occasions. All this has done is to tarnish our image and message and indeed helps loose support. If you want to break the law then please do so elsewhere and stop messing things up. You do not control these protests - they belong to all the people.

I was not at Kildare Street last night but have yet to see a single image or video clip of the Guards using violence. Lots of people there had cameras so surely somebody has the evidence if what all the loud mouths are saying is true. Show us the proof. Moving people off a road when they ignore the Garda warnings is not violent. It is men and women upholding the laws that apply in our country.

by Catholic watcher Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:33

Fr Iggy what about all those childern that your organisation abused? How dare you come on the national media demanding respect for being a priest. YOu and your type deserve no respect wahtsoever.

Don't give me crap about 'only a small minority' that's bollocks and you know it. The fact is that abuse was widespread in the church and nearly every priest knew about it and failed to report it. You are ALL responsible you sick sexually warped bastards.

BTW
What do the so called Catholic 'workers' think about all this?If you are genuine why do you continue with this church and why do you continue to attend masses which are administered by these sick right wing perverts?

by Khalid Farouk Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:36

Why does the SWP still insist upon working with the church and the bishops in the anti war movement?

They play a completely reactionary role. They should not be tolerated. All Bishops and Clergy of all faiths OFF IAWM Demos NOW!!

by . Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:41

u are the scum element - who are you - why are you here - who asked you to write your little comment - would you like to drop cluster bombs on the scum element dave - lock them up - or just shoot them - i know from your use of language that someone sent you here - go tell em I said to send someone with brains back in your place -

by MG Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:43

Take a look at the photographs of protestors on stretchers that were posted further down the newswire. Take a look at the front page of the Irish Times. I wasn't there last night either, but the evidence seems to suggest that the Riot Squad manhandled protestors and flung them to the ground. This was in response to a sit-down protest. I suppose you supported the RUC when they did the same thing on the Garvaghy Road in the mid 1990s just so Trimble and Paisley could do a jig down the road with their Orange buddies. A sit-down blockade is not violence, but it was met by violence from the riot police. Why don't you point the finger of blame at McDowell and the others who are pulling the strings, rather than the committed activists who are trying to make life hell for the Irish Government in an effort to save Iraqi civilians from having US bombs falling on their heads every day?

by Michael Greally Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:50

Some of the comments posted above really say a lot about the type of persons that have infiltrated the anti-war movemment.

Comments from 'right minded' 'joe blogger' 'church and state' and 'catholic watcher' are quite simply despicable.

To attack a person purely on the basis of their religion is total and utter discrimation. I assume these contributors would also condem and attack muslim clerics in Iraq.

You have earned zero respect coming out with such tripe. Now you want to pick and choose who should be an anti-war protestor. What right do you have to do so? So now its Priests disqualified. Who would you like to attack next? Journalists? Taxi men? Gays? Blacks?

In one way I am glad people logging onto to Indymedia.ie website can see such comments so they will be able to make up their own minds about certain individuals lurking amongst otherwise decent law abiding citiznes who want to hold genuine peaceful protest.

by catholic watcher Thu Apr 03, 2003 15:35

I defend the right for people to practise their religion.

I am not attacking Fr Iggy for being catholic, I am attacking his right wing and bigoted views which he shares with the majority of his ilk.

I have the right to critisise these people and their religion, it is called freedom of expression. I am not calling for the burning of all churches or the banning of religion, I have the democratic right to critisise religion.

It would seem to me that you want us to go back to the days when I'd be imprisoned or shunned for daring to critisise these people.

Furthermore the Catholic Workers should clarify their position with regard to the church? If you are meant to be acting in the interests of workers why do you continue to tie workers to the catholic church?

by Michael Greally Thu Apr 03, 2003 15:47

Catholic Watcher,

I am glad you support free speech. You do indeed have a right to that, like me. However, your earlier comment said "how dare (Fr Iggy) for coming onto national radio demanding respect as a priest". Firstly, he did not demand respect off anybody. Secondly I dont understand why you want free speech just for yourself and not others. That is a bit strange. Surely Fr Iggy has a right to free speech also. Thirdly, you castigate him for what others did. That is also flawed logic, and extremely unfair.

Anyhow I am glad to see that you have toned down your earlier comments slightly. I despise religious discrimination and didnt like what I saw here.

by Oisin Kelly - UCDSU Education Officer elect - SP Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:50

"Curious" seesm to be attacking the elected leadership of the IAWM for apparently not giving a shite about the 2 arrested. That is Rubbish and you know it. We only got information that 2 were arrested after one of them was released! If there are any charges against them we will undoubtedly camapign against this attack on the right to protest. The reason why Joe and Richard weren't arrested were probably because they are seen as 'the leaders' of the anti-war movement among the media circles.

"Pot Kennedy" says "Church/state/organised left - none of which have much to do with massive surge of anti war protest here in Ireland". However you seem to think that the 'Organised Left' have done nothing to build the anti-war movement. I can safely say that without the SP, SWP, ISN and other groups and individuals there would be no significant protests. Who is it that organised the demos over the past while? the protest fairies?

"Michael Greally" seems to be vert soft of that Catholic Priest Iggy O'Donovan. That man unjustly criticised people at the demonstration yesterday. He has thrown himself into the media so that he can attempt to split anti-war sentiment. I think that we need to build a very broad anti-war movement, but I can certainly understand the sentiments of those wishing to kick the Roman Catholic hierarchy out. If I see 'Father' Iggy at any future anti-war activities I will give him a piece of my mind! I hope others do aswell.

by shocked_and_awed: not - The Public Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:51 Dublin

According to amateur video footage shown on RTE on their TV NEWS at 1 pm today 3 April, and possibly to be shown again at 6pm, an 83 year old woman was on the receiving end of the garda's long arm. (Also on radio 1 on their one o'clock news, I believe)

It seems she was near the barrier at Leinster House with family members. The uniformed guards suddenly pushed forwards, linking arms, and despite warnings from younger folk around, they continued to press this woman back against people who couldn't get away quickly enough.

Seems FF TD Sean Power wanted to get his car out of the Dail. Priorities, eh?

Anyhow, there is no way this elderly, but very capable woman was trying to start a riot, as some wags would have it! Give us a break! The video footage clearly shows that the crowd was frightened by the uniformed gardai, and several protesters tried to protect her. Eventually she was forced to the ground.

This made the protesters more inclined to stay and object more, than to go home. So, the worsening situation was caused by the senior officer who ordered the first 'rush' into the crowd.

This incident was entirely separate from the 'heavy gang' involvement later, but it set the tone of the rest of the evening.

If they had been just a bit polite, it might have not happened in the first place.

LAY OFF THE OLD LADIES!

83 years old and protesting! Deadly! Women are great!

by Deirdre R Thu Apr 03, 2003 17:01

In the process of spending four years obtaining a journalism degree myself, I know a little something on the topic too. Having conversed with 'a senior Indymedia source'(more credible sounding than the equally worthy Joe Bloggs???)who freely admitted that much of what was published on their website is propaganda originating from party political plants, i disagree that the organisation embodies "good journalism". If you truly believed that, then why bother training in the craft and simply join the ranks of those independent types who execute it so brilliantly? Oh, and a GOOD journalist would know that alot of what comes from anonymous Institutionalised sources is what is known as the ART OF SPIN.

by TROTWATCH Thu Apr 03, 2003 17:14

He just lets everyone know of his title. Elect? There is no such title or position.

He will take over Education months from now, until then he is a mere mortal.

by Catholic Watcher Thu Apr 03, 2003 17:46

I have no problem with a priest coming on the radio. What I have the problem with is the fact that he went on saying he was a priest. He did this to try to seem more respect there that is demanding respect as a priest. He should have just said his name was Iggy. If I was on the radio I would not go on saying I was a plumer why should he say he's a priest?

by Pot Kennedy Thu Apr 03, 2003 18:02

- I can safely say that without the SP, SWP, ISN and other groups and individuals there would be no significant protests -

Bullshit bullshit bullshit

PPL are mobilising themselves. the F15 march was choc a bloc with newly invented temporary groups and absolutely masses of handmade protest art - same with last big days at dail. I have taken part in lots of anti war stuff where none of the above were present - other groups and individuals covers a lot a lot a lot of ground - (who does this afterthought cover oisin?) and it is a little sickening to see parties jockeying for Position just cos local council elections are on soon.

That said fair play to all those who through the bickering and arguments (many of them necessary) are keeping a sense of purpose flowing thru many newly politicised people here in Ireland

by Aidan - IMC Ireland Thu Apr 03, 2003 19:02

About journalism, and what appears on this site.

Yes a large portion of what appears on this site is party political spin and frankly when we work with the open publishing system this is what you'll get.

However wander into the office of any newspaper and you'll see Ireland's finest often approaching a topic with their own preconceptions and bias. I've worked on both sides of the fence, and least I can say we're honest and up front about some of dubious material that appears on this site. Most importantly we offer this service the comment button, which gives us the ability to engage a story and discuss what is said on it, in an open and rational manner (or in a dogmatic manner in OKs and Trotwatchs world). My motto is never underestimate a "professional" journalists capacity for laziness.

Is indymedia a credible news source? One of my fonest indymedia memories is the abuse we got from Brendan O'Connor one Sunday, in the in Sindo, less than 8 hours into the following Monday and editors and journalists from the Indo were calling us wanting further details and photos of the catholic workers action in Shannon over the previous night. Very ironic.

We were banging on about Shannon, in '01, writing about Carrickmines 8 monthes ago, gave the mainstream media the RTS footage which wrecked the Gardaí spin, and published the entire Ansbacher report here, when no one else would.

In short not a bad year and a bits work for a news resource with no money, resources and staffed by part time volunteers.

We're not trying to be the paper of record, and it's difficult for us to follow a story like the big boys, we can't sit a reporter in at tribunals, or investigate stories for weeks at a time. But we do our own thing and we try.

by MG Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:32

"Oh, and a GOOD journalist would know that alot of what comes from anonymous Institutionalised sources is what is known as the ART OF SPIN."

Deirdre, I pointed out that working journalists have sources within all major organisations that they trust. I agree that a lot of the stuff these organisations put out is spin. That's the reason why journalists cultivate trustworthy sources. If those sources tried to feed spin to the media, they would no longer by trustworthy and a good journalist would not publish what they have to say.

Your point was that all sources should be treated equally. This is not true. For example, every time there's a demonstration in Dublin, the Gardai announce an official figure that is around half the real turnout. The SWP/IAWM/whoever organised the demo announces a figure that is double the real turnout. Therefore, these are both untrustworthy sources, mainly because they are spinning the facts to support their own agendas.

Are you suggesting that an objective, non-affiliated source who is trusted by the journalist in question (usually based on previous experience in which the source has turned out to be 100% correct) should be treated with as much scepticism as the Gardai or the SWP?

Are you suggesting that if, say, 1,000 people who were present at a demo said it was peaceful, but one priest said it was violent, then both versions of the story should be treated equally?

by Deirdre R Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:45

My simple point, getting back to Fr. Iggy Donovan's eye-witness account, is that, in the aftermath of the serious anti-clergy battering his statements got,the testimony of ONE priest is no less credible than that of ONE protester. I concur that the version of a thousand protesters outweighs the version of, lets say, one Garda- that's simple logistics. But that doesn't compare like with like.

by revolutionary Fri Apr 04, 2003 20:24

as someone who practices dialectical materialism i'm not the greatest fan of the catholic church or any religion. as i' from southern ireland i've a particular problem with the catholic church.

i'm in favour of freedom of religion. but be warned now priests, if there is the slighest hint of counter revolutionary comments you will all be slaughtered without mercy.

by Stephen Fri Apr 04, 2003 22:27

Oisin was quite right in pointing out that there was no way the IAWM could have staged a solidarity picket outside Pearse St garda station. I was one of the two people arrested and I was released before the actual demo had even finished. There was also no way, anyone could have known if people had been arrested.

As for the situation. I was arrested under the Public Order Act - Breach of the Peace, held in Pearse St garda station for about an hour until my brother picked me up because I'm still a minor. I was told I would supposedly receive a summons to go to Juvenile court and because I've no previous arrests I'd probably get a JLO, but I really doubt that it'll go that far.

by Phelim Mon Apr 07, 2003 13:02 phelimm at iolfree dot ie

This comment thread is typical of a major problem with the anti-war movement, indeed any anti-establishment protest. As soon as the protestors make the tiniest slip in any protest there's a huge amount of navel-gazing discussion about whether we are living up to the standards of Mahatma Gandhi and martin Luther King. Noam Chomsky has pointed out how protest movements in the US spend huge amounts of energy responding to and analysing every criticism directed at them by the establishment, effectively on the back foot all the time.
Sometimes this paralysis is deliberately instigated by those inimical to protest, often its caused by well-meaning purists. I don't know which category Micheal Greally or deirdre R are in but it doesn't matter; this approach is guaranteed to doom any protest system to failure. It is impossible to guarantee 100% Gandhi-esque non-violence at every protest especisally when protest movements are by their nature loose coalitions. To raise "peaceful protest" to the level that Mr Greally does is to denude the word protest of any meaning.
It is not only likely that at protests there will always be some ready to push the 'aggro', it is almost inevitable. But that is an irrelevant approach to take. The relevant approach (which Mr Greally and Ms R don't take unsurprisingly) is to ask whether the overall movement is actively pursuing violence or not. I think everyone can answer that question for themselves.

by jm Mon Apr 07, 2003 15:02

"just doing their jobs."
where have i heard that before?
i also have a bit of a problem with the "deal" that the IAWM struck with the police. as an ordinary protestor on the scene, i was not consulted as to whether or not i wanted to agree to the conditions set out by both the IAWM and the gardai. a vote was possible, but it was not taken. i wonder why.

by jaydee Tue Apr 08, 2003 18:53

Well dave,it seems you are the scum.
you say you want your own way on protests and that people who's methods you dont agree with should go elswhere.but then you go on to say-
"You do not control these protests - they belong to all the people."
you should read your message back to yourself before you post it.
why shouldnt we break the law on protests about things of this importance?
im angry,and i see little point in attending the protsets that take place where i live because there are always alot of people with similar attituds to you trying to controll the protesters and dictate their own methods of protesting.
we cannot even sit down in the street and block traffic without some socialist worker telling us we've made our point and should move.
i dont interfere with things i dont like(and trust me...there are alot of things about this anti war movement that i dislike)because it is none of my business and i shouldnt try and force my opinions on others,so then people shouldnt on me.
we are not going to stop this war now,it would be naive to think we could,but we must continue to protest and put as much strain and pressure on the goverment as we can.
we need to do this in our own ways be it lawfully or otherwise.
as you say dave,it is everyones protest,not yours or mine,so you get on with what you want and so will i.
dont forget we are on the same side,and i dont mind working together with you even though i know you are the man i see looking down his nose at me on the streets.
who is the real scum?