Garda Harassement of Anti-War vigil in Dublin

by JQL Wed May 07, 2008 22:57

most new mobiles have a camera which will do a bit of video. Some will do plenty of audio as well. But, in order for it to used in court, you have to tell him you're recording it. And in fairness, the very mention of that, usually puts manners on most of them (assuming they're not massed in formation in full riot gear.)

If he gives you the same rubbish again, just tell him, you're not breaking the law, and if he doesn't stop hassling you, you'll complain him, using the recording as evidence.

by paul o toole Wed May 07, 2008 23:48

Theres nothing unlawful about protesting. It is a perfectly legal activity. Its in the constitution ensuring free assembly and free association. You cannot be arrested if someone filnds what your doing offensive, especially if it is the truth. ....but I wouldent hold my breath for long on that-(lets see how the Lisbon treaty holds up).
It is even legal to 'disarm' warplanes parked illegally in Ireland- a jury of ordinary Irish citizens said so when they unanimously acquitted the pitstop plowshares.
Tell the cop to go and catch drug pushers, they love that.

by Rooster - None Thu May 08, 2008 04:35

Article 40of the constitution should awnser your questions about the gaurds claim to have a right to stop your protest. But the end the seconnd paragraph of section i) from what I understand of it kind of leaves it open to discression of the cops.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Thu May 08, 2008 09:31

I grew up in Queensland, Australia.
In '77, my last year of high schoo,l the state government (an alliance of Calvinist hillbillies on the take from transnational corporations and a corrupt Irish Catholic police force on the take from local crims) suspended all free speech. We could not march, leaflet, gather publicly in groups of three or more people or individually hold a placard bigger than 24 inches by 24 inches. This was primarily to stop a debate on the mining and export of uranium. One of the big customer was the Shah of Iran those were the daze when the U.S. was pro actively encouraging the nuclear industry in Iran now we are on the verge of a war due to nuclear developments there. Go figure! I digress!

Thousands of us refused to go along to get along and demanded our human rights by practising free speech, we gathered, we spoke, we sang, we picketed, we marched and there were over 3,000 arrests in 3 years. Many of us were jailed, beaten, raided, blacklisted merely for expressing an opinion the government did not appreciate. That government finally fell a decade later after a Royal Commission into police corruption (there was a link state/cop corruption and the denial of a dissent!)
http://bushtelegraph.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/fear-and-...well/

After 30 years of activism I tend to agree, whatever the constitution and legislation, with the insight of Yossarian in Catch 22 "They can do whatever you can't stop them from doing!" Killing children in Iraq abroad, denying democratic rights at home.

The biggest enemy to free expression in Ireland today is the lack of people exercising it - it really is a case of free expression use it or lose it!

I have made a personal commitment that while these wars are waged on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan - I will stand publicly stand for an hour a week, alone with or others, expressing my dissent.
Whether that be in my hometown of Brisbane
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/51198
or in London
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85865
or in Dublin
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72406

Sometimes it is better to stand alone. You end up interacting with the public more than your mates on the vigil.

I also think it was a great shame that the left/NGO's did not respond to the initiative of Speakers Corner in Temple Bar over those years
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/65336

it was great way to engage ordinary people and encourage them to express an opinion publicly....and ordinary people loved the experience. Free expression is like any muscle if it not exercised it will waste away. We will desend rapidly into a society of passive consumers rather than active citizens. And the state - like the garda in this case at the GPO will make its moves on the isolated remnant

by Ciaron Thu May 08, 2008 09:58

http://bushtelegraph.wordpress.com/?s=fear+and+loathing...go%21

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Thu May 08, 2008 17:11

"But, in order for it to used in court, you have to tell him you're recording it."

So how come this law doesnt apply to "evidence" collected by CCTV cameras in the street ?

by Observed Thu May 08, 2008 18:24

Look up Section 7, public order act 1994.

And the CCTV is covered as there are signs telling you when your entering an area with public CCTV

by Jacqueline Fallon Thu May 08, 2008 23:12

That Garda should have kept his political opinions to himself and not be going about the place threatening to take placards away from peaceful and decent Irish citizens such as, Colm Roddy and others, who gather on a weekly basis to highlight injustices and promote peace and humanity in an ever increasing hostile world. This Garda may wish to live in a hostile world and may find their peaceful methods troublesome, as it leaves him with absolutely nothing to do but make inane remarks to them.

The Garda’s threatening and sinister remarks should be offensive to all decent people who believe in civil liberties. Everyone on this island has the right to gather and protest peacefully and to be left in peace and not to be threatened, and everyone should ignore such remarks emanating from bored members of An Garda Síochána just begging for a fight and an arrest - 'Guardians of the Peace', mo thóin!

I dedicate the comical piece to all the over zealous and bored young Gardaí out there and, particularly, to the Garda mentioned in the report above. http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=nZoSqPxsNtU&NR=1

by Robbie Sinnott Thu May 08, 2008 23:51

The relevant section cited by Observed is as follows.

' It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

[GA] (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

There is nothing threatening, insulting, abusive or obscene in demanding an end to war or in demanding an end to Ireland's facilitation of the chief aggressor in this war.

This young Waterford/Carrick/Clonmel guardian of the war approached us in State regalia, and all others who turn off their brains when they go on duty, should know that they're not acting justly when they attempt to provoke or confront pacifists without any recourse to legal excuse.

Rather, I'd suggest they bring their consciences to study the defence of 'lawful excuse' which led to the acquittal of the acquittal of the Shannon Five by a jury of their peers in 2006. Their damaging of a warplane was construed as being a breach of the illegal war, and as such, allowable under the Criminal Damages Act, 1996.

As it happens, we weren't even calling for direct action, but if we had been, it'd be a brave or foolish prosecutor who thought he could prove an intent on our part to cause a breach of the peace. Our position would (given the clear context), be quite the opposite.

Strange times we live in, if a call to put an end to war could be construed as 'reckless'. If they did a Civics course in Templemore, would they teach concepts such as a citizens' duty to conscience and the greater good - or is civil life to be ruled by less weighty abstractions of a thick blue wall.

Strange times, indeed.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Fri May 09, 2008 07:42

Saw Tony Benn the other night at Trinityand I agree with the comment he made near the end of the meeting.
"i don't believe in protest, I believe in making demands!"

The Catholic Workers vigil - which to stay awake while society slumbers through the clear and present danger of Shannon as a U.S. military base in an illegal, immoral unwinnable war.

It's not rocket science - all you need is a piece of cardboard and some marker pens and the state feels threatened that you are breaking with the passive consumer role you have been designated.

It would be good if people made their support for the Raytheon 9 action www.raytheon9.org visible (in the streets of Dublin or the street or campus of your hometown) over the coming weeks as the trial kicks off on May 19th. and is predicted to go 4-6 weeks.

by Coilín Fri May 09, 2008 13:03

This Garda was abusing his powers. Apparently through ignorance of your constitutional rights to express your political convictions and opinions.

Suggestions:
Bring a notebook and pen, and even possibly a dictaphone with you on demos.
Also, have witnesses with you to help you to enforce proper procedures.

Bring a copy of Article 40 of the Constitution with you, ready to show it to any Garda who doesn't remember and understand it:
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
If you have leaflets, have this printed somewhere on them.

If you are approached by a Garda who is abusing his powers as in the situation described, do as follows:
If you have a dictaphone, turn it on and tell him you have done so. If he continues to talk past this point, he is consenting to being recorded.
Write his number in your notebook.
Ask to see his ID. He MUST show it to you on request. (I was approached by a man in plain clothes, claiming to be a detective, near Shannon once. When I asked him for his ID, he said he had left it in the office. He went to fetch a uniformed garda, who showed me his ID on request. It may have helped that Tim Hourigan and Ed Horgan were monitoring their procedures.)
Copy his name and other details from his ID card into your notebook.

Ask him to repeat what he has said. If it is inappropriate, write it down verbatim, repeat it back to him and ask him to confirm or correct the quote.
Ask him whether he has sworn to uphold the Constitution, and whether he has read Article 40. If so, ask him to explain what he thinks it means.
At some point here, he ought to get sense and go back to doing his job.

If he persists in harrassing you, say the following
I'd like to comply with all relevant legislation. Can you tell me by what authority you are objecting to the peaceful expression of my political convictions and opinions?
If he gives you the name of a piece of legislation, write down the name, section and paragraph.
Ask him to quote the act. Write his words down.

If he fails to give a reasonable account of himself, advise him that you will be making a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman:
http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/gsoc-garda-ombudsman-compl...s.htm

By the way, if a garda asks you for your name and address (after he has identified himself by showing his ID card), then you are obliged to tell him. But if he asks you for your date of birth or any other information, you are entitled to ignore the question or ask him your own questions, e.g. whether he has remembered to eat lunch, whether he has met Chief Inspector Kathleen O’Toole, whether she would approve of the way he is spending garda resources, etc.

Good luck.
Coilín.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Poughshares Fri May 09, 2008 16:45

I wouldn't say it's ignorance.

We have human rights that know colonial outpost government servicing empire can take from us.

The issue is that people aren't exercising them. Get off the internet and on to the streets.

In the meantime a word from The Clash....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL0CCphgmZ8

by Shop steward Fri May 09, 2008 18:12

Coilín:"By the way, if a garda asks you for your name and address (after he has identified himself by showing his ID card), then you are obliged to tell him."

Not true. Unless provided for by a specific piece of legislation that applies to the situation you're in. EG Road Traffic Act if you're driving a car. Otherwise you are a free citizen who may travel the peoples' highways at will. Subject to Public Order Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, etc, etc.

If you are asked for your name you can give it VOLUNTARILY or refuse. You would be well advised to ask under what provision the request is being made. If you refuse aggressively you could risk the Garda forming a suspicion of various offences under various acts and invoking the powers that go with it.

by ddissident Sat May 10, 2008 00:51

I find it quite amusing that so many people take notice, and object to the CIA using Shannon while at the same time giving no attention what so ever to their ability to interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil, in total secrecy, and deport them, for any reason. Or the recent law that forces ISPS to log all Irish citizens entire digital footprint (emails, websites, search enquires etc.) for two years while the CIA is monitoring Irish citizens personal bank data.

by Robbie Sinnott Sat May 10, 2008 15:17

re: the easily amused ddissident.
The Vigil on Monday was about Ireland’s facilitation of a devastating, illegal war, /as well as/ Ireland’s facilitation of other US abuses of Human Rights. On another level, the vigil was/is an attempt to keep the issue visible and a public discourse on it sustained.

The article is primarily about how two out of three vigillers at the time were harassed by the police. Links can be drawn between the focus of the vigil, and the focus of the article. Rather than be amused at concerns over the use of Shnannon (an amusement that seems to be based on some imagined, personalised charicature), you might entertain yourself in a more fruitful way by making links between the issues of Shannon and political policing – it’s easier to join the dots here than to separate them.

There is not a dissonance between the aim of the vigil, and the focus of the article.

Policing Political Expression on the Streets
When the Socialist Worker banner headline in July 1999 read JAIL THE BANKERS, and when it was openly sold on the streets – including at the GPO – maybe, the police could moer easily have argued that it was threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

The SWP could’ve said that the headline was meant as a satirical flourish along the lines of ‘workers of the world unite’; or else, that the paper was not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands, but merely demanding that the law of the land be upheld by state institutions – including the DPP and the Courts etc.

It’s likely that no action was taken by the authorities because the proving of ‘intent’ with regard to bbreach of the peace would’ve been allbut impossible.

Youth Defence took up psitions around the same time, on the middle island of O’Connell Street, just opposite the GPO, displaying pictures (so large that even I could see them) of aborted foetuses. I don’t know what happened eventually, but this was a regular feature every Saturday afternoon for several months, afaicr. There’s many a passer-by who would have found these to be insulting, abusive or obscene – I met several people who said as much. The Gardaí were once again reluctant to act.

In the Socialist Worker case, an opinion was being expressed as a headline; in the Youth Defence example, they were representing real images. It’s not necessary to parse the anti-obscenity trials of the 20th Century which turned back censorship in the US and Britain to understand that even the first bit of the 1994 Public Order Act does not turn gardaí into taste-police or thought-police. It is, however, the ‘intent’ or “recklessness” re ‘breach of the peace’ bit of this legislation, that is the ultimate buffer against police-state ignorance – such as that exhibited by this lone guard in last Mnoday’s vigil.

As suggested above, all sorts of political pamphlets, papers and images have been on public view since 1994. Is this Vigil case just a lone garda bad apple, or is it a sign of an institutionalised shift towards An Garda Cogaidh (Guardians of the War). * I’ll leave arguments that all policing is political (in a general sense), to another time and space.

Previously, the gardaí have been used as Political tools, mainly against Republicans – for unique historical reasons and prejudices, and the generic context of Max Weber’s observation that the state needs to affirm a monopoly over the legitemate use of violence. Now, in the South, political policing has proliferated to other areas and levels.

Political policing (or policing of thought-crime) by men dressed in blue shirts – Colm told me that three weeks ago, someone on the vigil was made to take down a small poster from the window-sill of the GPO – is redolent of the 1920s/1930s b*shirt phenomena; but there are some notable differences:

a). The Gardaí are a traditional institution of the state – began from the top.

b). All large parties are part of the establishment. This would be the case by now, even if it weren’t for the political consensus and convergence which has popular apathy as a side-effect.

As a result, alternative worldviews are marginalised.

The police-state is evident in the jackboot tactics used on crowds who protest particular, localised, unaccountable dictats, as demonstrated in Rossport, Tara, Dublin and elsewhere.

Political policing is at its latest stage in the attempted silencing of the dwindling number who try to voice (publically) concern for more powerful, globalised, unaccountable alliances and dictats.

Russia is not so far away politically. John Dimbleby says that freedom there, only means the freedom to travel, and the freedom to spend (if you’ve the money). They look at Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib, and even the enormous inequalities in the US, and ask if democracy is really all that different to what they have in Russia.

Here in Ireland, we’d got accustomed to an older American tradition – that you had wide-ranging freedom to say what you liked, so long as you couldn’t make that much of a difference – although, in rural Ireland, alternative voices were often viewed, disparagingly, as ‘intellectuals’ or ‘Commies’.

Are the significant few who continue to exercise these rights to the full to be expunged from public view? The answer is ‘no’, if people use their critical faculties /and/ reclaim our public spaces (Ciaron O’Reilly above).

A clue to the answer of my more general question about the politicisation of the police in ‘The Republic’ may be in the discerable shift from An Garda Síochána to An Garda Cogaíocht with their hastling of civilian observers at Shannon instead of investigating the cargo of Omega Air et, al.

Two issues stand out
1. freedom = freedom of the mainsteram nothingness;

2. As ddissident might agree, beliefs rather than actions are becoming a domain of political policing – something which was the preserve of religion before the 20th Century.

by Observed Mon May 12, 2008 07:06

Robbie Sinnott,
I never stated my opinion oconcerning what was or was not offensive, etc. I merely stated that there is a law concerning expressing opinions and displaying them in written form contrary to what people have stated. I agree with you in that I dont personally find it offensive but that doesnt change the legislation and the fact that the Garda in question was simple waiting for someone to find it offensive. Lets be honest, a lot of people find a lot of things offensive that you or I might not.

As for recording, writing down, etc. This is more bad advise that will lead people into trouble not away from it and has been discussed multiple times in the past. We will never get anywhere if we continue to throw incorrect statements around instead of getting good solid and above all, correct information out.