|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Travellers and activists to protest new Public Order Act national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Monday May 06, 2002 21:34 by vbnm
 FEATURED ARTICLES Travellers and activists to protest new Public Order Act Activists have often criticised the restrictions placed on protests and direct actions under the Public Order Act - and prosecutions under the Act have increased in recent years. Now they have been joined by Traveller groups in calling for a protest on May 2nd against a set of amendments to the Act pushed through the D*°il last month that create, for the first time, a crime of "trespass". This featured article takes a look at the current offences that have been used against political protesters, and the changes that the Government made under the anti-Traveller amendments Under these new laws, tagged onto the end of an otherwise normal housing bill, it's now a crime to enter and occupy or bring any object onto property (private or for the use of the public) where doing so would (among other things) damage, i can't believe you fools are protesting this. heaven forbid there should be a sensible law anywhere in the republic of ireland. my aunt is a solicitor and I can not count the number of times i have been in a car driving aorund with her and she points places that had been invaded by the "travellers". She has told me repeatedly that it costs 15,000 pounds to go through the courts and get an eviction order, but that the travellers are more than willing to take 10,000 pounds to leave right away, without all the trouble of going to court. the whole thing is just a scam on the part of the travellers. how do they get all those new caravans? by shaking down law abiding citizens. there is no way in the world it is fair to ordinary people to have to pay 10,000 pouds to get people off their land who shouldnt even be there in the first place. the last time i was in dublin my aunt drove me by a park that was completely trashed out and destroyed- the former home of a group of travellers. then we had hardly gone 2 miles down the road before we came to the very same group of travelers camped out on a private football field and in the process of destroying that, just a few months after it had been refurbished by the owners. and the guards wouldnt do anything. who in all the world doesnt know that you cant set up your home on a brand new, private football field? only the travellers. well screw them and their ilk. if you can't be a helpful part of society, at least you can refrain from being a destructive force. anyone who protests this has got some serious problems. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (3 of 3)
Jump To Comment: 3 2 1Look: even if I were to agree that this bill were an appropriate response to the problem of Travellers [1] then there's a problem with the bill: it is NOT specifically directed against travellers. It is a general provision which will mean that it is criminal for ME to engage in trespass as a form of protest. Thus, if I decide that I want to do a peacefull sit-down protest in the constituency offices of some politician, or the offices of some corporation I am suddenly faced with the prospect of a criminal charge on my record and much severer penalties. I don't want that. Personally if it comes to that then I'm abandoning any peaceful protest.
The implications of this draconian legislation for our society are terrible: it drives protest into being a dangerous form of activity and raises the stakes considerably. It is possible that this will result in much more violent protests and much less democracy. This bill is not a useful one and is an invitation to the authoritarians that run our society to stifle dissent some more.
1. The "Traveller problem" faced by the non-traveller community like the "Irish problem" faced by the poor Brits not so long ago is one created by the oppressors in both case. The solution is simple: your rich aunt and mine have to spend some of their tax money on creating some decent halting sites on Ailesbury Road. Perhaps Mr.Lowry when prosecuted (ha ha, just kidding!) will be ordered by the judge to turn over a small part of his misbegotten gains to fund a nice fully-provisioned halting site in his area?
"if you can't be a helpful part of society,"
I think your forgetting your talking about your society, your rules and your morals.
A bit of respect on both sides in this debate might help.
amen to the respect on both sides, as to the other, i am not aware that the travellers have exactly rejected irish society. they certainly don't seem to have any problem with it when they can turn it to their own account. i am not aware they have rejected irish rules eitehr, again when they suit their own purposes. in for a penny in for a pound, you can't just be a part of the society when it suits you and take advantage of its rules and morals when they suit you, and all of a sudden not be a part of that same society when it is not convenient for you.
if the traveles just rejected irish society outright i would have less of a problem with them, but abusing the system and unfairly taking advantage of others is not going to win you any accolades, or it ought not to anyway.
"if you can't be a helpful part of society,"
I think your forgetting your talking about your society, your rules and your morals.
A bit of respect on both sides in this debate might help.