Supreme Court sides with millionaires to block off Old Head of Kinsale

by redJaDe Tue Mar 11, 2003 16:46

Where can we find more info about this?

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 16:48

Lest anyone be in doubt, the supreme court has shown once again that the function of law is to protect the rich & reactionary.

i remember after the norris judgement, delivered by the late unlamented ex(?) fascist tf o higgins, i had a bagge with the caption "fuck the supreme court". time for a new edition of it.

by redJaDe Tue Mar 11, 2003 17:04

The Carrickminders won the recent Supreme Court decision by using the National Monuments Act of 1930.

Read the decision, not only does it apply to Carrickmines Castle, but ultimately recognises the right of people to have 'standing' in the courts to protect such sites.

there is hope.

I'd like to know more about the above effort.

by Mags Tue Mar 11, 2003 17:05

Thats a great line of flags in pic 2 :)

by Terry Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:00

The State is there to impose the will of the ruling elites. On rare occasions after much
effort they come out in favour of the people such as the recent Carrickmines decision, but
usually they soon reverse those minor victories.

Ideally, if we could, we should ignore the State, because their legal games are also useful for
bogging down campaigns and draining them of resources, but as I said above they have to allow
occasional victories, otherwise people really would give up and switch to more effective methods.

In this particular case, the State has clearly facilitated the robbery of public lands. This
decision is designed to make any further trespasses and protests ineffective by criminalizing
those involved and thus giving the State the excuse to remove these effective campaigners, by
presumably putting them in jail.

The general rule with the State, if a campaign or group 'discover' an effective method that
begins to lead to real victories, then those very methods will be outlawed. They have no problem
changing the laws, and or re-interpretating laws in new ways, or using laws in ways not originally
intended to be used in a particular way. Thus once passed, they by virtue of their monopoly and
exclusive license to use violence, bring their forces or threatened use of, to bear on the problem.

Below are 2 URLs giving accounts of recent events relating to the Old Head of Kinsale campaign.

http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/kinsaleDEC.html
http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/oldheadJULY.html

by yawning at anarchists Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:05

You do know that not all here are anarchists, right?

Does 'diversity of tactics' include using the State?

by Mike Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:26 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

This is NOT the way to report a Court decision, in terms of its "net effect". Courts rule on law and decide "facts", not effects. Well sometimes a suit in "equity" (rather than "law") may take effects into account.

What was this case about EXACTLY. Who was suing whom claiming what and what did the Court decide about THAT issue?

by Terry Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:44

In these relative abundant times since the end of the 2nd World War to now, the
State indeed has given some token benefits like health and education and even some
attention to the environment. But in my opinion, they are just luxuries and it
could 'afford' to give them. This of course has only applied in the 'West'. In the
rest of the world, things never really got that good or at least were not allowed to
because of the constant meddling and interference by the West on the one hand and
the former USSR on the other.

However you will notice one consistent thing about the State, when times are 'hard' the
first thing to go is the environment, followed by social welfare, education and health.
Simultaneously during such times, and this is particularly evident in the USA, is that
budgets for the military increase significantly and usually handouts in various forms to
large corporations and or big business in general. There were major handouts ($100+ billion)
to corporations within a month or two after 9/11 and at the same time the social security
funds were raided. Then you have that $1 trillion 10 year tax break that numerous pundits
have show will prodominately go to the top 10%

In the case of Ireland today, we can see there is no money for primary schools or for fixing
our health system, but there is money to pay for the SSIA (saving scheme) which will over-whelming
benefit the richer end of Irish society. It is estimated the SSIA will cost the government
anything from several 100 million to over a billion euro for the SSIAs alone.

Likewise the road lobby continues to get big budgets for big projects, while funding to more
sensible things like sustainable transport (aka LUAS) is cut and delays imposed.

Again regarding prisons etc, the State has cut funding from various initiatives at community
level that were designed for reducing crime and others for rehabiliation. The sums were tiny
but still cut. When you consider it costs 80,000 euros per year per prisoner and these very
projects were costing much less individualy, but conceivably were capable of keeping 10s or
more of young people from slipping into a life of crime and ending up in jail, I think you would
have to agree have the true core values of the State are.

So in answer to your question, is the State sometimes a good thing? Yes when it's in good humour.
But then again, Hitler did good things too like pass anti-cruelty laws against animals. That
does mean his core 'project' was any the better for it. But nor does it mean because Hitler was
bad, we shouldn't have anti-cruelty laws too.

And so we have to look at the overall context and picture, which is, that the State is there to
protect the ruling minority against the will of the majority.

by Kommy Tue Mar 11, 2003 19:45

As far as I know, the case was an appeal by an bord pleannála against a decision by the high court to overturn a planning condition (that the golf club maintain public access).

So, the golf club is granted planning permission on condition that it maintains public access to the area of outstanding beauty on which the course is located. The golf club builds the course but decides it doesn't want pesky plebs wandering around the rich foreigner membership only golf course (even though there's a clear road through it which doesn't impinge on the golf course - it's the one they use themselves to get to the clubhouse). So they appeal the condition to the high court which overturns the condition. If I'm thinking of the right case, it was the appeal of the high court decision which was defeated by the supreme course [sic] today.

The Old Head of Kinsale is a small, beautiful rocky peninsula that has used by the people of the surrounding region and visitors for decades for countryside strolls, fishing, abseiling, general frollicking etc.

by Jim Costello Tue Mar 11, 2003 23:12

Jeffries' party, the workers'party was invented by Eoghan Harris to destroy the republican movement. And to a degree it succeeded. Its good to see the workers'party taking a pro-people stand, but its rather late in the day. 'Ireland her own, from the sod to the sky...such principles were mocked by worker party types as outdated nationalism.

by Mike - SWP Wed Mar 12, 2003 01:03

As someone from Kerry I have some knowledge of the owner of this Golf coures. He owns a huge amount of property in south Kerry.Originally from Glencar in south Kerry, he regularily walks through local sheep farmers lands looking for grouse etc as if he were some sort of English squire. He walked through my neighbours mountain which we generally dont have a problem with but yet he has sucessfully closed our Old Head to the public at the same time.

by Tom - WP Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:06

That the WP was invented by Eoghan Harris is a joke. It was built by the sweat of its members and under the leadership in particular of Cathal Goulding who was one of the first to defend it when Harris and later, the Student Princes tried to wreck it.

And the WP has always been involved in struggles like the Old Head of Kinsale one, from the fish-ins of the 1960s, the Civil Rights Association (Malachy McGurran, Des O'Hagan, etc).

by brian Wed Mar 12, 2003 14:39

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/briafilm.txt

Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's

fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.

Reg: What's the point?

Rogers: What?

Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?

Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against opression.

Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Trumpets: [Fanfares]

Audience: [Applause]

Guard: Get out there! Ah, get out there!

Victim: It's dangerous out there! Aah! Aiih! Oh.

Audience: Aah...come on! Ooh... Out a lot of garbage.

Brian: Lark's tongues! Otter's noses! Ozelot spleens!

Reg: Got any nuts?

Brian: Haven't got any nuts, sorry. I've got wren's livers, badger spleens...

Reg: No, no, no...

Brian: Otters' noses?

Reg: I don't want any of that Roman rubbish!

Judith: Why don't you sell proper food?

Brian: Proper food?

Reg: Yeah, not those rich imperialist tippets!

Brian: Oh, don't blame me, I didn't ask to sell this stuff!

Reg: All right, bag of otter's noses, then.

Rogers: Make it two.

Reg: Two.

Rogers: Thanks, Reg.

Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: Fuck off!

Brian: What?

Reg: Judean People's Front! We're The People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front, God!

Rogers: Blighters...

Brian: Can I...join your group?

Reg: No, piss off!

Brian: I didn't want to sell this stufff, it's only a job! I hate the Romans as much as anybody!

All in PFJ except Brian: Ssch! Ssch! Ssch! Ssch! Ssch!

Brian: Oh.

Judith: Are you sure?

Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

Reg: Listen! If you wanted to join the PFJ, you'd have to have really hate the Romans.

Brian: I do!

Reg: Oh, yeah, how much?

Brian: A lot!

Reg: Right, you're in. Listen, the only people we hate more than the Romans, are the fucking Judean People's Front.

All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah!

Judith: Splitters!

Rogers: And the Judean Popular People's Front!

All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah! Splitters!

Loretta: And the People's Front of Judea!

All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah! Splitters!

Reg: What?

Loretta: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters!

Reg: We are the People's Front of Judea!

Loretta: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

Reg: People's Front! God...

Rogers: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

Reg: He's over there.

All in PFJ except Brian: Splitter!