Reply from Paul Gogarty

by oneofthoseyoutoldtoshutupandlisten Mon Mar 24, 2003 22:39

Paul,
War is very disruptive to a lot of people, so you may find your life a little disrupted with people serious about nonviolently resisting it.

Some groups such as yours are using the war as a marketting opportuniity to advance careers and opportuniities...this is shameful.

It is objectionable when you attempt to undermine nonviolent resistance - as you did the last week -and when you do this you must be confronted.

I can't imagine another Green Party in the world not involved in nonviolent direct action at the moment and actually going out of their way to undermine and marginalise the small amopuntthat has been mustered in this country. This is a sad reflection on the conservative and reactionary nature of this country (even the greens are conservative & reactionary!). Seems like those with any got up and go, got up and went! And are now involved in nonviolent resistance in OZ, US, UK, Baghdad.

Check with the U.S. Ambassador and you will get the opinion that the two disarmament action removed 3 criminal U.S. corporations transporting U.S. combat troops from this country. A lot of the posturing by opportunistic politicians is predicatable and irrelevant. That's o.k. just do your thing/go through the motions in the chamber and leave the streets to us. o.k. (if you rode a bike you wouldn't have a problem).

by again anon (the one who gave him the megaphone) Mon Mar 24, 2003 23:27

and most of those present were there from 12, except those from UCD who arrived after the UCD stoppage.

i notice he didn't apologise for telling certain people to 'fuck off'.

a good record in kosovo? i think this needs a little explaination...

poor mr gogarty wanted to get home so he could eat his tofu - awwwww. (i'm a veggie too, but i don't go around mentioning at every oppurtunity) and the parall draw with the butchers shop is simply ridiculous.

i do agree that sometimes DA can be counter-productive (but lets not get into that debate right now eh?).

however in this case, the small DA by the protestors was totally justified (in my opinion) and was not going to alienate ANYONE, cos we were all basically a part of it.

no-violence was used by the cops? sure an auld beating unconscious of a protestor is nothing is it. not like the violence carried out on poor defencless animals.

so you agree with chaining your self to a railing? what if the chainees has chained themselves to the dail gates (they are a kind of railing).

truth is gogarty is afraid of any kind of action that he percieves to be a threat to his careerist ambitions in the greens.

and finally - sure the cops were only following orders. got some news for you paul - US/UK imperialist forces in Iraq are 'only carrying out orders' - so the Iraqis should stand by while the US invade in their latest assertation of power/greed/dominance?

the iraqis repelling the invasion are to be commended for standing up to imperialism - unlike mr gogarty.

by Cian Tue Mar 25, 2003 00:50

There was no violent attack by the Guards - says Paul Gogarty.

I'll give Gogarty the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't see what went on outside the Dáil properly. But if this is the case he should refrain from making definitive statements like the one above.

The Gardaí were clearly violent. Apart from general agression shown in over zealosuly remvoing protestors by pushing them, kicking them, shoving them and deploringly trying to pull locked on protestors apart (which could have led to broken limbs), the Gardaí also managed in their aggressive pushing and shoving to hospitalise one protestor who was knocked unconscious.

But if all that doesn't constitute violence in the eyes of Gogarty who seems to think that dismantling a war machine doesn't constitute non-violence, what about the mad Garda who was wielding a bolt cutters.

He viciously used the heavy metal bolt cutters as a mallet and repeatedly swung at the arms of locked on activists within a tube. This was done in full view of his colleagues and resembled the efforts of someone chopping wood with an axe, except that this Garda's was trying to chop human limbs. Does this not fit in to the Green definition of violence?

Furthermore, given the random chaos of the Garda attack on protestors, the garda in question could easily have been shoved at the wrong time by one of his colleagues pushing away protestors. This could have gone horribly wrong and could have resulted in him missing his target and hitting the head of one of the lock on activists on the ground. And yet Gogarty has the cheek or is it naivitey to defend such actions!

by fellow green Tue Mar 25, 2003 01:26

look paul that's just not good enough.

you should apologise for shouting at people carrying out a non-violent protest, telling them to shut up and listen.

you should apologise for not listening yourself.

you should apologise for thinking (presumably not consciously)that your wish to get at your car was more important than a non-violent action against Irish participation in the war.

you should apologise for the implicit opinion you displayed that your role is more important than other people's.

you should apologise for stating that there was no Garda violence when you weren't present at all times to witness it.

you should apologise for driving to the Dail which would be an easy cycle for you.

if you approve of chaining yourself to things you might have chained yourself to the gates of the Dail when they were voting to allow US troops to refuel in Ireland, but you've missed your chance.

so now you might apologise practically by occupying or blockading Shannon or Baldonnel, or at the very least by attending court cases of activists and personally showing your support (and apologising).

civil disobedience is core to green politics. if you can't respect it you must be in the wrong party.

by james redmond - socialist alternative Tue Mar 25, 2003 13:04 antrophe at hotmail dot com

'There was a large queue of
cars waiting to get out following the Dail voteThese included anti-war anti-shannon
voters such as Dan Boyle and Joe Higgins.'

Awww...god fucking love them, so mass action against the war is a principle that you call for but fuck out the window when it affects you're schedule as opposed to that of others?

Great to see the Irish greens going the way of the Germans, at least illusions in them as a force for change will be shattered quicker than elsewhere.

While most people are being sold more green products, the question is who the fuck profits from them?

by Green Party Member Tue Mar 25, 2003 13:38

Paul,
you were downright silly, and you're not doing yourself any favours with that reply either.

You should have sat down with those people, made a better point, and with more effect than you did in the Dail, and it would have improved the manners of the Garda Siochana led by that disgraceful thug-in-blue, Inspector Keenan.

by Mark - SP Tue Mar 25, 2003 14:14

I didn't here of Joe complaining about protesters blocking his way.

Certainly Paul Gogarty should either have taken the Bus home (he is after all in the Green Party) or he should have joined the protesters.

by Anorax Tue Mar 25, 2003 14:41

Unlike Peter Hadden, SP Tout in Chief, Paul did not point out or name anyone to the cops.

by Jane Butterworth Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:27 janebworth at hotmail dot com Glasnevin

Mr Gogarty doesn't seem to have done his political career any good on this website judging by most of the responses so far. But the sheer fanatical nature of some of the responses prompts me to provide a bit of balance.

If we are to fight for the truth we must cut out the propaganda and hype on our own side too. From Mr Gogarty's reply he asked for people to move over a few feet. He doesn't seem to have done it tactfully or politely and needs to learn a few lessons in dealing with the public.

But what was the problem with letting anti-war TDs out of the Dail to go wherever they were going? They are busy people, or so they say. It seems to me that some of the more extreme elements of the direct action group and Catholic Workers are more concerned with being legends in their own lunchtime rather than doing something that will actually affect illegal Government policy on Shannon or help stop the war or help the suffering Iraqis and Kurds.

I hate protests. But they are sometimes necessary. And we all feel great about ourselves afterwards, but isn't there a law of dimishing returns? Protesting is a meaningful way to voice opinion, but we run the risk of being looked upon as a small rabble of fringe elements unless we come up with other constructive ways of doing things besides throwing paint around and invading offices.

And then there are those who deliberately antagonise the Gardai. I wasn't there so I can't say, but who was actually violently attacked by the Guards? Are there any official complaints gone in? I await these with interest because I saw Socialist workers deliberately confront the police in London before. But on the other hand, I was at the May-Day celebration last year and saw what went on with some of these walking egos and their power buzz. On balance though most of the Pigs are fine. To compare them "just doing their job" to the UK/US soldiers "just doing theirs" is to forget that in Ireland we live in a democracy and under our constitution the Gardai are there to protect the citizens. Citizens include TDs who have paint thrown over them, no matter how much they may deserve it. Give the Guards a break. Our parents are always complaining about the lack of Gardai on the streets for God's sake.

The FF and PD backbench cowards are laughing all the way when they see anti-war infighting. Politics is the only game in town at the end of the day and we need sensible politicians as much as we need people power. We should support decent politicians like Paul Gogarty who seems to have genuine anti-war credentials.

by Paul Gogarty TD - Green Party Tue Mar 25, 2003 20:03 pgogarty at oireachtas dot ie 01-6183022

I noticed the discussion above which seems to be fair enough, but elsewhere on this site some so-called journalist has been spreading misinformation.

You have read my reply to someone which was posted without my knowledge. Just for further clarification I have posted a reply to someone else who had the guts to contact me directly.

(Note to party members. If you want to say something, say it to my face. I would be happy to meet you and talk over a cup of tea or coffee)

Anyway, in the spirit of fairness and removing names where applicable here is some further information. I don't like violence by Gardai but honestly didn't see any on the day. I am raising the matter, however.

"Dear F..

Thank you for having the courtesy to contact me directly as opposed to some of those who have put misinformation up on the web. I appreciate that.

Explain?

Simple as this and to expand on what I said already to some others: I was near the plinth having just finished voting against the use of Shannon in the Dail. Dan Boyle was on his way out (as I would have been in due course) but there was a large queue of cars blocked because of the protest outside.

I had been at this protest and spoke at it around 12:20. But then at lunchtime I was appalled when Senator Terry Leydon had paint smeared over
him. I disagree with this as I felt that it totally ruined the impact of the protest on the day the media's eyes were on the Dail activities.

When the cars were queued I was concerned in case someone would target TDs going out with paint as opposed to protest. So I said to Dan Boyle I would
go out and try and ensure that nothing happened because like I said I disagree with that form of direct action as I think it damages the cause
more than furthers it.

I went out, noticed some people lying/sitting down in protest, but didn't notice that they were chained together. That was the major mistake on my
part because what followed happened in isolation. I basically borrowed a megaphone and said: "shut up for a sec, just for a sec, my name is Paul
Gogarty i spoke here earlier, just to let you know that the vote has gone through but that there was a large vote against the use of Shannon,
including from the Green Party. I would ask if people could move over a bit to let people out, because everyone's coming out after the vote and there are quite a number of TDs who are anti-war who are being blocked as well."

It was then that someone pointed out that people were on the ground and were being moved by the police. [one person] at this stage came over and told me I was not wanted. I said I hadn't been aware of people chained and then went over to three Gardai and told them to be careful because people were chained together and would be hurt and that it wouldn't reflect well on
them. I also used the argument that certain people at the protest were just dying for someone to be hurt as this could be an example of "police
brutality". I believe that to be the case of a small minority, but not necessarily the majority, but it was an argument that would work with some
police.

At this stage I had given the megaphone back. Then [the same individual] saw me talking to the Gardai and using the megaphone called me a "Green Party police officer" or something to that effect and a "political careerist" and "bureacrat". This pissed me off majorly so on the spur of the moment I retaliated, something I regret doing [and not something I would be politically proud of]. I gave him a finger sign because I had
no megaphone to talk back. I also blessed him because I thought that would appeal to his
Catholic worker mentality.

I don't agree with his methods aims and he obviously doesn't agree with mine. I can only assume he is sincere in trying to stop innocent Iraqis being butchered and believes that the more violent/assertive form of direct action is the best way. I disagree and respect his views. but he didn't respect mine and tried to slag off my party for his own gratification. All I did was ask for people to have the courtesy of moving the protest aside slightly as I do not think the original intention was to block the Dail
entrance. And if you appreciate that I did not know of people chained at the time then you can see my logic as thinking it would only require one step sideways.

So that's my explanation. What I did seems to have pissed a lot of people off. I apologise to those I unintentionally offended by my naivity and lack of situational cop-on. But I don't apologise for asking people to move or for disagreeing with paint attacks and intimidation. That's where I differ with some people. It doesn't make us enemies, but together we need to focus on the best way to tackle the illegal war and help those suffering.

Trusting that this explanation clarifies some of the issues, even if you don't necessarily agree with me.

Best wishes,

Paul Gogarty

ps - I have also tabled a number of Dail questions regarding an investigation into allegations of violence by Gardai on protestors and in one case, on Gardai."

by Phuq Hedd Tue Mar 25, 2003 20:30

QUOTE:I don't agree with his methods aims and he obviously doesn't agree with mine.
ANSWER:I assume that the inclusion of "aims" in there is a typo, however it is an interesting one.

QUOTE:I can only assume he is sincere in trying to stop innocent Iraqis being butchered and believes that the more violent/assertive form of direct action is the best way. I disagree and respect his views.
ANSWER:Again the Green Party stealth attack claiming that lying down in front of cars and then being attacked by Gardai is "violent" in some form. Really, it it weren't so ham-fisted it would be Orwellian.

CONCLUSION: The only thing that you would appear to have learnt from this is that you've blown your public image to shreds. Your only hope of recovery from this was to make a sincere apology and to stop baiting the non-violent direct action people as being "violent". You have not only failed to do that, but have actually come out and done it again. I give up. I've made my mind up on you as I suspect have a lot of others.

by Ciaron O'Reilly - Dublin Catholic Worker Tue Mar 25, 2003 21:36

Jane sistah, your lunchtime legend comment lacks in originality and any logical argumment it rates merely as a statement of prejudice aganist the young?, religious activist? ...who knows you keep us guessing on the nature of your pprejudices.

Paul, dude, your inching closer to an apology, maybe you'll get there someday. You were acting with the cops as a cop. Hey sometimes I've acted as a CW cop in violent soup kitchen situations. But on this occasion you were acting as a cop to police dissent and underminenonviolent resistance to the war. You were asked to leave and eventually you found the good sense to leave.

It's hard to work out if your attempts to characterture the 60 year old pacifist Catholic Worker movement as violent is malicious or born of ignorance. You should read Petra Kelly's autobiography, there will you discover the Catholic Worker predates the Greens and was a significant influence on Kelly and the birth of the Greens.

We now know the Greens went on (maybe motivated by efficacy over faithfulness Jane)to compromise on pacifism and support the B-52 bombardment of Serbia. But the Catholic Worker communities have remained steadfast to pacifism giving rise to the recent disarmament of a U.S. Navy war plane at Shannon and (according to the U.S. Ambassador) the removal of 3 U.S. companies transporting troops and munitions from Ireland.

In response the state has attempted to slander the Catholic Worker resisters as "violent" the false accusation that "Catholic Workers assaulted hospitalised a Garda during the disarmament" repeated by Ahern, Ministers for Transport and Foreign Affairs and the U.S. emmisary Haas....rejected by the Garda press statement

Either through maliciousness or negligence you are now part of the attempts to slander the Catholic Worker resisters who face trial and serious prison time for serious nonviolent resistance to this war. You & others play it loose with definitions of violence - trying to imply that anything legal is nonviolent and anything illeggal is violent. This war along with the lives of Jesus, Gandhi, Berrigans, Day should have convinced you of the contrary by now.

by fellow green Tue Mar 25, 2003 22:11

Paul, a few more comments. sorry i'll give the coffee a miss, hope you appreciate anonymous advice.

first of all i think it is good that you are willing to explain yourself in this forum. and its particularly good that you are willing to apologise. for a politician to describe himself as naïve and lacking in cop-on is unusual. well done, (and i'm not being sarcastic).

but you still have things to figure out. i'm sure this is stressful but you need to learn from it.

you probably realise you’ll have to control your temper. most politicians have serious ego problems and a bad temper will only make that worse. you'll definitely have to get used to people seeing you as a politician trying to exploit the situation even if you aren’t. that suspicion is natural and justified because so many politicians are badly motivated. the only way to dispel it is to do the work and not the ego-tripping.

you should learn not to make snap value judgements on other people you don't even know. this stuff about people who “have the guts to contact me directly” is macho nonsense.

but most of all you need to take note of what Phuq has said. your phrase “the more violent/assertive form of direct action” is infuriating. you must know that sitting in front of cars is not violence yet you seem determined to ally yourself to Bertie et al in depicting non-violent civil disobedience as violent. you need to clarify your thinking and apologise for this slur.

by Paul Gogarty TD - GP Wed Mar 26, 2003 00:19 pgogarty at oireachtas dot ie

I take more points on board and still disagree with others.

Phuq, I think your mind was made up from day 1.
Nowhere did I specify that lying down on Day X was violent/aggressive. You are suiting your own argument. To be specific about it, the paint attack was violent. If you don't acknowledge that then I give up too, at least on you, at least for the next 24 hours.

Separate to last Thursday I also consider attacks on property to be counterproductive. Not wrong, even sometimes morally right, but also - crucially - ammunition for the media to twist it. Personal view. Tie oneself to the fence versus cutting it etc.

It's great that Ciaron has come and given his views too. I still disagree with the cop stuff(as an elected rep I have to deal with them every day on many issues). Some good ones some bad. Some genuine some crooked. Just like politicians and revolutionaries. But thanks for bothering to engage directly rather than behind my back Ciaron.

Phuq, read what I said earlier again. The freudian slip description regarding method and aim is nothing sinister. First I thought our aims differed but then on reflection I am sure Ciaron and I have the same aim ultimately, it is the means of achieving it which is slightly different.

The hothead description is dead on. No problems with that. I didn't get elected by being Nice. Nice Greens get walked on. So you develop a tough skin.

Calling me names is like a red rag to a bull. Not because of an ego (we all have ego problems) but because I felt it was unfair and an attack on integrity rather than a disagreement with views. What I am basically saying is that if people are willing to acknowledge that I am sincere in my anti-war stance, than I can acknowledge that they are equally sincere and that the whole event arose from a misunderstanding.

If I did see someone being attacked I would have brought it to public attention. I did urge several Guards to be careful but didn't stay as I was told I wasn't welcome.. As it is I have tabled Dail questions about the afternoon.

Again, we disagree on the methods, but good to see that we can all discuss things and hopefully respect each other's views and integrity. :-)

But as for the anonymous Greens, it's not macho stuff to ask you to contact me personally. It's called having the courage of your convictions. I just want to know where people are coming from.

Nine times out of ten when people talk honestly and listen they end up having a more positive opinion of the other person and their views. So come on!!

Everyone else, let's have more of the Jesus, Gandhi and of course Buddha. Thin line between pacifism and pass a fist. The borderline is the problem. I know that non-violent direct action can work and support it generally where it is targeted. But if it has a whiff of violence -real or even open to being misread - it risks alienating the middle ground. And it is an angry middle ground that scares the daylights out of the FFers of this world.

Yours in peace, etc

Paul

by Ciaron O'Reilly - Catholic Worker/Pit Stop PLoughshares Wed Mar 26, 2003 01:53

Ok Paul,

We both weren't at our best. I had done a 10 pm - 8 am shift at the night shelter and returned to the 24 hour vigil we had set up at the dail the night before - so I was a little sleep deprived.(my choice, no sympathy etc.)

Locking on isn't my choice of nvda but I respect it from others....I can't afford to be busted due to bail conditions from the ploughshares/disarmament action.

So the scene was pretty intense and people passively lying on the road were getting hurt by inexperienced Garda (police at the Trident base in Scotland would have dealt with the situation a lot more professionally due to experience etc.) Some gards at the scene were concerned about people getting hurt and some weren't.

It was an historic and shameful day for Ireland. So emotions were pretty stretched...hopefully we can reflect a little and learn a little and be better next time.

I remember the farewell words of one of the blockaders to the Fine Gael leader who had stopped to dialogue in the morning "...you do your job and we'll do ours".

If we have a mass peace movement for a change (for however long?) we must expect a pluralism of approaches and action. It's pretty basic not to undermine each other...as much as time allows it is helpful to learn about the traditions people are springing from.

Catholic Worker praxis is about community building, direct service/solidarity with the homeless, direct nonviolent resistance to the powers that are wreaking havoc.

We have played a significant role in resisting Irish complicity in this war. We have been largely censored and misrepresented by the mainstream peace organisations...the jury is still out on motives.

What I was seeing outside the dail was a bunch of young people putting themselves on the line and being undermined and misrepresented. I tried to confront that (I could have done that better), calm down the cops making suggestions how they could proceed (this felt weird, but was relatively effective) and make a speech putting the action in the context of the war and encouraging foks blockading to speak to their motives.

Glad we've had the opportunity to reflect on this incident and move beyond defining folks out of existence.
Peace
Ciaron

by Paul Gogarty - GP Wed Mar 26, 2003 03:23 pgogarty at oireachtas dot ie 01-6183022

Ciaron, well said.

I have learned a few things from this dialogue.

Looking forward to moving on and doing what we can in our own ways.

Peace

Paul

by Kenneth Owende Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:40

I think that the Catholic Worker guys were a bit too hasty to have a go at Paul on the day. Of course that's easy to say now, and not in the heat of the moment.

I think that Paul could have intervened more, but it's not helped by people shouting abuse at him because he doesn't agree with the tactics of the protest.

Paul is right to say it's time to move on. In the heat of the moment there were misunderstandings etc on both sides. We're all against the war, and we should debate tactics in a friendly and respectful manner.

by Joe Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:46

I was there as well and a lot of Pauls comments look like post-event spin. Maybe that is unfair as I obviously don't know what was going through his mind but it fits into a general pattern of GP TD's labelling those they disagree with as violent, just as Bertie does. With 24+ now facing charges this is not simply a matter of words, the GP is helping to create the sort of climate where convictions and heavy sentences can be handed down on these 'violent' protesters.

Will the GP stop labelling non violent protesters as violent? If so we can move on but otherwise the problem remains. And lets have a simple answer rather then some more po-mo 'its how the media sees it thats important' spin.

by fellow green Wed Mar 26, 2003 15:12

Paul you said: "Nowhere did I specify that lying down on Day X was violent/aggressive."

previously you said: "I can only assume he is sincere in trying to stop innocent Iraqis being butchered and believes that the more violent/assertive form of direct action is the best way."

nothing to do with paint. do you apologise for the use of the word violent and recognise it as particularly damaging in the light of establishment lies about non-violent protestors?

you continue
"...The hothead description is dead on. No problems with that. I didn't get elected by being Nice. Nice Greens get walked on. So you develop a tough skin.

"Calling me names is like a red rag to a bull. Not because of an ego (we all have ego problems) but because I felt it was unfair and an attack on integrity rather than a disagreement with views. "

to be honest this doesn't make sense. a tough skin and a sensitivity to criticism are opposing qualities. clarify your thought.

"...But as for the anonymous Greens, it's not macho stuff to ask you to contact me personally. It's called having the courage of your convictions. I just want to know where people are coming from."

no Paul, the macho stuff is telling people they "haven't the guts" to contact you. i know you well enough to know that like most people you would focus on the person and not on the issue. i'm only trying to help.