Immigrants March to the Dail - with babies in buggies!

by and anonymous again Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:03

What a shame then that the protest bore all the hallmarks of what is typical about Irish politics. Residents Against Racism is an amazing group - they are a true grassroots organisation and are involved in so many amazing campaigns.

The march was giving the voiceless a chance to be vocal and outspoken. Immigrants in Ireland get a hard time from everyone - the media, the politicians, the cops - so allowing them the chance to be visible was extremely important.

Unfortunately, at the end of the march, what did the crowd get? Speeches from four white, male, Irish, well-paid politicians. Then a few words from a female university professor who sidelines as a lawyer. We know these people support the cause, and we know the reasons why we went to the demonstration. We dont need to be told again.

Why not give the megaphone (a symbol of oppression in my eyes) over to the people who are never heard? Why not allow the immigrants - the voiceless - to tell their story about coming to Ireland, and the difficulties and uncertainties they face in their everyday lives? Isnt this what protesting is meant to be about? How can we talk about democracy when it isnt even exerted at demos?

Those in power and with positions of influence were still trying to exert that yesterday. Even the front of the march was being spearheaded by a certain nameless (ah who cares it was Joe Carolan) SWP attention seeker who will jump on any bandwagon he thinks might get him elected in later years.

If we're serious about demos and protests for the voiceless in society then we have to take a step back from out politicking and the usual shite we endure and allow the actual PEOPLE CONCERNED to talk and empower themselves.

by Curious Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:20

Getting a few digs in at the SWP? What did he call them recently? Liberal Left?

by Chekov Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:36

the SP somehow manage to pop again. And Stephen Boyd, somebody's idea of an all-powerful demon, is up to his old tricks again?

Leave the SP out of it for once. Why not take the article at face value and assume that the author is who they say they are? This seems to me the most plausible reading of it. Everything doesn't revolve around the SP you know.

by pat c Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:41

I suspect Chekov is correct seeing as Joe Higgins was one of the white male speakers. Not all evil stems from the SP (just most of it).

by pat c Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:45

"Why not take the article at face value and assume that the author is who they say they are?"

er chekov, the 1st comment was by and anonymous, the article by another anonymous. who do you reckon they are?? ;)

btw

Boyd is definitely not the main SP demon in Indy demonology. Surely that must be Hadden or the poor much maligned Kevin MacLoughlin.

by Chekov Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:00

I read it as the anonymous poster and commenter being one and the same person. This I picked up from the title ('and anonymous again'), the fact that the posting time was exactly the same for both article and comment and the similar style of writing in both.

Actually I think that, far from being devious, this way of sending in the post is sensible. The article itself covers the substantive issues: the subject of the protest, its composition and the fact that it was a success. These are by far the most important things to say about the protest and they are all properly described.

However, the author obviously found a couple of things annoying about the protest. S/he sensibly put these into a comment as they were side issues, compared to the main point of the protest. If they had been put into the article it would have been a distraction. On the other hand, if you ignore them they won't just go away. So, hats off to the IMC journalist, thanks for the account, thanks for the comment and well done for separating out the important stuff from the (also important but less so) criticisms of the political jockeying.

by redjade Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:02

ill be posting some photos of this event soon - juggling mary kelly and carrickmines castle at once! eeks!

by Ruairi Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:07

What's with all this anonymous shite? Why are IMC users so fond of code names, secret posts, imaginary superhero titles? - For fecks sake, it's not WWF wrestling we're dealing with. Many of the opinions and voices expressed are decent, well founded and much needed. Why be ashamed? Why be afraid? Who are we afraid of?

by Cleaver Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:24

I think the problem may be that if people use their real names and are recognisable as members of a political party or campaign group, there is nothing to stop trolls & shit stirrers using their names when they publish shite, maybe a method whereby people can register either proper names or nick names could stop this happening & then encourage more people to use their real names.
Do the SP have a website, and if they do can the people who have nothing better to do than block every thread slagging them off please direct your bile directly at them and leave the rest of us out of it

by pat c Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:43

OK! I was just being a smartass! I give up , you outsmarted me.

Yeah, even I must admit the SP thing spills over a bit too much. But if the SP are going to publish articles on Indymedia then they must expect cooments and criticism. Its their habit of not answering questions and of applying Stalins airbrush to their past (now embarassing) policies that causes resentment.

by John Meehan Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:50

It would not be indymedia.ie, without the usual predictable personal attacks - mostly from anonymous sources - who should be boycotted.

For the record, the amplification used by the speakers at the end of yesterday's march was poor, and I did not hear most of the speakers too well even though I was only a short distance away.

For the record the parts of the speeches I did hear from Joe Higgins and Ivana Bacik were very solid and well thought out - I think it is unfair to criticise these two activists for speaking - (It is likely they were invited to do so) - because I have attended many very small public meetings and other activities they have regularly supported without getting any credit or publicity - they just did it because they supported the cause.

So far as I could see, the organisers asked some of the people threatened with deportation to speak, but many were reluctant to do that for very understandable reasons.

I have some political differences with Joe and Ivana - don't we all - but I have a lot more respect for them than tiresome (mostly anonymous) posters to indymedia who indulge in petty, useless name calling, gossip, and vicious personal attacks.

On this point Ruairi is right - but I repeat my adivice to boycott the anonymous posters (even when you think they make sincere and useful contributions) as a means of trying to clean up the discussion lists.

by pat c Fri Jul 04, 2003 15:57

I would have disagreements with the article but it is not in any way irrational or ultra left. It is legitimate to point out that too many of the speakers were white male politicians. I accept that Joe Higgins does good work on this issue and it certainly isnt a major vote getter, but that doent mean hes above criticism.

I thought the criticism of Ivana a bit over the top, she was there to give a legal perspective.

On the question of anonymity, its understandable , give the abuse and workplace outing which occurs , that many people, including IMC editors, will choose to remain anonymous. Are you suggesting that IMC editors ignore themselves or that in general they be ignored?

by Muireann Fri Jul 04, 2003 16:03

Just to get back to the orginal comment after the article. I agree that it is imperitive that the underrepresented and the 'voiceless', as you put it, should be given a chance to express their valid opinions. The most effective way to further their cause, however, is through drawing as much attention as possible to it. The best way to do this it to utilise the support of those in power.

by Colm Durutti Fri Jul 04, 2003 19:11

I am surprised that this posting provoked a bout of inter-left skirmishing rather than consideration of the topic that had been raised.

But what's so unreasonable about denying automatic residency to people who come here to have their child ? As far as I knoew all European countries do it, and the US does it. If a Mexican woman crosses the Rio Grande to have a baby that does not entitle her to an American Green Card, though her child is a US citizen. I would bet that the countries from which these people are coming have the same law as we do. Its self-evidently reasonable that people should not decide to come to Ireland to have a baby just because that would give them residency here. And if you don't believe that that's what happens, speak to anyone who works in Dublin's Rotunda or Hollese Street Maternity Hospitals. In the long run letting such people in, at a time when our hospitals are full and we have no housing to spare, only creates resentment and tension.

by Durutti Fri Jul 04, 2003 19:13

is not me.

by anonymista - who cares what name it is - does it matter? - SP, SWP/GR, SF, GP, ISF, ANL, CW, WSM, ASF, AFI, RTS, GG, CM - who gives a shit where its from? Fri Jul 04, 2003 19:23 vanishedintocyberspace at theabyss dot ie some working class suburb (a lie) to gain pseudo-respecability among reverse snobs six six six sixty-nine, sixty-eight (i owe you one)

In all seriousness - about anonymous posting - does it matter what my name is or what organisation (yawn yawn yawn - do you really think everyone who posts anonymously is hiding their political grouping? maybe I dont belong to - shock horror - ANY organisation at all!!) I'm from?

OK I'll tell you my name. It's Pat Murphy. No, hang on, it's Mary O'Brien. Paul Smith. Nuala Kelly. John Byrne. Anne Cassidy. Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly.

Who gives a flying fuck what the name is. What's in a name? OK my name is Kate/Karen/Aidan/Declan/Hilary/Sarah/Fionn. You know it. Now is the argument made any more or less valid? Are the points and IDEAS not to be debated? Who CARES what's someone name is.

Anonymous posting is the business - because it cuts through all the bullshit of ego, personality, and irish politics. Long may it continue. Lets trade ideas words and concepts.

by Not again Fri Jul 04, 2003 20:02

did a post about an immigrantsmarch to the Dail end up discussing the SP. This is ridiculous.....

by Anony Fri Jul 04, 2003 20:19

Ruairi having been involved in several group with you, I consider you to be a total and utter fecking muppet.

I mean you're utterly useless.

Therefore I and the others use names like this to vent spleen and tell you what we really think of you you fecking ejitt.

And would people please boycott anonymous, the wet fucking drip!

by Kev - various Fri Jul 04, 2003 23:03

Cleaver - "Do the SP have a website, and if they do can the people who have nothing better to do than block every thread slagging them off please direct your bile directly at them and leave the rest of us out of it."

Ah please god no. Yes there is a site, and I look after it. But I get enough shite daily in emails, without anonymous SP haters adding to it. Have a heart.

by Seáinín Sat Jul 05, 2003 03:50

reassuring to know the red menace is in such incompetent hands.

The real worry that many Irish people have is that the experience of many western countries with a large negro population has not been an happy one.

In Britain and the USA there is a totally disproprtionate number of negroes committing crimes as comapred to the numbers of white people.

Why is that? It can't be denied, you can look up all these numbers for yourselves.

Irish people fear the same crime wave here and therefore are supportive of the government's moves to limit immigration. I support the government's efforts because I don't want to see the our already sickening criminal fraternity boosted by help from abroad.

by Colm Durutti Sat Jul 05, 2003 08:03

It shows the level of debate from such as Durutti when his/her only response to my reasoned posting on the need for measures to combat abuses of our rather relaxed immigration procedures was to be called "Racist Fool". Actually, I am neither. But don't take my word for it. Ask the people of Ireland--they've never been given the chance to express an opinion on this. I'll accept their answer.
Colm Durutti (Durutti Column--geddit ?)

by IMC hacker Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:27

I'd wager by the use of the word rhizome

by David Rynne Sat Jul 05, 2003 15:33

What is a criminal? there might be a greater proportion of foreign nationals in our jails then they represent in our population statistics, but that's because many crimes in our country are ignored.
From all my experiences of Business people, they seem to almost universally cut corners, break the law evading or avoiding tax, they cut corners on workers health and safety issues, they generally "play the system". and they live champaign lifestyles because of this. If a lower class person breaks the law to make ends meet he/she is locked up.
It is very racist to alledge that just because you're a refugee you're more likely to be a criminal.. Especially considering the genocide the west perpetrates on the developing world every day because of our criminal trading arrangements and the proliferation of multi-mantional corporations who exploit the local populations and re-patriate the profits to America so it can be poured into the development of horrendous weapons technologies.

by Kev - various Sat Jul 05, 2003 18:48

"From all my experiences of Business people, they seem to almost universally cut corners, break the law evading or avoiding tax, they cut corners on workers health and safety issues, they generally "play the system". and they live champaign lifestyles because of this."

Ah sure that's not *real* crime. That's only begrugder talk. Sure if the rich can't abuse the system then where would we be? Did they teach you nothing in school? Respect the rich and their system fiddling, hate the poor - sure aren't they all lazy half-wits anyway, otherwise they'd be rich like us. Crime is caused by criminals and most criminals are foriegn. This is a fact, and anyone who says any different, we will riducle mercilessly and call them communists.

Heil McDowell

by George Dillon Sat Jul 05, 2003 19:06

Immigrants March to the Dail ???

This thread is inaccurately phrased, as far as I can see from the content. They're not "immigrants" till they have been accepted as such by the host country, which apparently they have not. In the US they would be called "undocumented aliens" (and sent straight home).

by David Rynne Sun Jul 06, 2003 13:26

Count the ways that America makes up terms to allow them to treat the rest of the world with contempt

by Kev - various Sun Jul 06, 2003 16:32

we don't live in america... yet.

And the fuck is up with 'undocumented aliens'? and 'enemy combatants', 'terror suspects' (ie arabs) and 'we want to treat you different so we'll make up a new name for you' (ie anyone else who the ruling classs doesn't like).

Cop on to yerselves. America is only free if you are rich, white and sheeplike.

Someone once said to judge a country, you must look at the least well off and see how they are treated. Somehow I doubt America measures up to much in this regard.

by Kev - various Sun Jul 06, 2003 16:47

the same person as 'Indymedia Kevin'?

Neither of which is me.

by imc hacker Sun Jul 06, 2003 19:13

Yes. but he's lying low after getting in trouble for putting a link to porn on one of his last posts

by Durutti Sun Jul 06, 2003 20:19

There are plenty of anonymous SP posters like hs an Red Dawn 1917 who make a living out of sectarian attacks on other groups. Lokk at the beam in your own eye.

by Kevin Sun Jul 06, 2003 20:24

The rhizome thing isnt just limited to me I'm afraid.

by Kev - various Sun Jul 06, 2003 20:30

comes mr/mrs. (not the racist) Durutti's attack on me.

"There are plenty of anonymous SP posters like hs an Red Dawn 1917 who make a living out of sectarian attacks on other groups. Lokk at the beam in your own eye" -

and what exactly are you referring to here? why post this at all? of what relevance is it to the thread? to the debate? to anything other than your own hatred?

HS by the way is Henry Silke who lives in Italy. He's not anonymous. As for Red Dawn, s/he may or may not be a member, I don't know. But if one of our members wants to come on anonymously and make sectarian attacks then I'm not gonna defend it.

May I suggest some kind of treatment for your 'virtual tourrettes' , like virtual ritalin?

by Durutti Sun Jul 06, 2003 20:49

He has never come open before. Come on Kev, any article by the LP or SF is attacked by a crowd of SP hyenas both anonymous and named. You are the people who require Valium.

by Shane Sun Jul 06, 2003 21:09

I'm a bit confused - but I think it might have been my friend Aoife G who wrote it, she texted me to say she wrote a piece about the march on Indymedia.

by Someone who was actually there Sun Jul 06, 2003 21:37

Sorry to intrude upon all the backbiting, boys and girls, but just to correct the mistaken comment that opened this up.
Three asylum seekers did speak at the end of the march: two Rumanians and one Nigerian. The Nigerian speaker also spoke at the Central Bank before the march moved off. Considering the danger they were placing themselves in - making potential targets of themselves for the vindictive bastards who run the Department of Injustice - this was an extremely brave thing to do.
The fact that the vast majority of those participating in the march were themselves asylum seekers also seems to have gone unnoticed. As has the fact that the organisation of the march was primarily carried out by asylum seekers. The voiceless made their voices heard on Thursday.

by Kev - various Sun Jul 06, 2003 23:28

Thousands March For Peace in Palestine
by Henry Silke - Socialist Party - Lotta per il Socialismo Tuesday, May 14 2002, 12:22pm
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=4831&search_text=henry silke

(ah the search engine is a great thing)

now how many irish cwi members do you know that live in italy that have the initials hs? a bit like FK, OK, and Pat C. I 'outed' him. Jeez. You act like its some big conspiracy.

Anyway, Durutti you are a fine one to talk about posting attacks. You even post attacks on threads totally irrelevant to any discussion on the SP, such is your obsession.

What other members post is up to them. Point me in the direction of the last time I even criticised any other organisation, let alone attacked them. Can't do it? Then shut up. As for valium, personally I prefer other relaxants.

And back to the original post, well done to those refugees/asylum seekers who had the courage to speak out. and to everyone involved in the demo. Hopefully there'll be many more - well actually hopefully there'll be no need for any more, but that's highly unlikely.

by Muireann Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:45

I think it's a crying shame that a potentially good discussion on important issues (the immigrant march) has deteriorated into this kind of crap. I have just recently discovered this site and thought that maybe it could be an informative alternative to the normal news centres. Unfortunately, this in-house style cross referencing is not only irrelevant, but also very dull and boring. Perhaps I was mistaken in hoping Indymedia could hold an intellectual debate on interesting issues.

by pat c Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:31

i have never known kev to make a sectarian attack.

have to admit though that i didnt know who hs was. i imagine that was true of most (non sp)people on indy.

by IMC troll monitoring unit Mon Jul 07, 2003 15:22

Hey look! Our usual couple of goons have managed to divert an unrelated thread with more of their attacks on the SP. How fascinating.

by Daithi - 1 of IMC IE Mon Jul 07, 2003 16:25

"Unfortunately, this in-house style cross referencing is not only irrelevant, but also very dull and boring. Perhaps I was mistaken in hoping Indymedia could hold an intellectual debate on interesting issues"

Muireann, I know where you're coming from, but there's very little that 'Indymedia' (i.e. editors and volunteers) can do in terms of this. I've had the discussion before with regulars from all sides that it's simply bad form to write as if you're on a private email list, where everyone knows the personalities and prior happenings. Comments on Indymedia articles should be contributed with the assumption that no-one knows what you are talking about. Arguments jumping from place to place might be fun within a small social circle or even a discussion board with registered users and profiles, but on an open site like Indymedia, it is simply rude and elitist.

This is essentially something that the wider Indymedia community should take responsibility for. Editors have neither the time nor the patience to act as schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, keeping the boys and girls in line and on topic. It's next to impossible to edit out some of the spiralling arguments anyway - without a chart, you can't even work out which debate belongs where! But hopefully those who are (unintentionally) weakening the open publishing system will step back a bit and allow new readers to actually make sense of the site.

Please?

by sigh Tue Jul 08, 2003 23:16

something has to be done because these people won't control themselves. especially considering the fact that the agenda of more than one of them must be purely to insight petty squabbling and undermine this resource