88% of 2fm theoretically support Mary Kelly's actions

by Seáinín Tue Jul 08, 2003 02:59

Poor David. You'll find out how things work for grown ups when you become one.

PS. make the most of your childhood.

by Daithi Tue Jul 08, 2003 03:30

I hate having to agree with Seainin, but it has to be done. Let's count the problems:

(1) it's a poll,
(2) it's by text,
(3) it's for radio station listeners, [(3a) who the hell listens to GO'C anyway?],
(4) the question was about the car scenario, and the legal argument is by analogy, not direct transposition,
(5) the defence is much more sophisticated than either you or "Love the show" Gareth puts it, and of course
(6) a moral case like that of war resisters does not rely for its justification upon opinion polling, even if flaws (1) through (5) were corrected!

by Seáinín Tue Jul 08, 2003 04:51

That's very reasoned of you Daithi. I might have to soften my tone if there's going to be some sense spoken around here.

by Daithi Tue Jul 08, 2003 05:28

Ná bac le sin. Lean ar aghaigh, in aon teanga is mian leat. Ach ná bí ag smaoineamh go mbeidh muid ar an leathanach céanna go luath. Ara is fearr liom agóid maith aon lá.

by Seainín Tue Jul 08, 2003 05:36

eadrainn. Ní maith liom agóid nó easaontas ar chor ar bith, go háirithe nuair nach mbíonn cúis cóir leis.

by paddy Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:47

A garda spots a peace protester wearing a balaclava on a hot summers day attemping to climb a fence at an AIRPORT(warport?????)) and gain access to the taxiways and runways thereby endangering the lives of the travelling public..
Should he
(A)Give him a hand by holding his hatchet and peace banner as he struggles to clamber over...
(B)Issue a warning that any attempt to enter a restricted and dangerous area such as an airport is not only foolish and dangerous but also illegal and will led to the protesters arrest.
(C)As soon as he touches the fence do as the did in Iraq in Saddams good old days,smack him with his garda baton,throw him into the back of the gardacar,interrogate him for a while using various and barbaric means and finally shoot him in the back of the head and bury him in an unmarked grave along with 300,000 thousand others listed as missing under the old regime.

by gaillimhed Tue Jul 08, 2003 13:15

The ole (C) option's a little tired at this stage Paddy, we *do* all know how nice saddam was, but this isnt about ex- US state department employees. In any case, is the existence of tyranny elsewhere a reasonable excuse to accept it in any degree at home?

by Lone gunman Tue Jul 08, 2003 13:23

Electrify the fence,and put a armed patrol on the airport perimiter,as any good military "warport" would have.Put notices on it every 40 feet warning the general public thereof,also in cartoon symbolism,for the illiterates under us.Thussly it becomes everyones choice wether they wish to breach an electrified fence and wants to run a armed patrol now know the consequences thereof their actions.

by David Rynne Tue Jul 08, 2003 14:24

I know text polls are very unreliable.. I know that the defence was much more complicated than this, and Gareth never mentioned Mary Kelly during his show (as far as i know)(btw, i only listened to his show because it was on while i was at work) Maybe he did intend the poll to draw parallels with the peace activists arguement, but he probably didn't, this is not what i was trying to say.

I just wanted to acknowledge the naturally obvious fact, with a little something to back it up, that most people do not consider it wrong to break the law with the intention and/or effect of saving a life. (the fact that it probably wasn't even against the law to damage the car, again, is not the issue here, most people would not be aware of the defence of necessity).
That the poll engaged in subject matter that was entirely uncontravercial allowed the results to be free of the political brainwashing that people have been subject to over the last year and for most of their lives.

Needless to say, this is not a legal arguement and it would be thrown out of a court, but i still believe that it should be heartening to the peace activists that they have so much latant support just waiting to be awakened through education.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Tue Jul 08, 2003 14:53 www.ploughsharesireland.org

Following the 2002 blockade of Faslane Trident base, a mainstream Scottish newspaper did a poll on who supported the nonviolent lawbreaking blocakde to evict Trident from Scotland. Over 58% polled supported the civil disobedience against Trident. The Church of Scotland it's annual meeting passed a motion in support of nonviolent civil disobedience to resist Trident.

This is not merely a poll on general opposition to nuclear weapons in Scotland, but one over the use of nonviolent civil disobedience etc.

by Anthony Tue Jul 08, 2003 17:38

Please spare me.
There is a minor difference between breaking the window of a car and wrecking a jet.
Remember, there was no young child in the plane at Shannon.The plane wasnt even going to Iraq and the war had not even started.Wake up and smell the aviation fuel or is your own smell too overpowering, crusties.
I see the two A10 warthogs are still at Shannon.
By the way someone was right who the fuck listens to 2fm which is run on our tv licence fee money (those of us who pay it) and then wont tell us how much that sicko gerry ryan makes.Theres a scandal. Go up no and wreck 2fm with a hatchet.

by David Rynne Tue Jul 08, 2003 18:45

the child in the car probably wouldn't have died but 88% of people still claim that they would break the window and call the police. In shannon the police had been called over and over again, but they took the side of the negligent parent.

What's the difference between smashing a car window to protect a life and smashing a plane to protect a life? a difference is in scale only, but how can we put the cost of airplane parts as higher than the value of human life?
The plane was not going directly to iraq but it was going there, it just would have stopped off in Itay first. it would have directly or indirectly contributed to killing in an illegal war. (if it was carrying spare parts or supplies they were directly necessary for the bombers and soldiers that couldn't operate without them.
And that is only assuming that the government were not lying about what exactly was being carried by that plane. (they lied consistantly about the whole issue of military flights through shannon for over a year)

Mary Kelly stopped the child from suffocating in that one car on that one day, she could not be responsible if the same parents lock the child in another car the next day, that is not her fault, it is ours for not taking action to protect the child.

by Daithi Tue Jul 08, 2003 19:04

"the child in the car probably wouldn't have died but 88% of people still claim that they would break the window and call the police. In shannon the police had been called over and over again, but they took the side of the negligent parent".

Oh please. Are you trying to make Mary Kelly etc. look silly on purpose? 88% of people don't claim anything, 88% of a triple-flawed stupid little 100% unscientific opinion poll claimed it. And trying to squeeze one scenario into another just doesn't fly. It's superficially attractive but has no purpose other than to make the genuine defence look absolutely pathetic and desparate. The use of the necessity defence is an attempt to use the legal system for a strategic purpose, not some sort of game. The more times this grossly simplified and erroneous approach is trotted out, the less credible the actual defence seems. And as I said earlier, the whole point of a principled opposition is that it DOESN'T rely upon public opinion - if a poll went the other way around, the case against war is still as strong (which I believe in, and argue, but not based on trivia). Even if it was a genuine poll, not the so-far-removed-it's-in-another-space version of polling (on a different subject!) that you cite.

by David Rynne Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:17

That if the results of the poll were in some way an indication of general public opinion, that it would mean that most people do not have a philosophical objection to the concept of non violent direct action? and that they would not put property ahead of human life given a plausible real life situation?

by Daithi Wed Jul 09, 2003 16:03

That's missing the point. The poll doesn't indicate anything, so the entire story is based on a fallacy.