Torture conference stinks !

by D Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:20

I had a look into the Berkeley Court this morning (presumably before the action above took place). There was a small Garda van outside, and a row of yellow traffic cones along the front fence. There were security guards at the gate and doors to the hotel in addition to the porters who stood inside. Delegates arrived in ones and twos by taxi and on foot.

Inside, there appeared to be a welcoming committee comprising a Garda and several men in suits with conference badges (which, by the way, look quite simple to replicate). I asked the receptionist about room rates before leaving, and of course thought of much better things I could have said as soon as I had left... I wonder if there is anything in http://www.bordfailte.ie/upload/documents/HOTELS.pdf that they could be queried on.

by Soundmigration - DGN {personal capacity} Tue Oct 19, 2004 14:32

So the 'Less Lethal Conference' almost smells as vile as the hypocrisy of Bertie and co ...below is a quote from Bertie after the Patten report on policing in the north following on from the GFA.. Perhaps now he not longer has 'grave reservations' about sending the public to early graves... i guess demilitarisation and decommisioning are things best left for the folks up north...

He said:

"The Government have grave reservations about the proposed introduction of a new form of plastic bullet, which can be even more lethal to certain vulnerable parts of the body like the head. We do not rely on such methods of control here.

The clear spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report is that they should be phased out, not renewed or replaced in a different form."

see more at http://www.serve.com/pfc/policing/plastic/plastic05042001a.html

It all depressingly unsurprising when we have a Minister for Equality talking about the need for inequality, a Minister for Law Reform suggesting that the Citizenship referendum was not racially motivated, yet somehow his 'policies' where so liked by those cheery folks of the KKK that they formally sent a letter to McDowell congratulating him and we now have a Minister for Health who advocates that 'some people are premier division and , unfortunatly, some aren't...'
Meaningful democracy and real social justice are never given. The paultry attempt to bestow 'rights' to disabled and differently abled people of our society show the patrionising postion of this country's 'leaders'.
Inequality hasn't changed for the people who live and work in this country, whist the profits of US companies has DOUBLED in the past few years as they use our business criminal friendly tax setup to launder their theft of our work.
Irish companies can shut up shop and head off to Morocco to exploit workers there in order to 'keep sustainable growth' (read 'maintain a lifestyle for its owners that you're never likeky to achieve')
Mary Kelly faces a political trial today for direct action of stopping a plane leaving Shannon and partaking in murder from the skys, whist guards who batter people black and blue are still on the beat cos of an internal gardai investigation where not one of them could remember putting on rubber gloves, removing id numbers and running amok. they couldn't even remember was working that day????
So the smell of hypocrisy goes on and on...i hope it lingers for some time around all those involved with the conference today and the political and economic forces that are driving it forward.
However it does not go unnoticed and it will not be quietly accepted.. As we find our voices and empower ourselves and each other we will claim back our lives whatever 'weapons' they will use against us..

by anon Tue Oct 19, 2004 15:59

Great work guys,fair play to you all cant believe you threw a stink bomb in lobby id say they loved that.

by RJP Tue Oct 19, 2004 16:18

How bloody idiotic. There was not a mention of them at the opening of the conference, there was a brief mention of fire alarms going off and to tell the delegates not too react until the cause was established. But no mention of stink bombs whatsoever. Wishful thinking by some people by the sounds of it.

The chair also asked delegates to be sensible while leaving the venue and to 'respect those who have a different view of LLW and their potential in the world today.' Delegates were advised to disguise their passes etc or anything that might make them conspicuous.

It's been quite an interesting conference, far more informative and balanced then you might think.

Speaking of which, whatever happens this afternoon-the conference has gone ahead and will go ahead tomorrow. It's very well organised and well attended. To think of all the bleating on this site, boasting of stopping it etc. Just another addition to your litany of extremist failures. There is no substitute for being open-minded and objective and listening before going off on a rant. I'm posting this just because I said I would some months back when debating (as close as debating can be on this board) the usage of LLW's. If anyone has any actual question regarding the subjects at the conference please feel free to ask.

Ps: Get a new graphic designer-those ridiculous looking posters around town are illegible, amateur and look like
they're promoting an exhibition at the wax museum.

by Joe Tue Oct 19, 2004 16:31

How nice of RJP to take time out from the arms conference to tell us that the protests are not disturbing them to much. It is a great relief to hear how civil these dealers in death, torture and repression are. I was SO worried they'd be rude.

Oh and thanks for telling us what you thought of the posters. Perhaps if we have a mulit million budget we'd be able to do prettier ones but not being arms dealers we lack the cash. As you already know the money is on your side of the fence and I'm sure your earning it.

by RJP Tue Oct 19, 2004 16:35

Just the sort of thing I expected from you Joe. No questions then? Fine, next please.

Ps: Creativity has very little to do with cash and more to do with originality-that's why your PR campaigns are such total unmitigated disasters.

by ... - ... Tue Oct 19, 2004 18:06

why not just take notes and put them up here RJP? who do you work for anyway? Instead of just throwing abuse why don't you fill us in on nsome details...

by RJP Tue Oct 19, 2004 18:12

Am I giving abuse? I don't think so. I think not, just making observations. What questions do you have?

I am in no way working for the arms trade. That's not what the conference is about anyway. Who I work for is hardly relevant and i'm sure you understand reasons for anonymity on a site as open to nutters as this.

by C sna C Tue Oct 19, 2004 19:00

How many of the bloated parasites at this torture exhibition have had their merchandise tested on themselves?

by Philip Boylan Tue Oct 19, 2004 20:03

Im sorry I can see your points of view and I understand that you disagree wtih some of the items being discussed etc, but at the same time, some things have to be [pointed out.

To start with it is just a conference, its not an arms sale or anything of that like. They are discussing the topics and on how to develop the less-lethal weapons so that they are as equally effective, whilst also being as safe as possible and also as cost effective for both the makers and users. Just like most conferences.

Whether the LLWs are being misused or not has NOTHING to do with the reps there today. Also whether they have had them used on themselves, is equally stupid. I mean has every Pharmaceutical sales rep taken every drug at everu strength that he/she sells. Unlikely. The Pharmaceutical industry and the LLWs industry are alot a like. If a sales rep makes a wonder drug, its cool, but if someone misuses it and in that instance kills themselves or someone else, is it the makers fault. Of course not, if you use something for a use other than intended, then the makers are hardly to blaim.

Could one of the protestors here provide me with definitive proof that the makers of these weapons encourage or approve of em being misused. I would doubt if they do. Whether the lovely guys in Puerto Rico or wherever use a baton round or plastic bullet incorrectly, is a matter that has to be taken up with the Puerto Riccans.

The LLWs are effective and necessary, they also need to be discussed and redesigned and redeveloped so that they can be better and decrease the chances of them causing fatality if misfired or misused.

And honestly, would you guys prefer that a guy in some country whilst trying to subdue some of your compatriats use a non-lethal weapon or use a fully-fledged assault rifle. Thats really your only alternative.

Oh and the stink bombs, if they were used were fucking stupid. I mean it just shows how childish some of you can be. Instead of attempting to offer proper arguments or facts or any sort of reasonable adult answer or counter-point, you go and act the maggot.

Oh and I neither work for the LLWs or the police. I actually work in a hospital and agree with the need for LLWs where necessary.

Im with you on this RJP.

by Michael Tue Oct 19, 2004 20:29

You're skipping past the point, Philip, cause I guess you think it's a no-brainer: Cops firing missiles (plastic bullets, wooden blocks, etc.) which could harm or indeed kill the target is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Police are supposed to keep the peace, help keep people out of harm's way, and de-escalate situations which have become violent. It's not their job to punish people. It's not their job even to threaten to punish people. If needs be, they can try to arrest someone, bring charges against them, and see whether a court will agree that the person behaved in a manner that warrants some punishment or not (was it a crime). LLW are unnecessary for the task, and indeed might provoke the target or his friends to return with still greater force.

by Philip Boylan Wed Oct 20, 2004 00:08

Michael I can see your point. It is true that the police are not supposed to enfore as aggressive a manner and that the use of LLWs could provoke further problems. But understand that its not like the police are using these weapons to stop people from parking on double-yellow lines. If the weapons are employed, then generally it because intelligence or police belief is that there is an element of the crowd or people present who could cause trouble.

It is true once they are in the police forces arsenal of weapons they could be misused, but the same could be said about anything a police officer carries.

It is not always as easy as you think for a police officer to apprehend a person who has commited a crime. If the police are faced by a large group of individuals intent on making it difficult for the officers to arrest one of em, then you need to have the upper-hand to prove your control over the situation. Now increase that to include the possibility of knives and weapons which are being frequently carried and you have the need for LLWs and increasingly the police may need to go beyond what is normally required of em.

Also at riots, they may become a necessity. Now we could argue back and forth about what our feelings are about the Reclaim the Streets day incidents and other episodes in the police history, but all it shows is that it is increasingly difficult for a clear and concise picture to emerge. The police need to be protected from flying bottles and other missiles just as much as other people and innocent people need to be protected from police LLWs. That is also one of the aims of the conference.

by R. Isible Wed Oct 20, 2004 00:45

Look at the video footage that was broadcast on RTE and shot by IMC videographers and you'll be in _no doubt_ about what happened. If you are in doubt then you haven't watched the footage.

There's a very good reason that the police shouldn't be armed with these weapons and that is that they have shown themselves time and time again to lack the judgement to be trusted with them. This would be true of anyone in their position. It's not a comment on the relative goodness/badness of the Gardai, it's an observation founded on looking at numerous police forces including those in Humboldt County (CA) which smeared pepper-spray onto the eyes of protestors who had "locked down", those in Seattle (WA) who fired teargas and bean-bags at protestors doing peaceful sitdowns (and thus provoking a near riot in response). These are Torture Weapons and they are used by police departments for the purposes of torture.

They do _just fine_ without them and there's no reason to start changing that now.

Calling them "Less then Lethal" is obviously untrue, people have been killed and injured by them, but even if they weren't they still cause pain, suffering and lasting medical damage.

There are a couple of heads upon which the introduction of these weapons should be halted:

1) Increased hostility to the police. Those willing to protest will be aware that stakes have been raised: the elites will have declared their intention to use increased violence to suppress embarrassing protests.

2) Likelihood of costly law-suits due to the ease of causing injury with these weapons. (Unlike a truncheon which requires a big fecker to really do damage and is a very intimate weapon, a taser or pepper-spray can unleash the aggression of even the weediest authoritarian. As things stand there's a sort of balance: both the cops and the people they're policing have a mutual interest in not getting too personal unless there's something really at stake. The introduction of a more "effective" technology upsets this balance on the side of the police.

3) Their undoubted use for non-legitimate purposes. Like other weapons there is a huge market for these torture devices in the hands of the people like Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld. If we can't be assured that the Americans and Chinese can't get their hands on them then we shouldn't be facilitating their spread. There is no undertaking from the manufacturers of these weapons not to sell to abusive and oppressive regimes and thus we are helping those regimes by supporting manufacturers that service them.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Oct 20, 2004 02:34

I saw the broadcast last night of the acquittal of the 3 Garada charged with serious assault from 2002 May Day. The announcements of the acquittals was the first time I had heard this trial was on.

This 2002 May Day incident saw a massive reponse of 3,000 people turning up to protest the RTS assaults a few days after they occured. At the time this was said to be the largest social justice demonstration since the hunger strikes.

Yet as the acquittals were announced on RTE there was no back footage of the RTS 2002 incident. In the meantime there is still no ombudsman/woman appointed to deal with serious complaints into questionable Garda activity.

The mainstream media has surely "covered" this incident as they have "covered" the militarisation of Shannon Airport and the 10,000 invading troops commuting through neutral ireland to the killing spree, occupation and plunder of Iraq. Covering it up and rendering them non-issues in the public mind.

As the demo broke up tonight outside Jurys's. Two uniformed hotel workers came out with hot water and brushes to erase the names (written in chalk)of young irish people killed by less lethal weapons in the North. As we stood there this evening suited delegates to this weaponsfest walked over the names of their victims. All we could do was yell from across the road and say this is what you are doing - covering up the human consequences of the gathering you are hosting at your hotel.

Do the screams from the Dame St. May Day Masacreee reach across from two years ago or do we just wait for the next one brought to you with better brighter weapons from this conference?

by ren Wed Oct 20, 2004 03:04

As the r.isible noted these weapons shift the balance of power in stand off situations too far to one side. So instead of a standoff finishing with a crowd of people on both sides looking for a warm drink and deciding its getting late, as is usually the case, they become confrontations. Which is something peaceful protestors in democratic states had hoped they'd seen the last of.

As an effective means of dis-arming and apprehending someone whom the gardai wish to charge, I do not fully get the logic of these devices. In a crowd or protest situation the ability to incapicitate someone at a distance is of little use as they will disappear into the crowd before you reach them either by themselves or with the help of others, they are almost useless in apprehending someone. What they are good at doing however is helping to herd large groups of people, out of fear, by directly assaulting a few. As a protestor you are open to being punished for being there to voice your opinion in the first place. Whether lethal or not the application of such a device on your body in a riot situation if you are not yourself involved in a violent act is wrongful and leaves the gardai open to charges of assault and the possibility of paying damages.

If the gardai are going out with a warrant to arrest a particular person, and intelligence says they are armed with a knife, such a weapon may work. But which of us do not have knives in our houses, if on the other hand the person is armed with a firearm such weapons and light armour are only dangerous to the gardai as they will go in over confident. If such weapons were only to be released for use on reliable intelligience, then they would not be present to help the average garda on the street who finds himself in trouble. The question then is, just what is the purpose of these weapons.

If you think some dictator will decide to stop using lethal weapons on protestors this is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is unlikely that some cruel regime will stop, and on the other hand if you want a cruel regime to ever fall, then you have to allow it go too far, thus creating a public outcry and backlash that will unseat such a regime. Would ireland ever have become independent if the ruling power had not acted too aggressively, thus creating support for dissidents. Would non lethal weapons lead to the stagnation of dictatorships and their slow acceptance by the wider world no matter how unfair their rule or policies were?

Another thing to note thanks to the internet is that if such weapons were to be deployed on a regular basis on protests, then protestors would quickly change. Just click on google and search for body armour, its relatively cheap for single items and lightweight, im not talking about bullet proof jackets, but armour similar to what police have, gauntlets, greaves, abs,biceps torso, helmets, gas masks, shields, batons. If you dont want to be seen with obvious protection there is all sorts of hidden and low key options freely available to civilians. With all of these things easily available would many of the less than lethal weapons not become obsolete shortly after their introduction? And any later advances or new weapons would in time be made less effective? The only possible way of maintaining a strategic advantage in a crowd/protest situation would be to start some sort of pointless arms race, when we were all going to go home after a few hours in the first place. I have to admit some pretty informed points have been made by those supporting the conference but the logic of such weapons still escapes me?In the defence of the use of such devices do you accept the polarisation of police and citizens into an us and them mindset, without thinking this needs to be addressed more urgently.

by Michael Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:36

True, it may be very difficult to make an arrest. I never said it was easy. Lots of people who do rotten stuff, crimes, etc., get away every day. Some of them get away in limmos and government jets, others may disappear into a crowd of protesters at a demo. It doesn't mean the cops should risk creating a situation where people are likely to get hurt and may even die (e.g. using tazer guns or other LLW). I say "creating a situation" because I have never heard or read in all the police's PR, parroted by RTE, that the police want these weapons to defend themselves. Self-defence has never been mentioned. This is, as others have pointed out, about escalating the level of violence at protests.

by Edward Hammond - The Sunshine Project Wed Oct 20, 2004 18:15 hammond at sunshine-projecct dot org

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1108181.html

Use Of Pepper Spray At Teen Dance Questioned
Skateland disperses crowd after fights break out

Parents are demanding answers after they say their children came in contact with pepper spray at an Omaha dance Saturday night.

Tear gas and other forms of spray irritants are sometimes used by law enforcement officers as a defense mechanism or to disperse crowds. Parents of several children say they can't imagine why security used some sort of spray to deal with a group of teenagers. There were 400-500 people at the 96th and Ida Skateland skate center for a dance for 11-15 year olds. When a number of fights broke out, the security guards began dispersing the crowd, eventually using pepper spray. "Everybody was running, just running everywhere," said Ashley Winfield. "Everybody was coughing and throwing up." Several kids said they could taste the spray in the air and it made their throats and eyes burn. They question why it was used, as does Delonica Wynne, after seeing her daughter and her friend come home. "Eyes puffy, she could barely breathe. She was trembling. Her eyes were extremely red. It's ignorant and it's mean and uncaring and it's unprofessional." Wynne believes pepper spray should never be an option with kids that age.

Skateland co-owner Scott Cernik said even 11-15-year-olds can get very rowdy. He said if a fight breaks out and a hundred kids or more gather to watch, it can be difficult to get through to stop it. When yelling and pulling doesn't work, he said the spray can break up fights without seriously injuring anyone. "We do our best to offer the community a safe and fun environment for families. It's too bad a few kids can get that rowdy and ruin it for everyone."

The children we talked with and Skateland co-owner Cernik said Omaha police also used pepper spray in the parking lot as fights continued to break out. Channel 6 News was not able to contact anyone with the police department to comment on the incident.