Sentencing of anti-war activist Mary Kelly adjourned

by nicolo Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:07

While agreeing with anti-war sentiments I feel that is a jury of citizens have found her guilty of a crime then you have to be punished. She obviously did not succeed in persuading people in her arguments, (not being allowed use the main point by the judge didnt help) and the jury found her guilty.

by Ray Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:14

If the judge in the case was completely wrong on a point of law, and so didn't allow the jury to hear relevant arguments, it changes the situation, doesn't it?

by nicolo Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:30

well ray,

If the judge was wrong on a point of law an appeal or a judicial review is on the cards. This is where legal representation would have helped Mary. The situation is of course changed if this wrong point of law is proven by a higher appeal court, however if no appeal or judicial review is taken or is the decision is upheld then in fact the jury decision must be seen to be correct.

Unfortunately under the law at the moment as Mary has been found guilty she is guilty until a higher court says otherwise, while not disagreeing with ther principles one must remember that for the law is for all citizens of the state and that if a citizen breaks the law then they must be punished. My understanding is that Mary's defence rested upon the argument (rightly in my view) that her actions prevented further deaths and destruction. Two points related to the judges decision not to allow mention of the iraq war. (1) Under the law and charges prefereed against her, a defence like this was not allowable because the threat was not immediate to herself. (2) The plane was actually an unarmed plane heading to Italy

I feel that these are spurious arguments but again in defence of the law, the are correct, my problem is that the state chose a law and charges deliberatley designed to secure a conviction specifically because they could bar her main line of defence legally.

Balming the law or the judge is wrong here, because by the same argument a lot of "crime" could be excused. The reality is that this action caused no change in the situation and indeed caused mainstream opinion to harden against anti war movements. Publicity is one thing but breaking the law is breaking the law,

But as I said earlier, if there was a wrong point of law the cuase should be secure in the knowledge that an appeal or judicial review will sort it out, recourse to the Euro Courts is also an option.

by pc Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:49

but breaking the law is breaking the law, have you never broken the law, hand yourself in, who's law is it, did bush break the law...?

by Ray Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:55

That the arguments presented by the judge _aren't_ correct. As people have pointed out here, the 'immediacy' clause was removed from the law years ago.
This doesn't change the morality of Kelly's actions in my view, but if you're going to argue that she should bear the consequences of the law, you should be aware that she's actually bearing the consequences of the judge's inaccurate presentation of the law.

by Nicolo Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:58

Yes of course I did and do every day,

recenlty I was caught speeding and fined and penalty points etc no problems with it I broke the law and was punished
Who's law is it, I agree who writes the law and for whom but the alternative is anarchy and let people do whatever they feel like and yes we all know that Bush broke and continues to break the law, my point is that if you believe in democracy then you believe in the rule of law and viewing the law as the enemy is wrong, we need to get like the state and use the law for our means not work outside or against it.

The problem here is do we have the right to choose which laws to obey and which to ignore? The only way we will stop shannon being used is by getting mainstream opinion on board whwther pople like to hear that or not its true because the politicans will only change if public opinion changes, actions like Mary Kelly only harden public opinion against the cause. Remember when 100,000 protested in Dublin against the war and Bertie Ahearn came out and said he was against the war all along!!!! Mobilishing mass popular support is the way ahead but it wont be achieved by breaking the law because most of the population are in fear of the law, non-violent protest is the way including no violence aginst property.

When people hear that "the ORDINARY taxpayer" has to pay for the damage Mary kelly did then our aims are scuppered and the govt exploit this, we need to think like the state to beat the oppression of the state

by Nicolo Fri Nov 05, 2004 16:01

Yes I agree with you Ray she is bearing the consequesnces of the Judges inaccurate representation of the law,

Then she has grounds for appeal and judicial review and highlighting the extent to which the govt will go to stop their own people from protesting against the war.

The law is not the problem here its how is being used and we can change that by appeal etc. as I replied to someone else attacking the law wont get us anywhere, we need to think like the state to beat the state.

by Anon Fri Nov 05, 2004 17:12

Heard Finton Lane of Antiwar Ireland on Newstalk at lunchtime going on about this. Very good. Fine Gaeler Jim O'Keeffe went on with usual shite.

by i-ball Fri Nov 05, 2004 17:35

"When people hear that "the ORDINARY taxpayer" has to pay for the damage Mary kelly did then our aims are scuppered "

That's not even true. According to the US Navy, the Navy bore the cost of repairing the plane and did not get re-imbursed by the Irish Taxpayer. what's also become apparent is that the US Navy are putting an ifnlated figure on the repairs (and why not, they're milking the taxpayers through the military budget) as well as not being able to distinguish between the damage done by Mary's disarmament and the damage done by the Ploughshare's disarmament 5 days later.

The judge in this case told the jury that he would decide the law, and that they would decide the facts.

The prosecution argued that iraq was not being bombed at the time, and so there was no immediate threat

Mary told him that Iraq WAS being attacked at the time... that is a matter of FACT not LAW and should have allowed Mary to present to the jury evidence of this bombing and immediate threat. The judge instead said that the Iraq war did not pose an immediate threat to anyone - which is a rather amazing statement.

When Mary pointed out that the Criminal Damage Act had been amended, the judge was surprised, and DID NOT HAVE the current law in front of him. The prosecutor, of course, knew it had been amended, and handed up HIS copy of the law to the judge, with the relevant section tagged in advance.

Rather than admit that he had been going by the pre-1997 version, the judge went on as if the1997 amendment never happened or never mattered.

He never told the jury that the immediacy clause had been deleted.

He stumbled on, saying, that the law did not allow for the protection of people thousands of miles away, but failed to state at what distance in miles we should stop giving a damn about whether or not people are shredded or incinerated.
There does not seem to be any such limit written down in the law and the judge would not say where he was getting this information from.

Meanwhile, no one has estimated the cost of repairing all those houses, factories and other property destroyed by the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign, and no one is dragged before any courts for 100,000 deaths.

by j Fri Nov 05, 2004 17:42

Mary Kelly was right and those who stood by and did nothing were failing in their duties to uphold international law. Had more people acted as Mary did, perhaps we wouldnt have 100,000 dead civilians with families struck by grief.

Did you sit by Nicolo and watch the genocide, and think, "Well, yeh, its bad, but I can't break the law...that's even worse"

'Cos if you did, that makes you complicit in Bush's war crimes.

by Francis - Dublin Catholic Worker Fri Nov 05, 2004 18:06

It is intereting that there is such a preoccupation with the law.

Mary Kelly did not break the law.

However, groups such as the French resistance broke the law, to oppose Hitler. The A.N.C broke the law to oppose Apartheid. Breaking the law is not the issue. The issue is that the criminal justice system is being used and abused to suppress opposition to Government policy. This is in contravention of the notion of seperation of powers which is inherent in our constitution.

If Mary Kelly is sentenced to imprisonment then that same Government will have a prisoner of conscience in its prison system I can only hope that all of those who are so willing to speak in her defence will show the sincerity of their belief and protest outside whatever prison she is held in.

Solidarity is better expressed through actions rather than words.