Charges dropped against Afghan protestors

by moi Mon Jun 19, 2006 13:43

Great. Let's hope they drop the remaining charges soon! Solidarity works!

by concerned Mon Jun 19, 2006 13:56

Claiming sanctuary in a church out of desperation is not a crime, good news indeed.

by tourist Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:04

Hopefully the charges have been dropped to speed up the deportation processs.

by MG Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:13

There will be no deportation to Afghanistan. Also the charges were dropped because they were legally unsound and no conviction would have resulted. The charges were only made as McDowell wanted to seem tough, but again all he did was waste money. But thank you for your contribution to this thread tourist, it was invaluable.

by Adventurer Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:14

The charges have been dropped? Ah, thats a joke...

by Example Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:22

Yet another example of the Governments partial way with which they apply the law.

by MG Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:35

Perhaps a little critical analysis is required rather than a right wing troll type of analysis. These were trumped up charges that even the gardai on the day said wouldn't hold. And here we are with the trumped up charges being dropped. So poster "example" perhaps you would like to stun us with a decent contribution on this thread or else don't bother posting ill informed nonsense.

by Madam K Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:37

Thumbs up to strike out,to seek sanctuay is not a crime.

Thirtytwo charges of forceable entry struck out this morning.

Good to see you smile

R.A.R with them all the way

Iranian supporters

The fine ladies of R.A.R

by Example Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:38

Forcible occupation of a church and refusing to leave it isn't a problem at all?!

Go on, call me a right wing troll!

by . Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:42

.

Err thumbs up

by tourist Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:43

The fact is that the majority of people in this country didn't agree with the Church protest. It is a sign of disrepsect for the laws of the country that these men say they want to stay in. Laws of the country are meant to be obeyed by citizens, if potential citizens show that they don't want to follow them then bye bye...

by MG Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:45

The charges were not brought by the church, perhaps you didn't know this. If you didn't pehaps you should refrain from posting on a subject you know little about. Here are the facts, trumped up charges were brought, they were legally unsound, the charges were dropped. The partial way of implementing the law in this occasion was by bringing trumped up charges against a group of non nationals. Your argument is as unsound as the charges themselves.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 19, 2006 15:09

Great news that the charges were dropped - they were holding charges, not related to any fact. Fictional charges to demonstrate that the Gardai were doing 'something'....anything!

re: the last no-touristy commentary:
On direct flights - there are in fact two or three direct flights from Shannon to Kabul every week. the only problem is that they are always overbooked by the Pentagon or the CIA...nobody knows who or what is in them... but they come + go. If they show anything they demonstrate the Irish Government's collusion with the war in and occupation of Afghanistan.
On connections with the Taliban: This 'news' was an incredibly aggressive piece by the Independent Group quoting unnamed "sources"....there was never no substance no facts no proof....imagine a Taliban commander in a cave in the mountains directing operations in the Cathedral...and with all this technology nobody finds who/where/how...just lies.
On racism: I was outside the Cathedral every day - I saw people chanting 'Let them Die' - I heard people arguing that "These scum take our homes, our places in hospitals and they're here to f@@@ our women"....And I can also read some of the tabloids - if that wasn't racism don't know what it was!
Finally, on illegal immigration. Dear friend, the Irish working class and land based people are the best teachers of how to immigrate illegally and hide from the authorities...be it in the USA, UK, Holland, Germany or Australia. So a careful look on the mirror please....it'll tell you a story you may be able to grasp.

So the Afghani comrades have been de-criminalised. Step 1. Struggle and patience work. Now let us continue our support so they get to remain in Ireland 'legally', be able to work and be able to live with more than €19 a week pocket money they're getting at the moment.
Solidarity to all those who supported them.

by Emma-RAR Mon Jun 19, 2006 15:23

It is great that the charges were dropped it brings a better peace of mind to the men I am sure. As regards of the sarcy comment from above poster RAR have been working with asylum seekers for nearly ten years now I think and within that ten years we have gained a wealth of knowlege of the immigration and asylum systems we even have 'professional' groups ringing for advice on certain things and also we do actually have members that are solicitors among other skills and qualifications. We all as activists and people should show solidarity and support to the men.

by Davy Carlin - Organise! Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:02

Solidarity IS strength -

sound as a pound to all those around the 'Isle of Ireland and International, who over time lent, provided and offered support {and pressure} - visible, or otherwise, on this issue.

Still more to do - and the practicilites of such - has been and continues to be done, presently, via the legal route -

Activists, of course will watch - re - the 'final and 'just outcome for our fellow human beings as to what continued solidarity may be required.

by MG Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:30

Ireland was the first safe country they arrived in. Yet again we have an asylum seeker thread and yet again we have posters repeating the same tired crap about first safe country. Ireland does not recognise Dubai as a safe country which has direct flights from the middle east to Ireland.

by iosaf Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:42

As a brief reminder here are the statements by the Church of Ireland on the protests & it ought be clear that the church authorities at no stage wished criminal proceedings to be taken :-

18/5/06
http://www.ireland.anglican.org/pressreleases/index.php...p=660
20/5/06 (this was when Mc Dowell rejected the brokered settlement for the men to leave with "dignity")
http://www.ireland.anglican.org/pressreleases/index.php...p=662
21/5/06 (this was after the men had been arrested)
http://www.ireland.anglican.org/pressreleases/index.php...p=663

That brought us in the chronological order to 22/5/06 when I asked why Mc dowell "could apply the law, ignore the law, rewrite the law, change the law, break the law" with impunity and obviously to partisan political effect, he had broken the law (or bears resonsibility for others breaking the law) by leaking (or allowing to be leaked) confidential details of 5% of the Aghan protesters political asylum applications, most specifically claiming one of the men had been a rapist :- http://indymedia.ie/article/76218
& then the Supreme Court gave us the Mister A / Statutory rape story the next day which ran till the 2/6/06 and Mc Dowell went meek.

it would be really clever of people not to make reference to UNHCR reports as "recent" if they're not recent. Afghanistan is not a safe country to return to. It fell further off the list of "safe return" during the days 17/5/06 - 22/5/06 when it suffered the highest civilian death-toll in its 21st century history.

by Frankie Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:50

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/02/428ebe73-0....html

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:54

It is great news that the charges were dropped, though they should never have been brought in the first place.

Well done to RAR for all their tireless work for these men and for asylum seekers generally. I was sorry I couldn't be there for the second court appearance.

by Starstruck - (A) Mon Jun 19, 2006 17:59

Super news on the inevitable dropping of token charges against the men and also sorry I couldnt be there this morning.
A pity regarding the bench warrants though.
Well done to RAR and all who continue to be involved in the struggle against state racism and the inhumane,unjust asylum systems we have in Ireland and elswhere.
Onward!

by MG Mon Jun 19, 2006 18:03

What he said was it was safe for most of the refugee's to return. Which is completely different. It is also completely untrue and the UNHCR has become largely discredited amongst the NGO's around the world who view it as a vehical for deportation in return for "voluntary contributions" from governments. It is only governments who have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan who claim it is safe. These same governments warn their citizens not to travel there. Most of the refugee's who have returned have claimed that they were returned to nothing but abject poverty.

by longinthetooth Mon Jun 19, 2006 18:07

Well Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics. In that basis sixteen months is an extremely long time, yet we have Frankie refering us to a report from February 16, 2005. You are not on the ball, Frankie.

by iosaf Mon Jun 19, 2006 18:08

as you'll note your UNHCR information is dated to early 2005, hardly fresh off the press or even relevant or was written earlier "recent".
In fact the UNHCR said much else in direct reference to these cases in Ireland during the week of the Patrick's protest. Selective elements of which were reported by the Church of Ireland, by the ministry of Justice and by Amnesty international. Now you get a t-shirt if you leak the exact minutes of those meetings. But the phrase "not a safe country" featured prominently.

by Curious Mon Jun 19, 2006 19:28

Great news but its annoying to see Michael Y and the IAWM trying to take some of the credit. He was not outside the Cathedral every day. His transitory visits were brief indeed. During the hungerstrike he tried to undermine RAR and set up a new group (to be dominated by the IAWM) to handle contacts with the hungerstrikers.

Michael Y never once attended any of the many previous RAR demos at Burgh Quay and elsewhere. Carpetbaggers go away.

by Davy Carlin Mon Jun 19, 2006 19:48

RAR tireless work is as well known as it is inspirational – {which I am about to circulate amongst networks} -

-but on a differing point -

'During the hunger strike he tried to undermine RAR and set up a new group (to be dominated by the IAWM) to handle contacts with the hunger strikers'.

Michael {and IAWM } I take it that this is bullshit - isn't it? –

by Curious Mon Jun 19, 2006 20:01

"'During the hunger strike he tried to undermine RAR and set up a new group (to be dominated by the IAWM) to handle contacts with the hunger strikers'.

Michael {and IAWM } I take it that this is bullshit - isn't it? – "

No its true. Go back and read the stories about the hungerstrike. You will see Michael Ys insidious attempts to undermine RAR writing that they were doing their best but it wasnt satisfactory. Damning RAR with faint praise. Then coming up with the bright idea of the requirement of a new organisation to liase with the Afghans. He didnt get away with it.

by Davy Carlin Mon Jun 19, 2006 20:35

- Sorted

by barry Mon Jun 19, 2006 21:03

Just in case anyone was wondering why everyone was so sure the charges wouldn't stick (the gardai, etc here will be familiar with this if they were awake in school)

the forceable entry and occupation act (1972) was enacted in response to a series of actions during which recently unumemployed workers occupyied their former factories to prevent the multinational companies who had shut them down from removing the machinery and fittings, thereby preventing the factories from being reopened. one such factory was ferenka (sic) in limerick.

the powers which be felt threatened by this and hurriedly enacted a piece of legislation to criminalise such (worker) behaviour.

the dail record on the debate surrounding this bill makes for some interesting reading, with various claims that the law would never stand up in court, and/or would be misused to force poor and homeless people from whatever shelter they had found being roundly and rigourously routed by righteous rotund oraters ;-) (soory, couldn't help myself).

needless to say, no-one has ever been tried under this law, much less convicted whilst the first people to be charged under it were a homeless family who refused to be moved on from the derilect transit van they were living in on the east wall in dublin.

funny how bad laws can be so useful for so long eh, especially when their legality can never be challenged. next time a cop threatens you with this law, during eviction from your squat, or when you're s(h)itting in at mcdowells office, challenge them to charge you under it. go on, it's the surest way to get out of jail free...

sorry i haven't provided citations for this article, i had them once but lost the notebook, it's all there, just requires perusing the dail record and talking to some of the (few) decent lawyers out there.

by John Shea Mon Jun 19, 2006 22:36

Hope to see ALL who supported the Afhgan hunger strikers get behind Republican political prisoners!

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76703

Political Status for political prisoners!!!!!

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Mon Jun 19, 2006 22:40

Any written judgement or opinion on this case as to why charges were .............dropped?

by redjade Mon Jun 19, 2006 22:51

I'm not up on the details of this case

but is dropping the charges a good thing?

If they have no charges brought against them it means they no longer have to remain within Ireland to face court.

Therefore, the government can now deport them at will.

Please, someone who knows more than me, explain why dropping the charges now is the best thing for these people.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 20, 2006 00:10

Davy,

I am only responding to this thread because of your questions:
1. IAWM comrades including myself were there from the very first day (Sunday) the hunger strike started until the last day (Saturday) when they were all arrested. We were there every single day. During the first afternoon, two RAR friends, two IAWM people, one person from PB4P and two reps of the hunger strikers worked out a strategy of support outside. A strategy followed right through the week with 11.00 o'clock pickets outside the Cathedral and Press contacts.
2 . We have also participated in the Hunger Strike Support meeting organised by the RAR and were present at both days outside the Court. See pics above and IAWM comrades present.
3. There was a separate meeting on the third day of the strike of many people from the Left, including SF, anarchists, Anti_War Ireland and SP Youth, who organised a second daily picket in the afternoons. IAWM people weren't present but supported the initiative. To my knowledge there was no attempt to either bypass or marginalise the RAR. They themselves argued that they are a very small oganisation and need all the help they can get. We can debate the issue whether the Left, as a whole, responded adequately or not under a different heading.

As for the curious individual who has made it a habit of attacking the SWP, RBB and now me on personal grounds - what can I say? Read his/her nonsense on the Iran debate thread. You'll get a good idea of what's behind it.

The main issue here is that the attempt to criminalise the Afghani comrades has failed and we can now move onto the second stage of our support work.

Take care.

by Fintan Lane - AWI Tue Jun 20, 2006 00:36 antiwarireland at gmail dot com

Just for the record, the evening vigil (which began on Tuesday night) was called by Anti-War Ireland rather than by the medley of groups that Michael mentions. That said, the evening vigils quickly took on a life of their own, involving a wide range of groups and individuals. It was a collective effort, as was the entire solidarity effort.

With regard to Michael, he didn't just drop by occasionally, as one of the posters above implies. Rather, he was there through all of the week and showed real and tangible solidarity with those in the cathedral. Anybody who was present would surely be aware that he stayed with the vigils to the very end and, indeed, was there as the Afghans were brought from the cathedral.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Plougshares/AWI Tue Jun 20, 2006 01:42

There were lots of groups and individuals there from the beginning and with representatives there all day, everyday, or for much of the day depending on their resources, and in great numbers: the IAWM, Anti-War Ireland, lots of other individuals and political groupings, and the various women from the Unmanageables who left their children with babysitters/partners to have a presence (I know these women and I didn't hear any of them going on about their consistent, all-day-everyday presence afterwards, but since Fintan set the record straight on one thing, I might as well chime in on their behalf). WSM had a consistent presence and offered some of the most constructive suggestions (from what I'd heard) regarding initiatives in the local area in response to the racism.

However, the bottom line in my view: let's all just acknowledge that RAR is doing great work, and encourage and resource them in that important work as much as possible without scrambling for credit for what is, after all, a problem of Irish political policy that they have shouldered not just for that week, but for several years leading up to that week. People turned up to show solidarity, and it is great that they did. But the people working quietly and consistently in the background for the past few years to prevent deportations and support asylum seekers, are mainly in RAR. They are steadfast ones when it comes to this particular issue; the rest of us may be equally steadfast on other issues, anti-war or otherwise. But let's not impose the internal historical disagreements (some legitimate ones, I acknowledge) within the anti-war movement onto threads and discussions generally around this campaign - to do so is to do a great disservice to RAR. I say this as a preventative measure - I don't think it's happened fully yet, and Michael and Fintan are entitled to set the record straight where incorrect information is being posted. But there were hints of it there in one or two postings, and in one or two discussions on the hunger strikes I've witnessed and been part of in person. It is imperative to rise above this before it happens.

by correction Tue Jun 20, 2006 05:14

the Church of Ireland of used the threat of criminal proceedings and police 'eviction' against the men.

by timing Tue Jun 20, 2006 09:13

were CoI "threats" made after hunger strikers put nooses on a threatened to jump? that changed the playing field in terms of hospitality and facilitating death. they did alright for the situation they were put i with no advanced warning

by activist Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:19

Fair enough Deirdre but it does - and has - sounded like the iawm are trying to play up their role in the Afghan situation at the espense of both rar and awi. Fintan might be right to say Michael was there but so were lots of other people. He's trying to claim undue credit and at the same time is playing down the role of non-iawm antiwar activists. Its pathetic.

Great to see the charges dropped. :-)))

by Deirdre - Pitstop Plougshares Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:41

Yes, I did say Fintan had a right to set the record straight on that one.

I was actually making a broader point about avoiding the usual type of stuff that goes on, and acknowledging the overall role played by RAR.

by Caoimhe - RAR pers caps Tue Jun 20, 2006 13:58

the men cant be deported while they are still in the asylum system.

by redjade Tue Jun 20, 2006 16:34

Caoimhe, thanks for the explanation - i should have realised that one :-P

———

in the hiberno-blogsphere...

Richard Waghorne says:
'It's disappointing to see that the Afghans who defiled St. Patrick's won't face charges. The difficultly is that the Church of Ireland won't help, preferring to let the matter drop. Presumably they think this is the charitable thing to do but the decision is unwise and regrettable. For a start, the weeklong blackmail was criminal in various respects. It was also deeply disrespectful and entirely unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. Nor were those in the cathedral it quite the worthies that the consensus media made out....'
http://siciliannotes.blogspot.com/2006/06/capitulation.html

by Chekov Tue Jun 20, 2006 18:20

Nice to see the "Hate Mail" and Waghorne repeating the smears and vilifications about the hunger strikers. People who have lived a life of comfort and privilege and engage in such attacks on those who are far less fortunate than themselves are beneath contempt.

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=36&...=1919
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76281