CIVIL LIBERTIES LOBBY EXPRESSES CONCERN WITH USE OF PUBLIC ORDER ACT
national | miscellaneous | news report 
Monday March 11, 2002 19:48
by Joe Carolan - Globalise Resistance
globalise_resistance at yahoo dot com
The Other World Which is Possible
087 9032281
Press Conference 11am TUESDAY March 12th EARL OF KILDARE on Kildare Street
CIVIL LIBERTIES LOBBY EXPRESSES CONCERN WITH USE OF PUBLIC ORDER ACT TO SUPRESS POLITICAL PROTEST
Representatives from the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, the Irish Anti-War Movement and
Professor Ivana Bacik are holding a press conference on Tuesday 12th March
to highlight their concern with the increasing use of the Public Order Act to arrest political
activists. They also oppose the recent proposals to extend the powers of the Gardai to detain
those arrested under the Public Order Act.
There is a curbing of the right to protest internationally as a response to a growing mood of
protest such as Seattle, Genoa and Prague. Many states are responding to the growth of
anti-globalisation and anti-war protests by restricting the right to protest. This clampdown can be seen in Ireland through the use of the Public Order Act to arrest peaceful demonstrators at anti-privatisation protest at the Burlington Hotel (15 arrested), anti-war protests (2) and
pro-cycling Critical Mass protest (5).
Kieran Allen, arrested at an anti war demo last October stated
"I was the chief steward on a demonstration that tried to march from the US embassy to the British embassy to express our opposition to war. A Garda officer attempted to disperse this demonstration
and I was convicted and fined 1,200 euro for not complying with his attempt to do this. I regard
this as an outrageous attack that is similar to a failed attempts by Dublin Corporation to ban
protests from the GPO".
Andy Storey, Afri stated, "The attack on the right to protest in Ireland has to be seen as part of a wider global trend. The British and US governments are introducing draconian legislation
curtailing civil liberties. The EU is introducing new measures that classify as 'terrorist' a
range of hitherto legitimate protest actions such as occupation of public buildings and industrial
action in key public utilities"
Speaking at the Press Conference are;
Liam Herrick (Irish Council of Civil Liberties), Ivana Bacik (Reid Professor of Law, TCD),
Colin Coulter (Lecturer, Maynooth),
Andy Storey (Action from Ireland),
Kieran Allen (Lecturer UCD, Anti-War Movement)
CONTACT RORY HEARNE, 087 9890330, [email protected]
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (4 of 4)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4Are everyone's memories so short?
Professor of Law sounds very nice but Bacik is a former president of Trinity College Dublin (TCD) Student's Union who had to resign in disgrace.
She secretly broke the mandate given by the members of the union to their delegates and as a delegate from TCD SU voted for a different candidate in a Union of Students in Ireland (USI) leadership election. The only reason she was found out was that the candidate got fewer votes than there were TCD delegates at the USI convention!!!
She betrayed the union members trust. Is this ethical ambiguity the reason she is now a darling of Dublin 4 liberals? Why are these events not mentioned? Or is the common view of Student Union politics as a grubby ladder for the politically ambititious now taken as acceptable?
I'd be embarrassed to have her supporting any campaign I was involved in.
If you wish to engage in a personal attack, you could at least have the decency to provide a name or email address, not hide behind a false name.
And on the substantive issue, I fail to see what Ivana's actions at a USI congress as SU President ten years ago have to do with her defence of the right to protest.
Refresh your own memory; who fought for the right to provide information on abortion, to the extent of being threatened with jail for contempt of court?
Of all people who have led student organisations, there are scores of "politicians" among them with records of corruption, disgrace, abuse of power, neglect, disregard for democracy ... the list goes on. Why engage in this kind of petty sniping against someone who has made it their business to speak out for human right, civil liberties, and a just society?
Do you suggest a systematic purge of all activists who may possibly have done something in the past that you find reprehensible? Well if so, enjoy your movement; I'm sure that you and .. umm well, you .. will be very successful in your campaign.
Fair dues to anyone who's supporting the various defendants in this trial - whether you agree or disagree with anything they say or do, let's unite behind our rights and freedoms.
"If you wish to engage in a personal attack, you could at least have the decency to provide a name or email address, not hide behind a false name."
Maybe because I don't feel like being the victim of a personal attack from her labour party colleagues such as yourself? Maybe because I am one of your labour party colleagues and I want to get the truth into discussion without being called a traitor? ("once bitten twice shy" is hardly a false name. If I wanted a false name I'd get it from the telephone book.)
"Of all people who have led student organisations, there are scores of "politicians" among them with records of corruption, disgrace, abuse of power, neglect, disregard for democracy ... the list goes on. Why engage in this kind of petty sniping against someone who has made it their business to speak out for human right, civil liberties, and a just society?"
You sound like poor Liam Lawlor in his last Dail speech; he's not the only one either. I don't think it's petty sniping.
"Do you suggest a systematic purge of all activists who may possibly have done something in the past that you find reprehensible?"
Do YOU not find it reprehensible?
I can appreciate that it's useful to use a false name/cover name of some sort when you're revealing facts of some sort (i.e a "Deep Throat" situation) but I find it pointless to engage in an exchange of views and opinions with someone who won't sign their name (or even a coherent identity tag, like "path" and "8den"). For example - you make a valid criticism of my party affiliation, but you wouldn't have been able to do this except for my use of my real name.
You are 100% entitled to call yourself whatever you like; and 100% entitled to criticise Ivana Bacik or anyone you care to, but if you continue to refuse to reveal your identity, I don't find it worthwhile having any kind of exchange with you.