CIVIL LIBERTIES LOBBY EXPRESSES CONCERN WITH USE OF PUBLIC ORDER ACT

by Daithi Mac Sithigh - [email protected] Wed Mar 13, 2002 11:59

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.

by false name Tue Mar 12, 2002 23:00 falsename at hotmail dot com

"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?

by Daithi Mac Sithigh Mon Mar 11, 2002 22:44 macsithd at tcd dot ie

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.

by once bitten twice shy Mon Mar 11, 2002 22:04

Are 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.