From The Newswire: "A Dublin-based anti-war activist, Eoin Rice (35), has this afternoon (12th Feb) been sent to Limerick Prison for refusing to accept a ban from the entire county of Clare as part of his bail conditions.

At a sitting of Shannon District Court, Judge Joseph Mangan told Mr Rice, who was arrested in the aftermath of the December 6th Irish Anti-War Movememt (IAWM) blockade at Shannon airport, that he was adding a ban from County Clare to his bail conditions, which had previously involved a payment of just E5.00. Mr Rice is charged with alleged motoring offences.

Eoin Rice was then taken into custody following his refusal to accept such a ban. His solicitor has been instructed to challenge the ban in the High Court tomorrow, but if that fails Mr Rice will remain in prison until his next hearing, which is on March 18th.

Refusing to accept the new condition, Mr Rice said, as he was being brought away to Limerick Prison: "Judge Mangan sought to augment my bail, previously with no conditions, by banning me from Clare. He would offer no reason or argument for this action. I refused to accept this ridiculous imposition and stated frankly that it was illegal and beyond all law."

Commenting on the jailing of Mr Rice, Dr Fintan Lane, spokesperson for the Irish Anti-War Movement, said: "This particular judge has fallen into the habit of banning all anti-war activists from County Clare, no matter how minor the offence. I suspect the man thinks he's presiding in Stalinist Russia where internal exile was regularly deployed against political dissidents. The attempt to ban Eoin Rice, while on bail for a minor motoring offence, is ludicrous. Mr Rice has our full support and we believe that the course of action that he has taken is an honourable one. The banning of peaceful anti-war protesters from Shannon must stop - it is not Judge Mangan's role to protect the US war machine from peace activists."

Dr Lane, who was himself banned from County Clare for two years by Judge Mangan last April, concluded: "We applaud the stance taken by Eoin Rice and demand his immediate and unconditional release from Limerick Prison. His jailing is an outrage."

RELATED LINKS
Court report
Eoin Has Quite a Recent History With the Gardai
His Appearances in Judge Mangan's Court Have Never Gone Smoothly
Maybe Heckling Bertie, Willie and Biffo Can Get You Into Trouble
Maybe Going To The Press Rather Than The Garda Complaints Board Can Get You Into Trouble
Maybe A Determination To Protest At Shannon Airport Can Get You Locked Up
Context 1
Context 2

Discussions about the role of corporate media usually end up being esoteric analyses of the subtle misdirection and bias exposed by Chomsky and Hermann. Sometimes though the corporate media just lets it all hang out and tells such huge porkies that it's hard to believe. Perhaps the most "skilled" example of the art of complete and utter lies that has sullied our eyes is the work of "journalist" Deirdre Tynan and her editors and publishers at Ireland on Sunday.

Presenting herself in the article as an intrepid undercover journalist, and in the pub as an angst-ridden victim of greed, the sodden scribe managed to scribble together a "story" which would be laughable were it not published in a periodical which claims to report fact. This blatant lying is part of a larger trend of vilification of anarchists and other activists by the corporate media in the run-up to the EU Summit in Dublin.

Detailed rebuttals of the patent falsehoods told by this Grub Street hack have been contributed by our reader-writers including a very detailed account by the Workers Solidarity Movement, and a personal report by one of the interviewees (whose gentle suggestion of ethical standards was dismissed as being "from the sixties").

But we shouldn't be so surprised because Ireland on Sunday belongs to the same group of newspapers that published scandalous stories about the badly beaten and tortured media activists at the Genoa Social Forum in 2001.

It has been suggested that Deirdre Tynan and Priscilla Lynch may have an incomplete control over the work published under their name and that the editor-in-chief (Martin Clarke) is associated with a high turnover in staff who find the workplace ethically distateful. However, their names are on the piece and they bear responsibility for it.

From the Newswire: 'One of the central, but not well known, direct goals of the Irish EU Presidency is to reach agreement with the European Parliament about the CO2 Emissions Trading Market. This market is to be launched in 2005. Ministers of the EU member states are demanding a market full of loopholes, so that companies can escape reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases on EU territory. Instead companies will be able to produce and trade the commodity “the right to pollute” by financing cheap efficiency projects in Eastern Europe and in the South.

An agreement between the EU Member States and the European Parliament should finally be reached at the end of June, but ideally should come about before the last legislative session of the European Parliament in April, before the elections. Ireland already held a conference in Dublin on February 3 to discuss the various National Allocations Plans among the Member States. These allocation plans are the foundation of privatising the right to pollute among companies in the EU, concerning high-polluting industries such as the steel and paper industries. Before the end of March, all Member States should have finished their allocation plans.

The most crucial topic will be on the loopholes that will be provided to companies. Last year, the European Commission proposed to link the European Market with other “flexible mechanisms” for reaching reduction targets, such as the CDM and JI mechanisms, that make it possible for Member States and companies to create the right to pollute with CO₂ in the EU, by developing or financing “climate projects” in other countries. The Commission however proposed to put a cap of 8 per cent on this. The EU Parliament agreed on this. In December, a majority of the EU-member states expressed the opinion that they want to get rid of this cap. Now, Member States and the EU Parliament have to come to an agreement so that the trading scheme can be implemented in January 2005.

This so-called “linking directive” will boost the European Market with cheap credits, so reaching the Kyoto-targets will be much cheaper for companies. States such as Spain (which is very energy inefficient), as well as most industries, are heavily engaged in lobbying the EU Parliament and other Member States to link the European market with these other flexible mechanisms. The consequences are that no reductions will have to be met in Europe itself, enabling industry and Member States to continue polluting anyway and further postponing solutions to climate change. Another consequence is that a very lucrative market will be created, by creating a new commodity and very flexible market rules.'

The Effects of this Wrangling in Ireland are Already Apparent: Government is Giving Industry what it Wants: Industry Plays while the Consumer Pays (Waste Charges)
Irish Taxpayer Funds Free Ride for CO2 Industries: Friends of the Irish Environment
Cullen Decision on Emissions Cowardly -SF
Cullen Ignoring Kyoto Targets -Labour
Greens say Government is allowing Industry ignore Kyoto Obligations

Statement by Vincent Salafia, Carrickminder, PRO Save Tara/Skryne Valley Campaign on the proposed motorway through Tara.

'All interference with national monuments of Ireland is now presumed illegal and must cease immediately, until the Government has passed valid regulations governing such action. No Ministerial order, or grant of planning permission, authorising interference with a national monument, can be justfiably relied upon.Any attempt to disfigure any national monument, particularly the Hill of Tara, will have to answer to the citizens of Ireland, in their Courts.

The High Court has declared the system regulating destruction of national monuments unconstitutional, since it did not comply with the National Monuments Act, 1930 (as amended). The ‘technical glitch’ mentioned by Judge Kearns referred to the Government’s attempt to dilute the protections contained in Section 14 of the Act, governing Ministerial Consent, not the Act itself.

The 1994 Amendment to the Act, drafted in response to Wood Quay, was designed to avoid the exact scenario we face today at Carrickmines. It required three state agencies to make the important decision to interfere with a national monument. By reducing the requirement to two actors by statutory instrument in 2002 the Government ignored the central democratic principle of checks and balances within the Act. When these two actors failed to perform their duties properly, there was no third actor to check it.

One cannot help but wonder if the drafting of the 2002 statutory instrument was linked to the ‘sudden’ closure of Duchas, The Heritage Service, in 2002? If so, it would appear that our own Government unconstitutionally conspired to dismantle, by stealth, all legal protections for heritage, long before Carrickmines Castle blew up.'

Related Stories and Links
Court Decision Welcomed by Greens
High Priest Cu Cullen Wants to Dig Up Hill of Tara
Carrickmines: They Haven't Gone Away You Know
History of Carrickmines from 'ANON'

In order to clarify the editorial guidelines used by the Indymedia Ireland collective, we are publishing them as we currently understand them to operate. This is a work in progress, which is the result of many arguments over the past few months on the Indymedia Ireland lists. Input, commentary and criticism from users of the site are welcome on this thread, and this will be taken into account before the guidelines are formalised.

Indymedia Ireland Editorial Guidelines: Indymedia Ireland is built on the foundation of an open and democratic newswire. We want to see and hear real stories, news, and opinions from users of the site around the country. Anybody can post a story, or a comment on a story to Indymedia. While we struggle to maintain the newswire as a completely open forum we do monitor it and remove posts. In general, posts may be removed for any of the following reasons:

1. Comments, not news. If there is a recently published story on the same topic as, or one closely related to your post, then it should be published as a comment on the existing story. Comments belong with the story being discussed - to have your say in response to a story on the site, use the "add your comments" link at the bottom of each story
2. Duplicate posts. Make sure you've read the newswire and that the story doesn't appear there already. Also make sure that you haven't posted the same comment on multiple stories
3. Infactual or obviously false posts. The onus is on the author to check and confirm facts - if a clear factual error is brought to our attention it will be removed.
4. Libelous or slanderous posts. Choose your language carefully. Do not make allegations against named individuals unless you can prove them beyond reasonable doubt. Posts which contain personal abuse against named individuals, rather than against their arguments or their political affiliation, will be removed without delay, particularly if those individuals are not public figures. 'Play the ball, not the player'.
5. Discriminatory or hateful posts. Posts that contain explicitly racist, sexist or homophobic views will be removed. We don't oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views.
6. Advertising or other inappropriate content. Advertising of commercial products or services, particularly when they are sold on a for-profit basis.
7. Cross-posting to multiple IMCs. Posts that are available elsewhere on the Indymedia network (on at least two other IMCs) shall be deleted, although in cases where the article is particularly relevant to Irish readers, it may be allowed to remain at the discretion of the editorial collective.
8. Articles which have no News Content. Although we aim to have a broad tolerance for all types of news postings, there are limits. In particular, the following types of article are not considered to be news:
   • Incomprehensible 'gobbledygook' postings
   • Asking of questions - particular or general questions without any other content - e.g. this type of thing: "Anyone know when X is on?" or "What do you think of YYY policy on ZZZZ?"
   • Articles which consist entirely of unsubstantiated opinions or personal musings without any supporting evidence or other content. For example : 'I think Fianna Fail are criminals'
   • Petitions
9. Impersonation. Articles or comments which impersonate other indymedia users by adoption of their names or regular pseudonyms
10. Fascists. All content expressing fascist views or written by active fascists, or expressing revisionist / holocaust denial positions, or linking to a fascist site. We will not provide a platform for fascist recruitment
11. Trolling. Comments which consist entirely of abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article. So for example, a comment which simply says: "the Popular Front of Judea are wankers" will be deleted, while a comment that says: "The fact that the PFJ have refused this offer of an alliance shows them to be hypocritical wankers in the light of what they have said before", might remain
12. Continuing debates across multiple articles. Indymedia is not a bulletin board. All comments should directly relate to the article or preceding comments. Users should refrain from constantly bringing up points from previous threads, unless they have a close relevance to the new article. Users should also note that repetitive demands of another user to answer a particular question or point is a reason for deletion especially when it occurs across multiple threads.
13. Persistent Abuse. Users who persistently refuse to abide by IMC policy are liable to have any and all of their contributions removed
14. Cut and pastes. Posts that are publicly available elsewhere on the internet, or in the mainstream media. We do realise, however, that there can sometimes by a strong case for articles published elsewhere to be brought to the attention of IMC readers. In these cases, we ask contributors to write an original introduction to the article, highlighting its relevance to Irish indymedia readers and include a link to the article. Users can also choose post a short note and a link in the Media Updates link at the top of the newswire. In particular, articles that consist of an original introduction and contain several links to articles containing background information stand a good chance of being made into front-page features
15. Comments on editorial policy. Users can appeal for or against deletions by contacting the editors using the 'Contact Us' link at the top of the front page. Editorial actions are debated on the editorial list and users can join the list and join in the frequent debates on deletions there. Commentary on IMC Ireland editorial policy on the newswire will be removed
16. Comments that refer to Deleted Posts. Comments referring to something that a user can't see as it has been deleted will also be removed.