Silence over High Court judgement on Shannon

by James - WSM (personal capacity ©Krossie!) Sat May 17, 2003 15:09

Re the silence from anti-war people I’d say (I’m coming from an anarchist background here) it’s hard to get to worked up about something about which is entirely expected.

The main problem is that a tiny minority can make decisions over the heads of the population. Mostly that means politicians, but also, as in this case, the courts get in on the act.

It was expected, it happened. Investing energy in even keeping track of court cases like this, let alone taking them, isn’t a priority.

“...In other words, even if you know for a fact that the government have allowed part of the country be used for aggression against Iraq (which itself is an act of aggression), there's nothing the courts will do about it.”

The courts will not overturn a decision of parliament even if that decision is immoral.
The point here is who decides that a war or any other activity is immoral?

The power to do so remains in the hands of a small elite, whether that be politicians or the judiciary, both of whom have fundamentally the same interests, namely the preservation of the status quo.

It would be asking a lot for the judiciary to go against their class interests on an issue of fundamental importance. To expect, or even to hope, that their fellow ruling elite will overturn a major policy area is naïve I think.

Perhaps it’d happen if there were loads of riots in the streets! Unless the pressure from the population is very pressing the courts will confine their interference with government to matters of lesser significance.

You may consider a policy decision wrong, but you aren’t in a position of power, so your opinion, like most of ours, isn’t of much importance.

A few words on the Irish political system:
It is not the function of the courts to make policy. The government have a wide range of powers in relation to foreign policy; it’s one of the few areas where the role of the executive is spelled out in the constitution (Art 29.4.1). As such the courts would need an extremely strong case before they should overturn a decision of the executive.

We don’t live in a democracy, but rather under an oligarchy which has some restrictions on it (i.e. there is some freedom of speech, protest etc). The fact that a system run by a few can get away with calling itself a democracy, albeit qualified with the word “representative”, is an impressive propaganda achievement.

In a representative democracy the population basically agree to hand over to a select few the running of the country for 5 years. These few have the right to make policy as they see fit. With regard to US-Iraq war it was to assist the US government by providing facilities at Shannon primarily.

While part of the judiciary’s function is to rein in abuses by the other parts of government (parliament and the government (executive)), the granting of facilities at Shannon was hardly such and therefore there wasn’t really a basis for overturning the government’s decision.

That’s not to say that the decision was a good one, but there are loads of decisions that get up people’s nose: we can’t expect the courts to sort it out for us. As they’re part of the ruling elite, they’re part of the problem, not the solution.

The political system is functioning quite well according to its own logic; an elected government decided, the courts gave a citizen the opportunity to question that decision. For those who didn’t like the result (or are unhappy with the decisions of the government and courts on a continuing basis), perhaps you should consider changing the political system.

Totally agree that the way forward is to encourage self-activity, i.e. “directly by hand”. This conclusion can be generalised to other issues as well as anti-war activity. Instead of appealing to the minority in power to change things, acting directly, preferably in cooperation with others, offers some hope for the future.

by James McKenna Sat May 17, 2003 12:21

We have a judicial system where judges are appointed a judge because of who they know , not on merit. That's just the way it is in dear old Ireland. It is unjust and infuriating . If you are a good solicitor in Ireland you are put on a UDA death list , not the list to the bench.

Who is Kearns? Who are his friends? Where does he live? Down his local golf club is the place for that poster. Down where all his friends from politics and business can see it too. In fact it could apply to them all. Kearns is just the legal wing of the fascist army. There is a political wing, an educational wing, a media wing and a corporate wing all working together in their little clubs to subvert any democracy that might emerge. Not as a complicated "conspiracy" but in a feeing frenzy on promotions, profits and perks that blinds them to their true nature.

It is themselves they wrong most because having been fooled into forgetting their true nature they think they are their title or wealth and that is all that counts. Long may they enjoy it's temporary comfort and eternal reward. Like many a tyrant before them they will find it an empty docket at the next level of consciousness.