Organisers condemn banning of May Day march

by David Doyle Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:03 divanhoe73 at aol dot com

I agree with ACAB, Republicans must still attend marches, but make sure they are peaceful so that any brutality by the Guards will be shown for all the media to see!

Long live King James II

by Stoney_Jedi - just me Sat May 01, 2004 02:30

what bout the reclaim the city on at 2.30 at stephens green is that still goin ahead????

by acab Fri Apr 30, 2004 23:10

Chekov,
What you are saying is the police have called your bluff and you have backed down. There are plenty of media around looking for a good story to protect you from the police violence so why not put it up the state? Use the occasion to show that the state has overreacted to the situation

by legal vulture Fri Apr 30, 2004 19:07

If there's no ban legal dove, then why don't you continue with the original plan to protest - you'll soon find that you can't and then you can call it what you like.

by R. Isible Fri Apr 30, 2004 18:56

you need a good plucking my downy friend. O'Carroll is a spokesperson. She is relaying decisions made by the DGN. If you want to see a good sit-down then I suggest you stop fouling your nest and do it yourself.

by ec Fri Apr 30, 2004 18:30

That whole area is going to be militarised and behind police lines which will start at Parliament Street Bridge for feck sake. The NCR will be blocked from Phibsboro on more or less. No point trying to meet in an exclusion zone.

by Chekov Fri Apr 30, 2004 18:09

The police announced on Primetime last night that riot police would prevent demonstrators from assembling at Parkgate St. They have decided to hold their protest anyway, just in a location that is much harder to suppress.

by acab Fri Apr 30, 2004 18:04

Run this by me again Joe, I'm a bit slow. Where exactly does it say that Parkgate St is a no go area? If the meeting point is Parkgate St what is to stop you meeting there or near by? Is the whole of Parkgate St an 'exclusion zone'? If so, how far does this 'exclusion zone' go? Surely you could meet at the park gates on the north circular road, at least this would be near the original meeting point. I think I might have hit a raw nerve when I made the 'wadical' comment. This is big boy/girl politics, not a part time hobby!

by anne bonny Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:57

joe already answered you on this
How can they organise a sit-down in a place they can't even get to?

by anne bonny Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:54

aileen is an elected spokesperson, not decision maker. She doesn't have any power over anyone else. Her job is to relay DGN decisions to the press, whereas the heads of state make decisions without consulting the people affected.

The difference is obvious

by R. Isible Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:47

There. Happier now? When the non-banned people are prevented by physical means from going ahead with their peaceful march we'll both get warm fuzzies by saying that we live under a democracy which doesn't ban peaceful demonstrations. Tra la la la!

by Legal dove, UCD Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:47

I beg your pardon... I am entitled to express whatever opinion I wish to, as well as raise questions about DGN's leaders. There is little democracy in DGN because it was overtaken by a group of individuals who promised lots of action but, as we are seeing at the final moment, are withdrawing from the agreed march. This is not democracy. This is Fianna Fail-like expediancy because the leaders of DNG do not want to face riot police and even risk injury, even though I and countless others do not believe in violent protesting but would have liked to see a symbolic sit-down or somtheing from the others.
I will continue to question Dr O'Carroll and her 'Protest by press release' tactics of laziness.

Is she afraid she'll get her makeup smudged for her next appearance on the Late Late with Pat?

by anarcho watcher Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:43

"she was elected who are you to question it ? "

That's what the PDs could say to you anarchists about Mary Harney. All the 25 heads of government are elected, who are you to question it?

by fat people are hard to kidnap Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:24

There are many groups associated with the DGN (who, despite my approval for most of these groups, are being consumed by the DGN... why? Who appointed Dr O'Carroll? I didn't and I know there is arguably a need for central control but who?)


Dr. o carroll is an elected member of the Dublin Grassroots Media Group - who meet regularly and do a sterling job in a blizard of hype

WHO DE FUCK are you to question that ?

IF you don't like what names protests are called under (pathetic pedent then go along to a meeting and change it !!)

by Indy Andy Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:22

It's a Ban.. I'm right and your wrong

by Legal dove, UCD Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:16

There is no ban imposed on Saturday's march - it is actually a crowd control measure. I am opposed to the manner in which press officers manipulate public information for the state but the silly posts on this website claiming a ban is in place are worse because when an actual ban is imposed, it will have less importance than it deserves bacause of chicken-licken 'sky is falling' hype.
I think we should not for one moment claim at the GPO: "we are here to protest against the ban" - because there is not any ban in place, neither technically nor effectively.
There are many groups associated with the DGN (who, despite my approval for most of these groups, are being consumed by the DGN... why? Who appointed Dr O'Carroll? I didn't and I know there is arguably a need for central control but who?)
I propose that, seeing that we are going to the GPO now, we hold a protest against the same things that we planned to protest against at Parkgate st - no more no less - not a ban that is not in place!

We must not be indulgent to catch-cries that are sympathetic to our aims but nonetheless inaccurate!

by Joe Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:09

Pay attention here.

The riot police are going to be at the START point. If we can't meet up then we can't go ahead with it (this should be obvious!). So we are meeting elsewhere (and maybe we will decide to 'go ahead with it' from there).

In other words our start point is INSIDE the exclusion zone, we can't get to it.

by acab Fri Apr 30, 2004 17:00

As the march hasn't been banned why didn't you go ahead with it and when confronted with threatened police violence have a peaceful sit down protest? There would be plenty of worldwide media present to cause the police to think twice about attacking peaceful protesters. I think most of the leaders of these protests are fond of the 'wadical' sound bite (or website) but actually conservative in action.

by observer Fri Apr 30, 2004 16:35

Were indeed banned, under the Offences Against the State Act, and vicously attacked in every decade since the founding of the Free State.

by Regarding Henrietta Fri Apr 30, 2004 16:32

The comparisons between this weekend and other recent events in Irish contemptory history are stark.
Everytime one section of the movement show weakness the state moves in.
Shannon, the Bin Tax etc, etc.
Well done again to the SWP for directing the state in which way to act.

Why don't they just exchange their yellow flags for blue uniforms.

by Buenacasa -libertarian socialist Fri Apr 30, 2004 16:26

Regular bin tax marches may have been technically illegal but the Guards never threatened them with riot police at the assembly point.

On the other hand Republican marches may have been legal but they got to experience the baton. Not coming from a republican background myself, but all the lies and harrasment libertarians have had recently (and we're still quite marginal), makes one more sympathetic to them considering the stuff they had to put up with over the years.

On the substantive issue, dissent is being curtailed in a clever campaign of lies, exaggeration and harrasment by the authorities. Effectively banning the demo means that dissent with the potential to be disruptive or the beginning of a wider opposition won't be tolerated. Mightn't be a police state yet, if only 'cause the police won't let oppostion through banning, harrasment and lies get strong enough to warrant wide-spread repressive measures

by Joe Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:50

Good point on the bin tax above, I guess those demonstrations were also banned. So a definite mistake there on behalf of DGN.

by Tom Barry Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:37

would require a bit of research. In 1975 the funeral of Volunteer Smith (shot trying to escape from Portlaoise) was subject the savage assaults by police on the way to Glasnevin, but I don't think it had actually been legally banned.

by observer Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:32

Republican marches in Dublin were banned in the 1970s. Most famous was the ban on the 1976 Easter Commemoration. State attempted a similar tactic of preventing people travelling but as far as I can recall (being a very young attender despite wanting to go to see Dublin playing Kerry instead!) there were tens of thousands present.

by Anti Bin Tax Activist Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:30

Actually this is not the first march to be banned. Remember the injunctions taken out against the bin tax protests contained clauses that made any gathering of people in public in opposition to the policy of non collection against the injunction. Technically protests that were held at Mountjoy, Clover Hill, the City Centre, and at Blanchardstown & Swords Council Offices were breaking the injunction. If the cops wanted (or the councils insisted) they could have legally lifted everyone on those demos.

by Joe Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:10

Tom Barry, thanks for the update on the 30's I thought there might have been some bans back then all right, are you aware of any since?

The government today is far too smart to call a ban a ban. But when the Gardai announce that anyone who tries to assemble will be attacked and anyone who tries to get to the assembly point will be attacked I think its fair enough to call it a ban. Don't you?

Decision was made by Farmleigh march planning group and some other DGN people at an emergancy meeting this morning. After the weekend we will be able to give more details as to who, when and where.

by Schmockter Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:08

Why is Aileen using her Dr title? As far as I know she is a doctor of Sociology, what has this got to do with the protests tomorrow? Is the Grassroots people trying to look more respectable or something? It just looks really pretnetious whenacademics use their titles outside of academia

by Real Democrat Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:03

The government have yet again show that their version of 'democracy' depends entirely on expediency.
I suggest the demonstration be called a 'Funeral For Democracy'.

by Tom Barry Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:02

Just off the top of my head (frequently bandaged) - there were dozens of Dublin marches banned by the Free State in the 1930s, with serious injuries and severe police batoning of participants who went ahead with their planned marches.

This march has not been "banned", of course there were going to be pigs at Parkgate Street - did you think there wouldn't be?

BTW, who exactly decided that the venue should be changed at such short notice and why just usual mooning around O Connell Street??

by Gaz - libertarian Fri Apr 30, 2004 14:21

.