"incitement" claims Limerick City Council

limerick | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Thursday June 12, 2008 01:53

by Sean Clinton - Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace

Council remove referendum signs

Limerick City Council claim signs erected by the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace (LCMEJP) were an "incitement" The Council removed at least 5 large "No to Lisbon" referendum signs from locations around the city between the 26th May and the 11th June without informing anyone. Gardai in Henry st., Roxboro and Mary St. stations have been investigating this matter for over four weeks. The story was covered in the Limerick Leader two weeks in a row and in the Limerick Independent and the Irish Times but Council officials never thought it appropriate to contact the Gardai, LCMEJP or the printers event though contact details were on the signs.

Signs replaced on Clare St.

Limerick City Council this afternoon revealed they were responsible for the disappearance of a number of large referendum signs belonging to the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace (LCMEJP). The admission came following the discovery that two signs erected in the city last night were missing. A Limerick City Council official, Mr. Paul O'Grady from the Environmental Section, confirmed that following a complaint from a member of staff in a different section claiming that the signs constituted incitement he instructed their removal. Mr. O' Grady refused to disclose the identity of the member of staff or which section he/or she works in.

When asked what part of the sign constituted incitement Mr. O'Grady responded that the signs were of a political nature and "had nothing to do with the EU referendum" It was pointed out to him that if he had read the signs the bottom line clearly stated in very large bold print "Say NO to Lisbon" Mr.O' Grady then said the signs were a danger to traffic as motorists were "rubber-necking" to read them. He offered no evidence to back up this assertion. He next stated that no permission was sought from the Council to erect the signs on Council property. When asked if any other person or group had sought permission he confirmed that no one else had done so either. He then claimed the signs had defaced the green area by making holes in the ground.

On hearing all this I was shocked and amazed. I had not previously contacted the City Council about the missing signs as prior to erecting them I phoned the Council's Environmental Section to enquire about the regulation and restrictions pertaining to the erection of signs in the run up to the referendum. Aware of the restrictions I took special care to ensure the signs were all placed in locations which did not block traffic signs or interfere with lines of sight for motorists or pose a danger to pedestrians.

I began noting down what Mr. O'Grady was saying and he took immediate umbrage and accused me of threatening him. I responded "the only thing threatening you are your own words" He then asked another member of staff to call Henry Street - a reference to the Garda station. When I asked to have the signs back he said I would have to make the request in writing before he would consider it. I asked for and was given a sheet of paper and immediately requested the return of the signs in writing. He refused to give them to me and said that he would consider doing so tomorrow.

I left the office and as I was leaving City Hall a Garda car with siren blaring and blue light flashing sped up to the front door an two Gardai rushed into the building. I remained by the door and made some phone calls before heading away. I went to Henry St. Garda station and informed them about the incident and asked if a Garda would accompany me as I went back to seek the return of the signs. The Gardai would not do this. In the interim I contacted Edward Horgan, renowned peace activist and anti-war campaigner and John Hogan a journalist from the Limerick Leader and both agreed to accompany me to the City Hall.

On return to City Hall with Mr. Horgan and Mr. Hogan I asked Mr. O'Grady to explain why he had removed the signs. He presented me with a letter as follows:

Dear Mr. Clinton

Re:- Removal of signs from Green Areas

Further to your visit to this office earlier this afternoon, I wish to confirm the following:

I enclose a copy of Section 19 of the Litter Act for reference purposes (source www.irishstatutebook.ie) In this context I would refer you in particular to sub section 19(1) and 19(7).

1. I confirm that only the AA, Limerick City Council and statutory bodies are allowed to erect signs or advertising material on City Council property. A number of written dispensations are granted to community based groups subject to compliance with strict conditions.

2. I confirm that, on my instruction and on foot of consultation with the other departments and bodies, a number of signs (representing various view points) were removed from green areas across the city over the past month for the following reasons:
a) Perceived distraction to passing motorists
b) Perceived risk of collapse or damage to other property
c) Hole damage to green areas.
d) Obstruction of grass cutting.
e) Perceived worries about incitement in certain cases
f) Lack of insurance or indemnity cover
g) Absence of consent from the property owner (Council)

3. I confirm also that the City Council's policy in this regard is consistent and impartial.

Finally, Limerick City Council will return the signs seized this morning, to you, later today on receipt of written confirmation from you that they will not be re-erected on City Council property at any time.

Please feel free to contact me at any time should you wish to discuss the matter further.

Yours sincerely

Paul O'Grady
Executive Engineer,
Environment and Parks Departments.
E-mail pogrady@limerickcity.ie

I asked that the signs be returned to me immediately and Mr O' Grady refused saying that unless I gave him a written undertaking not to re-erect the signs on City Council property. I refuse to do so as I felt entitled to erect the signs as long as I observed the Regulation. I did undertake to abide by the Regulations just as other groups had done and he then agreed to return the signs.

I again asked Mr. O'Grady to identify the member of staff who had requested the signs be removed and once again he refused to disclose the persons identity. I was told that if I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act I would get a response in two months.

I was told that I could retrieve the sign from the Park Road depot. Before doing so went to the adjacent court house to seek an emergency injunction to prevent the City Council from removing the signs in the future . We were advise by legal council that the chances of getting such an order so late in the afternoon were slim.

We went to Park Road depot to collect the signs but only two of the signs could be found, four others could not be located.

Following this we decided to go back to court to try and get the injunction. At about 4:20 as a criminal case was concluding the Senior Council we had briefed earlier made an appeal to the judge but the judge refuse to consider the matter at short notice and suggested we return in the morning.

This bizarre development came about following investigation over the past three weeks by Gardai in Henry St, Roxboro, and Mary St. and following reports about the incidents two successive weeks in the Limerick Leader newspaper and reports in the Limerick Independent and the Irish Times. Yet Limerick City Council made no attempt to contact the Gardai or the LCMEJP even though contact information was on the signs.

Numerous other signs from various campaigns adorn City Council property all over Limerick yet the City Council removed all of the signs belonging to LCMEJP even though they did not interfere with traffic, block any road signs or pose any danger to pedestrians or motorists - I believe to claim otherwise is a travesty.

I believe that this incident exposes a clear abuse of power and influence by public officials and constitutes a deliberate attempt to interfere with the democratic process in the run up to a referendum. In order to allay public fears in this regard the City Council should answer the following questions:

1. How is "Perceived distraction to passing motorists" accessed, calibrated and quantified?
2. How many passing motorists were observed to be distracted and in what period of time?
3. How does the level of distraction observed compare to the distraction posed by other possibly much more attractive advertising around the city?
4. Does this criteria apply to all signage and advertising within the City and if not why not?
5. Under what statue is "Perceived distraction to passing motorists" a criterion for the removal of advertising?

6. Was it perceived by the City Council that the signs in question were at risk of collapse or damage to other property. If so on what basis?

7. What criteria are used to access "hole damage to green areas" while signs are in place?
8. If signs are in place how can there be hole damage? Surely holes only appear if signs are removed and the holes are not filled in?
10. What are the minimum dimensions of holes that constitute "damage to green areas"?

11. Given that every sign erected on a post in the ground could in some way obstruct grass cutting what are the criterion to which such signs must adhere in order not to constitute an obstruction to grass cutting?

12. What in the opinion of the city council constitutes incitement?
13. How exactly did these signs constitute incitement?
14. Has the council brought this matter to the attention of the Gardai and if not why not?

15 How many signs relating to the Lisbon Treaty referendum were removed owing to a lack of insurance cover or indemnity?

16. How many bodies or individuals have sought and been granted written permission by the City Council to erect signage in relation to the referendum?

The two signs recovered from Limerick City Council were erected again this evening in Clare Street, Limerick from where they City Council removed them, illegally I believe on Monday 26th May. I publically challenge Limerick City Council to inform the public why they removed these signs and explain why they targeted these signs while ignoring other adjacent signs.

Furthermore, in order to assure the public that the member of staff who claimed the signs were an incitement did not have a ulterior motive, this person should be identified and asked to back up the claim.

Sign on Coucil property on the Dubln rd., without permission, causing litter, which Council officials have ignored.

Sign on green area? A distraction to motorists? Obstructing grass cutting? Without consent of Council?

Sign on the same roundabout from whch Council removed LCMEJP sign. A distraction to traffic? Overlaying a Council road traffic sign.

Sign adjacent to roundabout on green area. Obstructing grass cuting with no permission but not removed by City Council

save preference

Comments (23 of 23)

Jump To Comment:

Once bitten - twice shy

by Sean Clinton - IFPAL

Thu Sep 03, 2009 23:16

info at ifpal dot ie

This time around Limerick City Council appear to have curved their enthusiasm for removing No to Lisbon signs critical of Israel and one can't help but wonder if it's a case of once bitten - twice shy. While it's still early days, the No-to-Lisbon referendum signs erected in Limerick yesterday, in the same location from which the City Council hastily removed them in 2008 have survived for at least 24 hours.

Since my last posting to this thread almost 12 months ago much has been happening behind the scenes. Following the refusal of Mr. Mackey to offer any further clarification in response to my late letter to him a Freedom-of-Information request was lodged with Limerick City Council in October After a very protracted trail of letters and the intervention of the Ombudsman I eventually and many months late received most of the information I had requested. The City Council was unable to locate some photographs. It turned out that apart from the letters he wrote to me, the City Manager Mr. Mackey never documented a single page of information, never wrote to any member of staff or received any written report from any member of staff during the entire course of his investigation into this matter.

The matter is still being investigated by the Ombudsman who tells me that due to a backlog of cases they are unable to say when their investigation will be completed.

I just hope it won?t be necessary to repeat the same this time around. But considering that a number of other signs are positioned in sites similar to the IFPAL (Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon) signs it would be foolish of the City Council to interfere with the IFPAL signs unless they intend removing all the other signs as well. Let?s hope they've learned their lesson.

www.ifpal.ie

The night shift on the Ennis Road

A double-sided IFPAL sign at the Coonagh roundabout

Letter No. 4 to Limerick City Manager

Sat Sep 06, 2008 19:50

Barrington’s Bridge,
Lisnagry,
Co. Limerick,
Thursday 4th September 2008

Mr. Tom Mackey,
City Manager,
Limerick City Council,
City Hall,
Limerick.

Re: Abuse of power and influence by staff in Limerick City Council

Dear Mr. Mackey,

Further to your letter of the 2nd September I wish to point out the following:

I wrote to you on the 13th June not because of any “disappointment” but rather because I believe that the circumstances of the removal of the referendum signs belonging to the Lisbon Campaign For Middle East Justice and Peace (they were not my signs) strongly suggested malpractice on the part of the City Council. Your failure to-date to offer a rational explanation for the removal of any one of the signs adds further to the suspicion that it was to facilitate the wishes of a member of staff sympathetic to the Zionist controlled apartheid Israeli state – a state which has to-date this year killed 64 Palestinian children and shot and wounded a further 230 children (PCHR Reports) .

Contrary to your assertion that the reason for the removal of the signs “was clearly explained” in a letter from the Deputy Manager on the 2nd of July, no explanation was given. Furthermore that one-sentence statement from the Deputy Manager did not say that the signs were a traffic hazard but that “it was considered that they could be a traffic hazard” (my emphasis). The set of circumstances under which the signs could be a traffic hazard were not outlined.

Without a rational explanation for the Council’s actions I can not disregard the reasons proffered by Mr. O’Grady in the first instance as you have suggested.

I fully respect the professional opinion of the staff in the City Council and would welcome an opportunity to familiarise myself with the detail of their opinion in this regard. However you have not offered me the opportunity to do so. Having considered the matter and being satisfied, perhaps you will now make the same information that allowed you reach this conclusion available to me so that I too can be satisfied your staff acted properly.

I look forward to receiving a detailed explanation of the exact nature of the hazard to traffic posed by each of the signs at the various locations.

Yours Sincerely,

____________
Sean Clinton
Coordinator
Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace

Limerick City Manager responds.

Thu Sep 04, 2008 22:48

Limerick City Manager Mr. Liam Mackey responds without offering any explaination for the Council's decision to remove the referendum sigs and suggesting that the reasons previously put forward by the Council should now be disregarded.

The one note of encouragement is the fact that having considered the matter he is satisfied that the staff of the City Council acted properly. In order to reach this conclusion he must therefore of had access to the detailed reasons for the signs being removed from each of the locations. Hopefully he will now make that same information available so we may all feel equally satisfied.

Limerick City Manager's Response

Letter No. 3 to Limerick City Council

Sun Aug 24, 2008 17:34

Mr. Tom Mackey,
City Manager,
Limerick City Council,
City Hall,
Limerick.

Re: Abuse of power and influence by staff in Limerick City Council

Dear Mr. Mackey,

On the 13th June I wrote to you seeking an explanation for Limerick City Council’s decision to remove all the signs erected by the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace in advance of the national referendum to amend the Constitution on June 12th.

That letter raised serious questions about the impartiality of Limerick City Council in the exercise of its executive duties - an issue of fundamental importance to the integrity of and public trust in Limerick City Council and to the functioning of our constitutional democracy.

The one sentence ‘clarification’ I received from the Deputy City Manager, Caroline Curley on the 4th July is far from an adequate response. In fact it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the response displays an arrogance bordering on contempt on the part of your administration.

It is incumbent on public bodies to carry out their duties in an open and transparent manner. If there is suspicion that Limerick City Council may have acted partially in the exercise of its duties surely it is imperative that an explanation of the rationale behind the Council’s actions is provided? This is of particular importance when, as in this instance, the action of Limerick City Council had a direct bearing on one of the pillars of our democracy - a national referendum to amend the Constitution and on the rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions as enshrined in the Irish Constitution.

Bearing this in mind I hope you will now address the issues I raised in my original letter of June 13th . Considering the ‘clarification’ proffered by Ms. Curley, can you also explain why such widely differing explanations have been put forward by Ms. Curley and Mr. O’ Grady - who made the decision to have the signs removed.

Can you please outline in some detail when, how and why it was decided to remove the referendum signs from each of the following locations:

1. Two signs form Clare Street on Monday 26th May.
2. One sign from the central median of the Ennis Road dual carriageway at Coonagh on the 26th May.
3. One sign from the central median of the Ennis Road dual carriageway at Coonagh between Friday 6th June and Tuesday 9th June.
4. One sign from the Lower Mallow Street roundabout on Wednesday 11th June
5. One sign from the Parkway roundabout on Wednesday 11th June
6. Two signs from Clare Street on Friday 13th June

Yours Sincerely,

____________
Sean Clinton
Coordinator
Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace

A Passing Comment

by Mr Man

Wed Aug 20, 2008 18:54

"The refusal of the City Council to identify the member of staff in question and the failure to-date of that Council employee to identify himself (or herself) has focused, unfairly perhaps, attention on one staff member – a prominent public defender of the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv."

How can you say that the attention to a staff member is perhaps unfair when you propogated that hypothesis yourself? So you are saying that it is the council's fault that extremists such as yourself may be unfairly pointing the finger at this mystery person (to me anyway)? I'm afraid it's all your fault.

"It should also identify the member of staff who initiated the removal of the signs."

It absolutely should not. There would be no benefit from identifying this person, other than to expose him to possible abuse and intimidation. Even if this alleged zionist sympathiser did make the complaint, what difference does it make? All it was was a complaint, which we are all welcome to do, it was other people that reviewed it and did something about it. These people had supervisors that gave the green light. But oh no, it's all the zionist conspirators fault......

If you actually had filed a request under the freedom of information act, as instructed, and the complainant was a member of the council, then you would have had your information by now. Instead you prefer to blindly demand information and huff when it isn't handed to you on a platter peppered with pleasantries.

If you truly believe there was subversion of the democratic process, you should bring this to court, although I suspect you won't.

Limerick City Council "clarification" ?

Tue Aug 19, 2008 21:59

It would not be unreasonable to expect that a local authority accused of abuse of power and interference with the democratic process would move quickly to dispel public disquiet by making public the rationale that guided its actions.

Limerick City Council has instead chosen to adopt a head-in-the-sand approach, apparently hoping that they can delay or avoid altogether having to account for their actions and/or that the matter might somehow just go-away.

On July 4th, in response to my letter of June 13th to the City Manager, Mr. Mackey, I received a one sentence “clarification” from the Deputy City Manager, Ms. Caroline Curley - “I wish to confirm that the signs were removed as it was considered that the signs could be a traffic hazard.” This response displays an arrogance bordering on contempt for anyone daring to question the actions of Limerick City Council.

The failure of the City Manager to deal promptly and openly with the matter has reinforced suspicion that the City Council has something to hide. The conflicting explanations now offered by two Council officials adds further to this and suggests that the council did indeed act at the behest of a Council employee with a political axe to grind.

The refusal of the City Council to identify the member of staff in question and the failure to-date of that Council employee to identify himself (or herself) has focused, unfairly perhaps, attention on one staff member – a prominent public defender of the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv.

Limerick City Council should outline when, how and why it decided to remove each of the signs erected by the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace. It should explain why it ignored other referendum signs in similar positions posted by other campaigns groups. It should also identify the member of staff who initiated the removal of the signs.

Limerick City Council's one line clarification.

why dont you answer Mrs. Woman

by Annoyed

Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:05

As with a lot of posters on threads of this nature Mrs. Woman totally ignores my previous post and instead resorts to the old "you are twisting my words" argment in responce to Mr. Man.

It seems to me that many people here rightly criticise Israeli government actions and policies including myself, Mr. Man etc however many posters are merely using Israel and Zionist as substitutes for Jew and Jewish. This oft perpetrated myth of Jewish/Zionist influence and conspiracies is another form of anti semitic slander.

Criticise Israel as a governemnt and I applaud you. Criticise Israel as a people and religion and you show your true colours.

Stretching it!!

by Mrs Woman

Tue Jun 24, 2008 01:03

You are so wrong Mr Man! Your attempt to stretch my words is sick.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 23:20

Mrs Woman,

"What if all the posters here were Jewish? Of course we would be self hating Jews then"
So you are saying you hate Jews? And I rather think that the vast majority of people here would not agree that they hate Jews.

And if that comment was alluding to the supposed defence of Zionism by claims of anti-semitism, I am afraid Annoyed is correct in that many actual anti-semites use colourful allegory and international political conspiracies to blur the line between Israeli and Jewish and to disguise their actual agenda. It is unfortunate for genuine humanitarians that anti-semites seem to have replaced "Jew" with "Zionist" in their literature. So when someone accuses a low level civil servant in Limerick of being part of an international conspiracy, little alarm bells start to go off.

Not a ranter just an annoyed citizen of Limerick

Mon Jun 23, 2008 15:11

As with a lot of people who post relating to israel and palestine - the thread ends up in abuse and name calling

you state yourself

"So it is possible a city council employee could have used his clout to have the signs removed"

Possible does not mean probable nor does it mean a conspiracy, just like it is possible that clout was used it is also possible that no clout was used and the city council just plainly acted upon a complaint like they do everyday. Where is the outrage and shock when the city council acts on a complaint and rounds up loose horses, fences off unused land, clears up rubbish and illegally dumped garbage all as a result of complaints. Oh but when it happens to a couple of signs about Israel its a huge conspiracy -

if you know anything about Limerick you will know that the majority of people including public servants are supportive of Palestinians. Wasn't this the same city council that worked towards declaring Limerick a caterpillar free zone?

Hardly the actions of an organisation under the yoke of "Zionists" indeed where was this city council worker then and why wasnt clout used then?

Unless of course he/she was placed in the job after this to specifically counter act these sorts of actions - oh god now I am seeing Jewish conspiracies eveywhere

As for the use of the word national I used it in terms of the phrase "national past time" i.e. a common term used to describe a widely held belief or view or behaviour trait expressed or shown by a certain group of people.

And I stand by what I said

For the record I dont know who the city council worker is nor do I care.

Reply to ranter

Mon Jun 23, 2008 14:14

Dear Annoyed

I will leave it up to Mr Clinton if he would like to “ out the person” himself but I think you already know who that person is.

Yes you are right in saying “even if a city council employee is an Israeli supporter - who cares, they are still entitled to make a complaint.” But I personally think the complaint was politically motivated rather than an issue of incitement. So it is possible a city council employee could have used his clout to have the signs removed.
You next point seems to agree with my last point but you asked anyone and someone might reply but no has yadda yadda yadda...

“anti semitic”? “Jewish”? Right on cue the annoyed. What if all the posters here were Jewish? Of course we would be self hating Jews then.

You continue to rant and it is impossible to argue with a ranter so I will finish with this. You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word national.

Regards

Mrs Woman

reply to Mrs. Woman

by annoyed

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:17

If Mr. Clinton knows the person in question then why rant and rave about it, why not "out" the person.
Also, even if a city council employee is an Israeli supporter - who cares, they are still entitled to make a complaint.

Does anyone beleive that if a city/council employee were supporting Mr. Clinton's side that he would be anything but delighted and hoping to use that person to further his cause.

This seems to me to be just typical anti semitic ranting seeing Jeiwsh conspiracies everywhere.

I say again as in posts before, any citizen -even a public servant - is entitled to make a complaint. How can anyone say that they abused their position. A complaint was made and the city council acted on it.

I challenge Mr. Clinton to name the worker and state how they abused their position or else shut up about it. It really is bordering on threatening behaviour at this stage.

Seeing conspiracies eveywhere is a national past time for anti semties

Sun Jun 22, 2008 02:15

I see.....
Thanks for the insight, obviously you are more familiar with the politics of the area than me. So can you fill me in? What is the 'organisation' meant to allude to? And who is this friendly civil servant? Without all the pertinant info, it just sounds like impotent conspiracy theories.

Reading Between the Lines...

Sun Jun 22, 2008 00:50

It seems to me that Mr Clinton knows the identity of the complainant. There is a certain public servant who is also a friend of Zion. This friendly guy may have abused his position to have the signs removed. I am sure this is way the point is being pushed.

I am sure it will al come out in the wash.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 00:39

I agree with the above comment also. What kind of world do you live in that you think its ok to demand the identity of complainants? Ever heard of privacy? Lord knows we are losing enough privacy as it is without having to worry about people we make complaints against knowing our life history.

"and most importantly if that staff member is a member of an organisation which had a vested interest in having the signs removed to further the aims of that organisation."
"suspicion will continue to mount as to the real motive behind the council's decision to remove signs."
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Sounds like someone has been reading the protocols of zion too much.

to annoyed

by in agreement

Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:27

I agree with the last post.

Just as Mr. Clinton asks how is the person making the complaint qualified to say something is incitement I ask how can Mr. Clinton say that it was not incitement.

If a complaint was made then the city council made the decision that the signs did constitute incitement or indeed a danger. If they didnt then the complaint would be thrown out.

Is Mr. Clinton suggesting that the Israeli government is controlling or influencing the city council of Limerick - is this more anti semitic world wide Jewish conspiracy theories?

I feel that Israel has more to worry about like a nuclear Iran and holding a ceasfire with hamas than the actions of a small group in Limerick who seem to think they were responsible for the Irish no vote.

Having seen the signs on roundabouts around Limerick, they were indeed distracting and placed dangerously and I applaud their removal.

doing more harm than good

Thu Jun 19, 2008 17:47

There is no obligation on the city council to idenitfy to you who made the complaint. Especially if as you stated they all ready called the police because they felt that you were acting in a threatening manner. Indeed in that case the onus on them is to protect the person making the complaint.

Whether or not anyone is part of any organisation is irrelevant, any citizen is entitled to make a complaint. Your issue should be with the city council, what purpose will it be to identify the complainant? This can indeed be seen as threatening.

I say again any citizen is entitled to make a complaint the issue here is how the city council acted upon receipt of the complaint and their subsequent actions dealing with you.

The world is not one big conspiracy and ranting and raving about identifiying the complainant is only perpetuating the idea that in essence it is you who are acting in a threatening fashion and you are the unreasonable one rather than the city council. I venture to add that it seems to me that your actions do more to divert attention from their actions than to actually get an answer from them.

even if the city council staff member who made the complaint is a member of a pro Israel group this does not matter - they are entitled as citizens to make a complaint. I reiterate the issue here is the city councils actions not who made the compalint or a huge conspiracy.

No response from Limerick City Manager

Thu Jun 19, 2008 16:17

Nearly a week after writing to Limerick City Manger, Mr. Tom Mackey to complain about the actions of City Council staff in the run up to last week's Lisbon referendum I have still not received any acknowledgement of my letter. I wrote to Mr. Mackey again yesterday asking him to confirm that he had received my letter.

Staff member Mr. Paul O' Grady was certainly much more efficient when it came to removing signs that did not meet the approval of one of his colleagues in another section. On Wednesday last the removal of No-to-Lisbon referendum signs critical of Israel and EU policy vis-a-vis Israel was a priority for him and he duly dispatched Council staff to have them removed post-haste that morning.

The identity of the City Council staff member who complained to Mr. O' Grady remains shrouded in mystery. The City Council has not disclosed who this person is, what section s/he works in, his/her qualifications to decide if the signs constituted "incitement", and most importantly if that staff member is a member of an organisation which had a vested interest in having the signs removed to further the aims of that organisation.

Until such time as Mr. Mackey provides the answer to these questions suspicion will continue to mount as to the real motive behind the council's decision to remove signs.

Smadar Lavie in Limerick

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:41

On Thursday last Jewish Israeli Professor Smadar Lavie, who is Hubert H. Humphrey Distinguished Visiting Professor of International Studies at Macalester College and is visiting Ireland and giving talks as guest of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign stopped to show her support and approval for the "No to Lisbon" sign on Clare St. Limerick which an as yet unidentified member of staff in Limerick City Council claimed constituted "incitement".

Applaud the sentiments

by Grammar Buff

Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:44

but watch the grammar

"I believe Limerick City Council’s actions were inconsistent and impartial. "

Impartial means they acted in an unbiased fashion which they clearly didnt.

Beggaring belief!

by TD - Free Palestine Campaign

Sat Jun 14, 2008 16:04

Well done for your forensic exegesis of the matter, Sean, it's pretty clear that O'Grady was indulging in a frolic of his own, it's illuminating that the similiar Vote No sign that we erected last Sunday evening adjacent to the Westside Shopping Center, to forestall vandalism, in full view of a Garda traffic monitoring camera is still standing there today without interference - if it has'nt passed the 'Blue Whistle Test', whatever, and received the imprimatur of the Guards and Galway City Council as regards O'Grady's despicable contention of "Incitement," it beggars belief why they already haven't made a move on it.?

City Manager asked to investigate removal of referendum signs

Fri Jun 13, 2008 14:09

Mr. Tom Mackey,
City Manager,
Limerick City Council,
City Hall,
Limerick.

Friday 13th June 2008

Re: Abuse of power and influence by staff in Limerick City Council

Dear Mr. Mackey,

On Thursday 11th June I was informed by Mr. Paul O' Grady Executive Engineer, Environmental Section that he had instructed the removal of two signs advocating a “NO” vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum which I erected on City Council property at the Parkway and the bottom of Mallow Street the previous evening.

When asked why he had done so he responded "Incitement." He said "a member of staff from another section" contacted him claiming the signs constituted incitement. Mr. O'Grady said the signs were of a political nature and "had nothing to do with the Lisbon referendum". He claimed that drivers were "rubber-necking" as they read the signs. He also claimed that the signs were flapping in the wind and were unsafe, that they obstructed the view of motorists, and that they had caused damage to the green areas.

Mr. O' Grady informed me that he also had other signs removed which I erected at Clare St. and Coonagh.

The disappearance of these signs from within the city boundary and similar signs from the environs of the city outside the boundary has been under investigation by Gardai in Mary St., Henry St. and Roxboro stations since the first signs disappeared from Clare St. on Monday 26th May. The signs had contact details of the publisher and printers. The Limerick Leader newspaper published two large articles with pictures of the missing signs two weeks in a row. The Limerick Independent and the Irish Times also reported on the disappearance of the signs. In all this time Mr. O'Grady never thought it appropriate to contact the owner of the signs or the local Gardai to inform them about his decision to have them removed.

In mid-May, before erecting the signs, I phoned the Environmental Section of Limerick City Council in order to familiarise myself with the guidelines pertaining to the erection of signs in the run up to a referendum. As a result I was fully aware of the restrictions in relation to public safety, obstruction of road traffic signals and signage and obstruction of driver’s line-of-sight.

I was not informed that "distraction to passing motorists", "hole damage in green areas", "obstruction of grass cutting" were reasons that would result in the signs being removed. Nor was I informed that it was necessary to have insurance and indemnity cover or that it was necessary to have permission from the City Council. In a letter to me on Thursday 11th June Mr. O' Grady stated that for these reasons "a number of signs (representing various view points) were removed from green areas across the city over the past month."

I object to the City Council claiming that the signs I erected constitute "incitement". Incitement is a criminal offence. I challenge the Council to demonstrate how this interpretation can be justified. Furthermore if the City Council is of this opinion they should refer the matter to the appropriate authorities for further investigation. However considering that the City Council has so far been unable to find three of six signs confiscated the question of safe keeping of evidence seem not to have been a priority.

On what grounds does the City Council justify the claim by Mr. O' Grady that the signs "had nothing to do with the Lisbon referendum" This assertion can not be justified.

Everything visible from a public road, including traffic signage is to some degree "a distraction to motorists". Can the City Council explain how in the context of reaching a decision to remove signs, "distraction to motorists" is assessed and quantified? What level of "distraction" is permissible and what is not permissible?

I contend that the signs were any way unsafe, a hazard to pedestrians or to motorists. The signs were firmly anchored with 10 mm nylon rope and six strong stakes driven firmly into the ground. The signs were designed to offer minimum resistance to wind - a feature I pointed out and explained in detail to Mr. O'Grady. On what grounds did the City Council judge the signs to be "in danger of collapse" or unsafe in any way?

I deny that the signs obstructed the line of sight for motorists or in any way presented a hazard to motorists. I ask the City Council to demonstrate exactly how this interpretation was justified at all of the locations from which the signs were removed.

There are numerous examples of other referendum signs on City Council property including on green areas, without permission, obstruction grass cutting and causing “hole damage” to green areas, yet the City Council did not remove these signs. Why is this?

I contend that the signs I erected were removed by the City Council not because they posed a danger to motorists or pedestrians, or because they damaged green areas but because as Mr. O' Grady stated “a member of staff from another section" asked for them to be removed. I believe that this member of staff did so because the signs exposed Israeli crimes against humanity and the fact that EU policy facilitates Israeli crimes.

Contrary to what Mr. O’Grady stated in his letter on the 11th June, I believe Limerick City Council’s actions were inconsistent and impartial. I believe that the actions of the City Council constitute a serious breach of my civil rights, a serious interference with the democratic process, an abuse of power by the City Council and an abuse of influence by a City Council member of staff.

Consequently I believe this is a matter requires full and open investigation. I urge you to act immediately to preserve all evidence, including video evidence, pertinent to a full investigation of the circumstances and facts of this case, to expedite such an enquiry immediately and to publish the findings of this enquiry without undue delay.

Yours Sincerely,

____________
Sean Clinton
Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace

Abuse of authority and bias by Limerick City Authority

by Edward Horgan

Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:26

I assisted Sean Clinton in his dealings with the Limerick City Authority yesterday. The behaviour of a small number of officials was outrageous in my view. We did however receive cooperation for some of the staff. It would appear that these election/referendum signs were removed as a result of a complaint being made to the Environmental section by another Corporation official, who may also be a member of the Irish Israeli Friendship Society. When this incident is taken together with the indicents in Galway and elsewhere of NO to Lisbon campaign signs being vandalised it indicates a dangerous trend by some pro-Israeli groups and individuals in Ireland.
I have great sympathy with the Jewish people, and have campaigned and organised seminars on genocide, including the Holocaust, and will continue to do so. Like very many other Irish people however, I am opposed to all human rights abuses, including the human rights abuses by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people, and the abuse of life by some Palestinians against Israelis. However, the scale of mass murder and expulsions, and mass theft and occupation of Palestinian property by Israel far exceeds any reactionary violence by the Palestinian people.
Gandhi's "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless" is nowhere no valid than in the Middle East.
Dag Hammarskjold's motto is also very applicable:
"From Justice - never injustice
From Injustice - never justice"

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

"incitement" claims Limerick City Council

Comments (23 of 23)