The limerick Leader Spins Ploughshare Vindication

limerick | anti-war / imperialism | other press Sunday August 06, 2006 05:19 by Seán Ryan

In this week's edition of the Limerick Leader, the Ploughshares are maligned and the law is questioned.

The paper has continued on in its pro-war agenda. This week the Leader calls the law an 'ass.'
Presumably the law was framed to allow for emergencies. Consider, for example. a fire-fighter smashing through a door to quench a blaze, or a passer-by breaking a car window to prevent a baby inside from being fried and suffocated in the sun. It would be self-evidently preposterous to hold such people liable for criminal damage.

It is only logical that they should be exempt. But the Ploughshares case takes that logic a step further and into the realm of the illogical. If the jury's interpretation of the law is not perverse, then the law is not only an ass but a lethal one at that: the property of no-one is no-longer safe from anyone, assuming that the attacker's belief is "honestly held."

The above is but a taste.
http://www.limericktoday.com/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionI...74802

That's what's on the website.
In the weekend paper itself, there's the odd mention or two. On page four of the features section we have a whole page devoted to the ploughshares. There is a set of 15 pictures of people from limerick, airing their views.

There's a piece on the page titled 'Did you agree with the jury's verdict for the Shannon Five?' This is a foistly little piece by Anne Sheridan, who reckon she's 'asked the people of limerick' She asked them if the 'Shannon Five' - 'if they deserved to be aquitted or if they were justified in their moral crusade.' Overlooking the logical impurity of her question, sho goes on to preach to people she already claims to be of the converted. This is cheap spin at its absolute cheapest.

She makes many points.
The Irish taxpayer might be paying the bill for the damage done to the plane.

Refers to the Ploughshare's act as a "crime" with the quotes.

Refers to an unamed man who describes the Ploughshare's use of 'lawful excuse' as "disgraceful."

Loss of American funding and investment will result, because of the implications of the case, Anne tells us - after she has pointed out that the American embassy is having a think and will be discussing its ideas with our government when it's ready.

FF Senator Brendan Daly having begged the Attorney General to re-try the Ploughshares [the Attorney General probably laughed at him] is briefly brought up by Anne. Anne doesn't bother to correct the fantasy element of this.

Anne finishes up with this:
Yet despite the future of Iraq and Ireland's implicit involvement in the war, law experts raised another minefield after the case - will any defendant charged with a violent act who can argue successfully that the crime was committed in good faith get off so lightly.

Back to the 15 pictures and 15 accompanting comments from 15 city Dwellers.
Rather than qoute the negative ones allow me to quote the positive ones:

'I agree with the verdict. I mean it's a protest, not a crime. Although I don't agree with the destruction of property. They've valid political and moral reasons.'

'I agree to a certain extent. I definitely don't agree that the taxpayer should have to pay for their damage but they needed to make a point.'

The quotes get less agreeable from here. One of the quotes even suggests the the Ploughshares ought to have been 'prosecuted.'