Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

I accept your point but the converse of it is also true - that revolutions cannot happen. (Berlin Wall, Prague, Romania, Baltic States ... or Tienamen Square)

That's too one-sided for me.

Isn't the whole point of a revolution that it is an overturning of the law and the social order? It isn't much of a revolution if it occurs within the confines of the law - I think you call that a General Election .

johnfás wrote:

Isn't the whole point of a revolution that it is an overturning of the law and the social order? It isn't much of a revolution if it occurs within the confines of the law - I think you call that a General Election .

Or a Europe-Wide Referendum on a document that has a line in that says the authorities have the right to kill you if you complain that you actually didn't get that Democratic, Europe-wide Referendum .......

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

I accept your point but the converse of it is also true - that revolutions cannot happen. (Berlin Wall, Prague, Romania, Baltic States ... or Tienamen Square)

That's too one-sided for me.

Of course they can happen, they just can't happen while the protesters are trying to kill policemen at the same time.

Auditor #9 wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Isn't the whole point of a revolution that it is an overturning of the law and the social order? It isn't much of a revolution if it occurs within the confines of the law - I think you call that a General Election .

Or a Europe-Wide Referendum on a document that has a line in that says the authorities have the right to kill you if you complain that you actually didn't get that Democratic, Europe-wide Referendum .......

Only if you say it with a machete in your hand and a certain look in your eye.

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing. We already have such lawful justifications under Irish law. For instance, the law regarding self defence. Does the right to use lethal force in cases of self defence, where it is a reasonable response to the threat faced, constitute the death penalty? Of course not and if it does we already have it.

Beyond which, what we are all referring to here is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) an initiative of the Council of Europe, not the European Union. It already has effect in Irish law by way of the Irish ECHR Act 2003. That is the case irrespective of Lisbon, or even Ireland's membership of the EU which is entirely separate to that of the Council of Europe - a completely separate body with 47 members.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

I accept your point but the converse of it is also true - that revolutions cannot happen. (Berlin Wall, Prague, Romania, Baltic States ... or Tienamen Square)

That's too one-sided for me.

Of course they can happen, they just can't happen while the protesters are trying to kill policemen at the same time.

I agree with you 100% because in that case you are in a State of War anyway, but the text doesn't specify anything about a State of violent organised un-democratic insurrection it talks simply about insurrection and 'riots'

15 year old boy in Greece - was he endangering the lives of the riot police with peer weapons?

We discussed this before the Referendum all right, and it is here. Thanks for point to its legal context johnfás.

European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Footnotes :
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary :
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Governments will have been looking at pepper spray in Iceland and concluding that it isn't enough protection. They will prepare for mass unrest, given the circumstances, and for full protection of their own hides.

The UK Government is back again pushing for secret non jury inquests on "national security" grounds - that would have covered the David Kelly and Menezes and anything like Bloody Sunday should it happen again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/14/jack-straw-terrorism-criminal-justice

Does anyone feel that this should be split to a "death penalty/martial law" thread of some kind? We are far from only looking at the corporate model of political parties here.

I've heard this particular argument before.

Tis really two different arguments.

The first is to do with capital punishment. Capital punishment would result from a court case and a judge's order. To introduce capital punishment, or reintroduce it, into Ireland, would require a referendum.

The other argument is the reasonable force argument. This doesn't require a referendum and doesn't require Lisbon II. It's already the law. This talk about armed insurrections and putting aside the Constitution have merit, but they largely divert from the fact that it's perfectly lawful for our Gardaí and our armed forces to execute citizens in given circumstances.

For example a soldier can kill you if he believes that you are about to kill him, kill a comrade or that you are about to try and take his weapon from him. In these circumstances, the soldier doesn't need to receive an order to kill you, he can just plug away.

All of this isn't as dire as it seems. It can be equated with self defence. Civilians too have the right to use deadly force in the event of a mortal threat being presented to themselves or others.

To me the important argument lies in the inequality of treatment between civilians and the Gardaí etc. If I were to kill someone in self defence, there's no doubt that I'd be arrested and held. If a Garda kills someone, there'd probably be no arrest. Even if the prosecution were to fail, I'd be open to a civil suit and would have to pay for my own representation. The Garda would be represented by the Attorney General. There's both a Constitutional argument here and indeed a moral one. All are supposed to be equal before the law. I feel like quoting from "Animal Farm" at this point.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

I accept your point but the converse of it is also true - that revolutions cannot happen. (Berlin Wall, Prague, Romania, Baltic States ... or Tienamen Square)

That's too one-sided for me.

Of course they can happen, they just can't happen while the protesters are trying to kill policemen at the same time.

I agree with you 100% because in that case you are in a State of War anyway, but the text doesn't specify anything about a State of violent organised un-democratic insurrection it talks simply about insurrection and 'riots'

15 year old boy in Greece - was he endangering the lives of the riot police with peer weapons?

That is not the question, the question in this case is, does that text cover the actions on the police concerned. And if as you have said the lad was shot in the back, then the answer is almost certainly no it does not.

johnfás wrote:

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing. We already have such lawful justifications under Irish law. For instance, the law regarding self defence. Does the right to use lethal force in cases of self defence, where it is a reasonable response to the threat faced, constitute the death penalty? Of course not and if it does we already have it.

Beyond which, what we are all referring to here is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) an initiative of the Council of Europe, not the European Union. It already has effect in Irish law by way of the Irish ECHR Act 2003. That is the case irrespective of Lisbon, or even Ireland's membership of the EU which is entirely separate to that of the Council of Europe - a completely separate body with 47 members.

Exactly - the Death Penalty is less to do with it that what it seems to really permit which is a state where one side may have an advantage in a justifiable war.

Can you explain how this necklace of documents, protocols, constitutions, Articles and conventions hang together so that it seems to me that I am offered to vote for a case where I or anyone else can be shot for demonstrating perhaps peacefully ???

Part of the Lisbon Treaty is the incorporation of the ECHR into European Community (EU) Law. This is a separate document to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a European Union document. The ECHR is already incorporated into Irish law whereby Irish courts must interpret Irish law in light of the Statutory effect given to the ECHR. In that context it is a bit of a nonsense that people get het up about the ECHR, it is already Irish law and it would be even if Ireland were to withdraw from the European Union.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that

in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion

and I'm being asked to vote for it

The alternative is that you accept that the forces of a democracy don’t have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force up to the ultimate if necessary. In my opinion this is not a tenable position whether that right is written into a national/European constitution or not.

I accept your point but the converse of it is also true - that revolutions cannot happen. (Berlin Wall, Prague, Romania, Baltic States ... or Tienamen Square)

That's too one-sided for me.

Of course they can happen, they just can't happen while the protesters are trying to kill policemen at the same time.

I agree with you 100% because in that case you are in a State of War anyway, but the text doesn't specify anything about a State of violent organised un-democratic insurrection it talks simply about insurrection and 'riots'

15 year old boy in Greece - was he endangering the lives of the riot police with peer weapons?

That is not the question, the question in this case is, does that text cover the actions on the police concerned. And if as you have said the lad was shot in the back, then the answer is almost certainly no it does not.

I'm not sure if he was - the American man certainly was while handcuffed too - as far as I remember the Greek boy was shot in the chest.

I don't know what happened to the policeman and I don't accept your point that it is a stipulation which applies moreso to the Police than potential demonstrators.... It allows Authorities to use lethal force and the cases where that force may be used is vaguely referred to as 'riots' or 'insurrection'. The first worries me the second one is obvious I suppose.

johnfás wrote:

Part of the Lisbon Treaty is the incorporation of the ECHR into European Community (EU) Law. This is a separate document to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a European Union document. The ECHR is already incorporated into Irish law whereby Irish courts must interpret Irish law in light of the Statutory effect given to the ECHR. In that context it is a bit of a nonsense that people get het up about the ECHR, it is already Irish law and it would be even if Ireland were to withdraw from the European Union.

Thanks.

So, you believe we're already subject to this - where a violent riot can be quelled with lethal force? If you go back and read ibis' last post I think I read that we are exempt from it because we are signatories to certain protocols ????

But this applies to other countries - is that correct? Some of whom however may have opted-out like ourselves I suppose. Anyone know which countries these are ?

tonys wrote:

That is not the question, the question in this case is, does that text cover the actions on the police concerned. And if as you have said the lad was shot in the back, then the answer is almost certainly no it does not.

But you could be very right about that of course.

I don't think it is about riots. cops can and do shoot people under ordinary laws.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think it is about riots. cops can and do shoot people under ordinary laws.

Section I, Article 2 of the ECHR says:
- - - - - - - - -
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person unlawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.


Normally Police shoot people under certain circumstances but this piece specifically states in the cases mentioned above.

What Libertas was in Jan 2008 a "citizens think tank". That is rich as it was a privately financed campaign group.

Quote :

Naoise Nunn (naoise@libertas.org)
Sent: 22 January 2008 17:26:47
To: 'Frank Schnittger' (frankschnittger@hotmail.com) Dear Frank,Libertas was established just over a year ago as a "citizens' think
tank" which sought to break the mould of traditional think tanks by
pursuing activity that spoke to the European public as opposed to
engaging in closed academic debate and publication. Our founding
members are listed as signatories to the Libertas Charter which is on
the website. They include a wide range of people from across Europe
including an MEP, a number of senior constitutional lawyers, academics,
professionals and PAYE workers and the president of one of Ireland's
foremost academic institutions, Professor Roger Downer amongst others.
Late last year, having read and analyzed the Lisbon Treaty in detail
and realized the manner in which it was to be brought into being across
Europe, we decided that we must oppose it. At this point, we changed
our focus to become a campaigning organization with a small but broad
starting base of Irish citizens from which to build a campaign against
the Treaty. Our funding as a think tank was provided by its founder members,
including Declan Ganley. However, as a campaigning organization and a
Standards in Public Office Commission-notified third party for the
purposes of the referendum campaign, we are bound by the Electoral Acts
which specify that no one person or body can make a donation in excess
of €6,348 to us (that includes Declan Ganley). We are therefore now
funded by donations from our supporters, many of whom have made their
contributions online. Our funding is subject to statutory obligations
which we will honour fully. It is a shame the same cannot be said of
the European Union whose own auditors have refused to sign off its
accounts for the 13th year in a row.We are campaigning for a No vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
for reasons that are well-outlined on our website and in our media
appearances. We are as entitled as anyone else to become involved in
the political process unless one is of the view that only
"State-approved organizations" may express a political opinion. There
is no hidden agenda or conspiracy and we are not a "front" for any
shadowy organization. We are a group of regular Irish people with
centrist political views who are broadly supportive of the concept of
the European Union. We believe, however, that it requires radical
reform not envisaged in this Treaty, about which we have grave
reservations. We are democratically entitled to promote our arguments
against the Treaty to the electorate so that they can decide for
themselves. Libertas has never claimed to advise European governments nor has it
done so. The Energy Initiative, details of which are posted on our
website, is an on-going project aimed at European energy
self-sufficiency which involves a number of MEPs, economists,
scientists and business people seeking to develop a proposal which was
welcomed by EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs and which we hope
will be presented to the European Parliament during its discussion on
the second phase of the ETS.Your claim that the Government and Opposition have a "considered view"
on the Lisbon Treaty does not stand up - I can guarantee you that 90%
of our elected representatives have not even read the document and
everyone is being encouraged to sleep-walk into this whole new
dispensation for Europe.Here's a key quote from Michael Connarty, the pro-Treaty chairman of
the UK Select Committee on European Scrutiny from last night's Lisbon
Treaty debate in the Commons:"The role of national Parliaments will be massively diminished. In
fact, as recently as December it was suggested by European
parliamentarians from a number of parties at a Future of Europe
conference, that our Parliaments' role will be to try to influence the
European Parliament, so that it can make the appropriate amendments to
what comes out of the Council"It suits national politicians to vote for this treaty because it means
less work for them. When issues like water charges arise again, they
can simply shrug and say "nothing to do with me, boss - that's a matter
for Brussels".At the most fundamental level, constitutions (and there is no doubt
this is one) are designed to protect citizens from the excesses of
Government. Sadly, the Lisbon Treaty demonstrably protects the
political elites and bureaucracies against the irritating demands of
citizens for democracy. Who's is working for who here?Kind regards,Naoise NunnExecutive DirectorLibertas

Auditor #9 wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think it is about riots. cops can and do shoot people under ordinary laws.

Section I, Article 2 of the ECHR says:
- - - - - - - - -
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person unlawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.


Normally Police shoot people under certain circumstances but this piece specifically states in the cases mentioned above.

I wonder does differ from the ordinary laws in most member states? What is the current Irish position

Most people who go on demonstrations want them to be peaceful. Sometimes a few young messers might commit some vandalism or throw something at the police. Does that warrant anyone being shot? I've posted a few videos here that show police provocateurs in action, stirring up a crowd or else throwing a rock themselves to get a bit of action. How can you be sure who is doing what, in the heat of the moment?

Looking at what has been happening in Iceland - people have pushed their way in to public buildings, and some windows were broken with snowballs. Pepper spray was used against them, but the state forces there would have been alright under this Charter to shoot a few of them. So far it has been gentle enough and may it stay so, but there is no guarantee.

The Israelis regularly shoot "rioters": hundreds of Palestinian children and teenagers have been shot in stone throwing situations. The Israelis soldier may well be in illegal occupation of the land he's standing on, and the child may have had his or her land stolen and home buldozed, but there you go.

When Hurricane Katrina happened there were tens of thousands of armed troops out to protect private property and herd people at gun point into that hell-hole of a conference centre.

Essentially, the state forces will use force, to protect private property and the perceived interests of the State. There is an interesting uniformity to the riot police we see across the world in their black body armour helmets and batons: youngdan's NWO army, to defend the bankers and politicians from the wrath of the people.

I can't envisage a situation in which shooting unarmed demonstrators or rioters is right or acceptable, unless they are directly threatening civilian life.

An insurrection is a different thing. They are often quite peaceful as they happen when there has been a collapse of the existing government.

I find the effective carte blanche to shoot rioters - people damaging private property or looting - appalling.

Quote :

Libertas was established just over a year ago as a "citizens' think
tank" which sought to break the mould of traditional think tanks by pursuing activity that spoke to the European public as opposed to engaging in closed academic debate and publication. Our founding members are listed as signatories to the Libertas Charter which is on the website. They include a wide range of people from across Europe including an MEP, a number of senior constitutional lawyers, academics, professionals and PAYE workers and the president of one of Ireland's foremost academic institutions, Professor Roger Downer amongst others.

That seems to be a straight set of answers: I can see why NN left the employ of Rivada (or was it Libertas, I don't remember?).

Yes, Libertas was a think tank like no other, as it didn't apparently think - no publications, no research, no academic debate: it just spoke to the public.

The list of founders was once on the Libertas website put was quickly pulled off again. I wonder why it is not available.

Were you trying to get us back on-topic Frightened Albanian?

cactus flower wrote:

Essentially, the state forces will use force, to protect private property and the perceived interests of the State. There is an interesting uniformity to the riot police we see across the world in their black body armour helmets and batons: youngdan's NWO army, to defend the bankers and politicians from the wrath of the people.

I can't envisage a situation in which shooting unarmed demonstrators or rioters is right or acceptable, unless they are directly threatening civilian life.

An insurrection is a different thing. They are often quite peaceful as they happen when there has been a collapse of the existing government.

I find the effective carte blanche to shoot rioters - people damaging private property or looting - appalling.

Some of these photos are of riot police from Brazil, Equador, Thailand. Some aren't armed at the hip, others are. What's the story with French, Spanish and Greek riot police? And how soon could it be before we see our riot police with not only tear gas and rubber bullet guns, but police with sub-machine guns, snipers, tanks? How long before we vote for this ??

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

Libertas was established just over a year ago as a "citizens' think
tank" which sought to break the mould of traditional think tanks by pursuing activity that spoke to the European public as opposed to engaging in closed academic debate and publication. Our founding members are listed as signatories to the Libertas Charter which is on the website. They include a wide range of people from across Europe including an MEP, a number of senior constitutional lawyers, academics, professionals and PAYE workers and the president of one of Ireland's foremost academic institutions, Professor Roger Downer amongst others.

That seems to be a straight set of answers: I can see why NN left the employ of Rivada (or was it Libertas, I don't remember?).

Yes, Libertas was a think tank like no other, as it didn't apparently think - no publications, no research, no academic debate: it just spoke to the public.

The list of founders was once on the Libertas website put was quickly pulled off again. I wonder why it is not available.

Were you trying to get us back on-topic Frightened Albanian?

perhaps? I am sure that we already have provisions for shooting rioters and insurgents.
EG If armed rioters took control of central Dublin would ERU not shoot at them if they refused to lay down their arms?

"armed rioters taking control" of anything is a tautology. Rioters are out of control and generally have no objective other than letting off steam.