ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

What are you gibbering about reading the site. Everyone else is reading the document which is the same on every site.

I was correct in my prediction of your response. You will go to any lenght to avoid the sentence.

in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.


You don't want to see it so in your mind it does not exist. As always you prefer to keep the head well burried in the sand

The argument that Lisbon/the Charter reintroduces the death penalty is the most outrageous piece of horsecock to come out of the debate. It's a convenient marker as to whether a site is run by loons and cretins or not - if they push this particular piece of shite then they are, full stop.

Here are the reasons the Charter cannot reintroduce the death penalty in Ireland (or Europe):

1. first, exemptions do not have the force of positive law - that Article 2 of the Charter forbids the death penalty except in certain circumstances does not create any positive right or obligation to introduce the death penalty for those circumstances - it merely recognises that those circumstances are those in which such a penalty would be tolerable.

2. therefore, no EU country that has already outlawed the death penalty could conceivably use the Charter to reintroduce it - any lawyer who's not actually dead will confirm that - both on account of the above and because the Charter does not apply to domestic law in any case.

3. Every EU country is a signatory to Protocol 6 of the ECHR (of which Article 2 TOFR is a copy), and virtually every country is a signatory to Protocol 13 ECHR, which bans the death penalty under any circumstances including time of war/rebellion. Ireland, for example, is a signatory to Protocol 13, which is why we inserted a total prohibition on the death penalty into Bunreacht.

4. So, coming back round to point 1, it is impossible for the exemptions allowed in Article 2 of the Charter to be used to reintroduce the death penalty, because they do not in any way supersede the banning of the death penalty under Protocol 13.

5. Who pushes countries to sign up to Article 13? Why, the EU does. The EU is the main advocate of the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. Abolition of the death penalty is a major goal of the EU, is a requirement of entry to the EU, is pushed by the EU on every one of its trading partners. Here, for example, is the point being made on the website of the EU Delegation to Singapore:

Quote :

The European Union (EU) is opposed to the death penalty and has consistently espoused its universal abolition, continually working towards this goal. In line with the majority of international views, the EU considers that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. The EU's position is rooted in its conviction in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person.

So, in order to propagate this argument, you have to ignore basic principles of law, existing treaties, the history of the EU, and pay no attention to the very visible efforts of the EU - and pretty much the EU alone - to abolish the death penalty worldwide.

That makes it a handy marker. Anyone who pushes this line is a liar or a fool - full stop, no exceptions. Their understanding of law doesn't rise above that of a dog, their willingness to subject their material to basic sanity checks is non-existent, their capacity to swallow lies about the EU is almost infinite. They are as reliable as a bridge made of jelly.

There you go again. As Cactus has asked you. Is the sentence in the document or is it not. Why can you not answer her simply question instead of spin.

Quote :

There you go again. As Cactus has asked you. Is the sentence in the document or is it not. Why can you not answer her simply question instead of spin.

I haven't commented on that aspect at all - my comments were in reference to the claim that Lisbon reintroduces the death penalty.

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

It's an accurate and important distinction. Private citizens are entitled to claim a lawful justification for killing - self-defence being the obvious one - but that doesn't give us the right to mete out the death penalty, does it? How is it different for those people who are agents of the State?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

A quotation taken purposely out of context, if ever I have seen one. Perhaps you might quote the entirety of the relevant section in future. This would be a good example for the thread on facts and propaganda..

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.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

It's an accurate and important distinction. Private citizens are entitled to claim a lawful justification for killing - self-defence being the obvious one - but that doesn't give us the right to mete out the death penalty, does it? How is it different for those people who are agents of the State?

In general, private citizens are entitled not to be killed.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

A quotation taken purposely out of context, if ever I have seen one. Perhaps you might quote the entirety of the relevant section in future. This would be a good example for the thread on facts and propaganda..

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.

Your being over suspicious johnfás. The quoted passage is admirably clear and self sufficient. The remainder of the passage is just elaboration of the opening two sentences.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

It's an accurate and important distinction. Private citizens are entitled to claim a lawful justification for killing - self-defence being the obvious one - but that doesn't give us the right to mete out the death penalty, does it? How is it different for those people who are agents of the State?

Are there two issues with this -
possible introduction of the Death Penalty (as an interpretation of that)
and
justification for imo inappropriate responses to unruly demonstrations??

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

That sentence doesn't permit the death penalty. It merely provides a lawful justification for killing

You've got to give it to johnfás.

It's an accurate and important distinction. Private citizens are entitled to claim a lawful justification for killing - self-defence being the obvious one - but that doesn't give us the right to mete out the death penalty, does it? How is it different for those people who are agents of the State?

Are there two issues with this -
possible introduction of the Death Penalty (as an interpretation of that)
and

Which we've covered.

Auditor #9 wrote:

justification for imo inappropriate responses to unruly demonstrations??

Well, look at what it says:

Quote :

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.

Clause (c) doesn't simply stand there alone, providing a blanket cover for "inappropriate responses to unruly demonstrations". It actually reads:

"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 in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

Now if a Garda, in lawfully (with appropriate orders) breaking up a riot, decided to beat you within an inch of your life, or indeed, kill you, he's not going to simply be able to say "I was in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot" and have the judge go "oh, right, well done that man". He's going to have to show that his action satisfies the condition "which is no more than absolutely necessary" - and the prosecution will be arguing that he was using more force than necessary.

If it is established, first, that the Garda in question was the one that killed you, this is his sole defence against a charge of murder. As soon as it is established that he killed you, the presumption is of unlawful killing. That the action of the Gardai in general in breaking up the riot was lawful does not establish the lawfulness of your killing.

The presumption seems to be built in that it is is acceptable under some circumstances to cause death to quell a riot. I don't agree.

If they mean only when life is endangered they would say that.

Thanks, you're very patient.

It seems the policman who shot the Greek boy is in prison pending trial. I understand that there is a provision in there to protect police from extreme violence and those Greek police were very tolerant I thought as people literally firebombed them yet only that boy had been killed.

The Policeman in the U.S. went to prison too for shooting that man in the back and it should be interesting to see what happens them.


http://mozoh.tistory.com/220

The policeman (head down) who is facing murder charges for the shooting of teenager Alexandros Grigoropoulos, 15, is escorted by police as he enters a prosecutor's office in Athens, December 10, 2008. The policeman testified that he fired warning shots in self-defence when a gang of youths threw firebombs at him, court sources said. A Greek prosecutor ordered two policemen to be sent to prison pending trial for the shooting of Grigoropoulos which has sparked five days of rioting in Greece, a court official said on Wednesday. One of the policemen has been charged with murder and the other as an accomplice. "They are both ordered to be held in prison pending trial," said the official, who declined to be named. (REUTERS/Stringer)

cactus flower wrote:

The presumption seems to be built in that it is is acceptable under some circumstances to cause death to quell a riot. I don't agree.

If they mean only when life is endangered they would say that.

The presumption is not built in. If the text only referred to "endangerment" then it wouldn't actually cover a case where death resulted.

Whatever a death results from in the course of a Garda action - heart attack, someone falling down and breaking their neck, a smack with a baton killing someone - the presumption is unlawful killing. All the text recognises is that the killing wasn't intentional. That no more makes it OK to "cause death to quell a riot" than an exemption in liability for some forms of workplace accident make it OK to kill your employees.

Quote :

It seems the policman who shot the Greek boy is in prison pending trial. I understand that there is a provision in there to protect police from extreme violence and those Greek police were very tolerant I thought as people literally firebombed them yet only that boy had been killed.

That's the flip-side of this stuff. The police have to put up with bricks and the rest. It's what we pay them for - but we can't require them not to be people, we can't require them to be automatons capable of perfectly judging the strength of a baton blow and the capability of the person getting it. Nobody has to riot - and a protest is not a riot.

Why do they mention riots then?

New ventures that just might fly for McEvaddy - Sunday Business Post

Sunday, February 01, 2009 By Susan Mitchell


Ulick McEvaddy is seated in the Merrion Hotel in Dublin, waxing lyrical about the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty. He is mid flow when public relations guru James Morrissey walks by.

‘‘You’re not talking about Lisbon again are you, Ulick?” asks Morrissey, who is an old school friend of McEvaddy’s. ‘‘Would you ever steer clear of that subject?”

‘‘It’s just business James. Don’t worry,” laughs McEvaddy. The aviation tycoon famously denounced the Lisbon Treaty as ‘‘totally unintelligible’’ and is well aware of the fallout that resulted from his decision to share a platform with Declan Ganley and Libertas.

Conspiracy theorists claimed it was no coincidence that the US military is one of McEvaddy’s biggest customers, through his company
Omega Air. He was accused of opposing the treaty in order to cosy up to US generals, who were concerned that a politically strong EU would undermine the United States.

McEvaddy appeared unperturbed by all the criticism, and the Fine Gael party member has no intention of keeping quiet and toeing the party line....

- "It's just business"... that says it all...

Anticoalition wrote:

New ventures that just might fly for McEvaddy - Sunday Business Post

Sunday, February 01, 2009 By Susan Mitchell


Ulick McEvaddy is seated in the Merrion Hotel in Dublin, waxing lyrical about the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty. He is mid flow when public relations guru James Morrissey walks by.

‘‘You’re not talking about Lisbon again are you, Ulick?” asks Morrissey, who is an old school friend of McEvaddy’s. ‘‘Would you ever steer clear of that subject?”

‘‘It’s just business James. Don’t worry,” laughs McEvaddy. The aviation tycoon famously denounced the Lisbon Treaty as ‘‘totally unintelligible’’ and is well aware of the fallout that resulted from his decision to share a platform with Declan Ganley and Libertas.

Conspiracy theorists claimed it was no coincidence that the US military is one of McEvaddy’s biggest customers, through his company
Omega Air. He was accused of opposing the treaty in order to cosy up to US generals, who were concerned that a politically strong EU would undermine the United States.

McEvaddy appeared unperturbed by all the criticism, and the Fine Gael party member has no intention of keeping quiet and toeing the party line....

- "It's just business"... that says it all...

Don't let the fact that the article is about his business ventures, includes him talking about the impact passing Lisbon would have on decisions like the Government's decision to save the banks and that all of the businesses he is talking about are in Ireland or the EU...

Refueling the US Airforce and god knows what else is in the EU?

Here's an interesting story from People Korps blog about a Green councillor Former
Galway Lord Mayor Niall O Brolchain being hounding by Ganley and having his campaign wrecked. What was all that about?
Libertas? Nein Danke! People Korps Blog

Quote :

'Businessman wrecked my Dail campaign'
By Michael Brennan
Monday February 04 2008
A
GREEN Party general election candidate has accused millionaire
businessman Declan Ganley of deliberately undermining his campaign.
Former
Galway Lord Mayor Niall O Brolchain said that Mr Ganley, the founder of
the Libertas anti-Lisbon treaty group, threatened him with legal action
during the campaign over his use of mayoral notepaper to file an
objection to the Galway outer city bypass.
"It's
a very underhand tactic to use at that point in time. We should be
fighting it out over the issues not over silly technicalities."
He said that Mr Ganley had sent a solicitors' representative to his house in Galway in a "black SUV with tinted windows" to serve him with the High Court summons.
"I
was out canvassing at the time and it was very intimidating for my
family. They didn't know what it was about," said Mr O Brolchain.
He added he had never met nor heard of Mr Ganley before.
But he claims the legal threat had distracted him from his unsuccessful campaign for a seat in Galway West.
He was forced to hire a legal team. However, the High Court action was dropped shortly before polling day.
"The problem was if I'd ignored it, I would have been in awful trouble because you can't ignore a High Court summons. "If that's the way Irish politics is going to go, it could get very awkward for people, because anybody can do that."

Why do you feel the need to constantly spam this website with updates from peoplekorp's blog?

Its a productive source and it seems to be taken seriously by Libertas as they have communicated directly with the blogger as published http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/01/libertas-respond-to-people-korps.html

Currently there is a call for other examples of Ganley litigation threats there are several published there.
Is that not just a rich man's way of silencing free speech through threat of costly and time consuming litigation?

Is that not a perfect example of privatisation and undue influence of wealth being brought to bear on the democratic process?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Its a productive source

So is google. Google provides a little less bias too.

Quote :

and it seems to be taken seriously by Libertas as they have communicated directly with the blogger as published http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/01/libertas-respond-to-people-korps.html

yes, to correct "the blogger's" lies.

Quote :

Currently there is a call for other examples of Ganley litigation threats there are several published there.
Is that not just a rich man's way of silencing free speech through threat of costly and time consuming litigation?

Or seeking justice for libelous comments made against him.

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Its a productive source

So is google. Google provides a little less bias too.

Quote :

and it seems to be taken seriously by Libertas as they have communicated directly with the blogger as published http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/01/libertas-respond-to-people-korps.html

yes, to correct "the blogger's" lies.

Quote :

Currently there is a call for other examples of Ganley litigation threats there are several published there.
Is that not just a rich man's way of silencing free speech through threat of costly and time consuming litigation?

Or seeking justice for libelous comments made against him.

Google likes people korps.
Has Ganley actually got to court with any of his noble and brave actions?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Google likes people korps.

And if people here like it they can read his blog, we don't need you posting every bit of crap which appears on his blog posted here.

and the other part of the post

Quote :

Has Ganley actually got to court with any of his noble and brave actions?

Has he? or is it all as I ask above an attempt to use money to silence political opponents? What was his real problem with Former
Galway Lord Mayor Niall O Brolchain? Why did he try to preoccupy him with a spurious litigation during an election ?

libertas members
Members of the Libertas political party, according to their membership application to the parliament are:

* Lord Alton of Liverpool, a former teacher and son of an Irish
speaking mother from the west of Ireland who is very active in anti-
abortion circles and was author of a chain letter distributed by
independent MEP Kathy Sinnott.

* Viscount Philippe le Jolis
de Villiers de Saintignon, MEP and leader of the Catholic conservative
party, Mouvement pour la France noted for his anti-Islamist views and
his wish to restore the franc.

* Paul Marie Couteaux, MEP who would like to see France distancing itself from the union.

* Georgios Georgiou, 72, Greek MEP, a member of the People’s Orthodox
Rally, that has moved recently from being anti-semitic to advocating
gay rights.

* Timo Soini, of the True Finns Party that has
five seats in the Finnish Parliament and been accused of xenophobia,
which he denies as a devoted Catholic.

* Igor Grazin a member
of the Estonian parliament for the eurosceptic Estonian Reform Party,
was a member of the last USSR Congress of People’s Deputies.

* Mincho Kuminev, one of 20 independent members of the Bulgarian parliament elected in mid 2005.

* Cyprian Gutkowski, a number of the regional assembly of Mazovia,
Poland. A supporter of MEP Maciej Giertych, 72, of the League of Polish
Families who was censured in the EP for his booklet suggesting the Jews
were biologically different.
http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=sport-qqqm=sport-qqqa=sport-qqqid=83402-qqqx=1.asp

Jasis, Ann Cahill must have you on speed dial!