Pauline Mellon with a piece from her blog The Diary of a Derry Mother. It featured on 24 August 2014.


A few days ago I read of approved plans by the Irish Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald to introduce three new terrorist offences in the south of Ireland. These new offences are said to be designed to further crack down on home-grown terrorism. The new offences will be ...

1. Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.
2. Recruitment for terrorism and
3. Training for terrorism.
In a recent statement the Irish Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald had this to say:
We stand with our European colleagues in doing everything in our power to ensure that there are no gaps in our law that can be exploited by those who would inflict terror and mayhem on innocent people at home or abroad. There can be no hiding place in democratic society for those who encourage, recruit or train others to carry out acts of terrorism and we must never relent in our determination to use all resources at our disposal to root them out.
In Britain Home secretary Theresa May is to announce a three-tier plan to tackle Islamic extremism. Currently under consideration are proposals to:

1.Ban groups deemed to be extremist.
2.Civil court injunctions – dubbed "Asbos for terrorists" – this is aimed at stopping extremists trying to recruit or influence others.
3.Curtailing the word of radical preachers who currently exercise their right to free speech without breaking any laws.
These proposals also include banning any organisations believed to be kindling or supporting terrorism.

The element of the new legislation which particularly concerns me is the provocation offence in the South of Ireland and in Britain the proposal to curtail free speech. The suggestion by both governments is that anyone, who distributes or communicates a message to the public that could be considered as influencing or encouraging terrorist activity will face prosecution under this new legislation despite the lack of clarity and ambiguity surrounding these new and proposed measures.

Over the past few years I have spoken out on a human rights basis about the treatment of prisoners including Republican prisoners. I was involved in a high profile campaign to Free Marian McGlinchey who was charged with, and later pleaded guilty to encouraging support for an illegal organisation. What is of the utmost concern to me is under this new law could I have been considered guilty of indirectly encouraging support or sympathy for those accused of encouraging support for an illegal organisation? That may seem convoluted but where will the Free State and British Governments draw the line? Will someone protesting against strip searching of a family member in Maghaberry be considered to be supporting an illegal organisation?

With the increase in support for the people of Palestine will this solidarity be viewed as encouraging support for terrorism or influencing others? As the democratically elected Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation?

From the outset we must demand clarity on these issues as the more cynical side of me questions if these laws are to prevent freedom of speech on a broader range of issues including human rights abuses.

Another very worrying aspect of this situation is in relation to the use of social media and the internet to highlight human rights abuses and circumvent government censorship and media manipulation. Bloggers in Egypt were directly targeted by the authorities for exposing human rights abuses and not forgetting the recent case of three Al Jazeera reporters sentenced to seven years in prison in Egypt.

The family of one of the convicted reporters called the sentences "a slap in the face for freedom of speech". The British Prime Minister David Cameron said he was "completely appalled" by the verdicts. Oddly the words kettle, pot & black spring to mind when I think of this 'Etonian' who was a member of Young Tory's, a group which infamously called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged, and not forgetting Sir Teddy Taylor a leading Margaret Thatcher supporter also said Mandela should be shot.

What must also be asked is, if it is found that you shared a statement on the internet which is later regarded provocative can you be charged with provocation to commit a terrorist offence? Or if some one decides to tag you in a statement deemed 'provocative' on Facebook can you be charged with influencing or indirectly encouraging terrorism?

Whilst I may appear flippant I must stress that as a social justice campaigner my concerns are genuine as in reality these laws and the proposed changes in Britain bring a whole new meaning to choosing your associates and battles carefully for fear of being accused of indirectly provoking a terrorist offence or influencing others. Then again that could be the method behind the madness to instil fear into anyone who would raise concerns about the conduct of a government by them being potentially labelled a 'terrorist' supporter or sympathiser.

In terms of changes to the Irish legislation the only thing clearly stated is that this law will include public statements and interviews from dissident leaders which would seem to cover commemorations and suggest blanket censorship of those considered dissidents.

Am I right in thinking that members of the press reporting on an event or rally organised so called dissidents may also be charged with the provocation offence for their role in distributing or communicating a message to the public which may or may not directly or indirectly influence or encourage someone to commit a terrorist offence? It would seem that although Dublin & London are thousands of miles geographically away from Cairo, in terms of quelling political opposition they seem to be on the same page.

As we come closer to the centenary of the Easter Rising will the political leaders in Ireland who read from the Proclamation be accused of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence as the Proclamation asserts the right of Irish citizens to use arms as a means of resistance?

In contrast lets look at the ongoing fiasco at Shannon Airport which has included the arrest of Dail Eireann representatives Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. It would be reasonable to suggest that the Irish Government are guilty or at least complicit in supporting and fuelling terrorism with it permitting the fuelling of rendition flights, something even Amnesty International has raised concerns about. After all rendition is the process of covertly sending suspects to be interrogated to a country with less rigorous human rights legislation.

There is a sad irony to this when you consider it was the Irish Government who took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights over the treatment of the 'hooded men' who were brutalised at a secret location whilst held captive by the British state in Ireland in 1971.

In 1978, the European Court overturned the initial finding of torture and ruled that the treatment of the 'hooded men' amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment, but did not constitute torture. Although it is worth noting that new evidence that has been discovered proved that not only did the British Government admit it was torture, they actually lied to the European Court.

The actions of the British Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday in 1972 saw an increase in support for the IRA. So could it be argued that the actions of the Irish state in allowing Shannon airport to be used for rendition flights may in return encourage support for insurgent groups in other lands?

There are some who would argue that the actions of British troops abroad are leading to an increase in extremism in Britain, which is no attempt on my part to justify or dismiss the seriousness of any threat. Maybe both governments should take time to look at these situations objectively and in doing so accept responsibility for their influence and the part they play directly and indirectly in these situations.

Maybe the British & Irish Governments should consider the actions of their allies, but I doubt the Irish Government will prosecute itself for supporting terrorism, or the British Government will stop allowing CIA rendition flights, but then again the files on the role the British Government played in rendition flights were conveniently destroyed due to water damage. Convenience or cover up?

I'll leave you to make your own minds up on that one.

Whilst on the subject of taking responsibility for actions maybe both governments could also examine their failure to address the issue of financial terrorism at the hands of the bankers? The severity of the impact of their actions should never be underestimated, yet bankers are still rewarded with huge bonuses and not criminal convictions.

If you are resident in the North of Ireland and at this point have considered writing to your local Stormont representative to voice concerns then my suggestion would be not to bother as in this situation as with most our political leaders are as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Censorship or Protecting Society?

Pauline Mellon with a piece from her blog The Diary of a Derry Mother. It featured on 24 August 2014.


A few days ago I read of approved plans by the Irish Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald to introduce three new terrorist offences in the south of Ireland. These new offences are said to be designed to further crack down on home-grown terrorism. The new offences will be ...

1. Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.
2. Recruitment for terrorism and
3. Training for terrorism.
In a recent statement the Irish Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald had this to say:
We stand with our European colleagues in doing everything in our power to ensure that there are no gaps in our law that can be exploited by those who would inflict terror and mayhem on innocent people at home or abroad. There can be no hiding place in democratic society for those who encourage, recruit or train others to carry out acts of terrorism and we must never relent in our determination to use all resources at our disposal to root them out.
In Britain Home secretary Theresa May is to announce a three-tier plan to tackle Islamic extremism. Currently under consideration are proposals to:

1.Ban groups deemed to be extremist.
2.Civil court injunctions – dubbed "Asbos for terrorists" – this is aimed at stopping extremists trying to recruit or influence others.
3.Curtailing the word of radical preachers who currently exercise their right to free speech without breaking any laws.
These proposals also include banning any organisations believed to be kindling or supporting terrorism.

The element of the new legislation which particularly concerns me is the provocation offence in the South of Ireland and in Britain the proposal to curtail free speech. The suggestion by both governments is that anyone, who distributes or communicates a message to the public that could be considered as influencing or encouraging terrorist activity will face prosecution under this new legislation despite the lack of clarity and ambiguity surrounding these new and proposed measures.

Over the past few years I have spoken out on a human rights basis about the treatment of prisoners including Republican prisoners. I was involved in a high profile campaign to Free Marian McGlinchey who was charged with, and later pleaded guilty to encouraging support for an illegal organisation. What is of the utmost concern to me is under this new law could I have been considered guilty of indirectly encouraging support or sympathy for those accused of encouraging support for an illegal organisation? That may seem convoluted but where will the Free State and British Governments draw the line? Will someone protesting against strip searching of a family member in Maghaberry be considered to be supporting an illegal organisation?

With the increase in support for the people of Palestine will this solidarity be viewed as encouraging support for terrorism or influencing others? As the democratically elected Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation?

From the outset we must demand clarity on these issues as the more cynical side of me questions if these laws are to prevent freedom of speech on a broader range of issues including human rights abuses.

Another very worrying aspect of this situation is in relation to the use of social media and the internet to highlight human rights abuses and circumvent government censorship and media manipulation. Bloggers in Egypt were directly targeted by the authorities for exposing human rights abuses and not forgetting the recent case of three Al Jazeera reporters sentenced to seven years in prison in Egypt.

The family of one of the convicted reporters called the sentences "a slap in the face for freedom of speech". The British Prime Minister David Cameron said he was "completely appalled" by the verdicts. Oddly the words kettle, pot & black spring to mind when I think of this 'Etonian' who was a member of Young Tory's, a group which infamously called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged, and not forgetting Sir Teddy Taylor a leading Margaret Thatcher supporter also said Mandela should be shot.

What must also be asked is, if it is found that you shared a statement on the internet which is later regarded provocative can you be charged with provocation to commit a terrorist offence? Or if some one decides to tag you in a statement deemed 'provocative' on Facebook can you be charged with influencing or indirectly encouraging terrorism?

Whilst I may appear flippant I must stress that as a social justice campaigner my concerns are genuine as in reality these laws and the proposed changes in Britain bring a whole new meaning to choosing your associates and battles carefully for fear of being accused of indirectly provoking a terrorist offence or influencing others. Then again that could be the method behind the madness to instil fear into anyone who would raise concerns about the conduct of a government by them being potentially labelled a 'terrorist' supporter or sympathiser.

In terms of changes to the Irish legislation the only thing clearly stated is that this law will include public statements and interviews from dissident leaders which would seem to cover commemorations and suggest blanket censorship of those considered dissidents.

Am I right in thinking that members of the press reporting on an event or rally organised so called dissidents may also be charged with the provocation offence for their role in distributing or communicating a message to the public which may or may not directly or indirectly influence or encourage someone to commit a terrorist offence? It would seem that although Dublin & London are thousands of miles geographically away from Cairo, in terms of quelling political opposition they seem to be on the same page.

As we come closer to the centenary of the Easter Rising will the political leaders in Ireland who read from the Proclamation be accused of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence as the Proclamation asserts the right of Irish citizens to use arms as a means of resistance?

In contrast lets look at the ongoing fiasco at Shannon Airport which has included the arrest of Dail Eireann representatives Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. It would be reasonable to suggest that the Irish Government are guilty or at least complicit in supporting and fuelling terrorism with it permitting the fuelling of rendition flights, something even Amnesty International has raised concerns about. After all rendition is the process of covertly sending suspects to be interrogated to a country with less rigorous human rights legislation.

There is a sad irony to this when you consider it was the Irish Government who took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights over the treatment of the 'hooded men' who were brutalised at a secret location whilst held captive by the British state in Ireland in 1971.

In 1978, the European Court overturned the initial finding of torture and ruled that the treatment of the 'hooded men' amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment, but did not constitute torture. Although it is worth noting that new evidence that has been discovered proved that not only did the British Government admit it was torture, they actually lied to the European Court.

The actions of the British Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday in 1972 saw an increase in support for the IRA. So could it be argued that the actions of the Irish state in allowing Shannon airport to be used for rendition flights may in return encourage support for insurgent groups in other lands?

There are some who would argue that the actions of British troops abroad are leading to an increase in extremism in Britain, which is no attempt on my part to justify or dismiss the seriousness of any threat. Maybe both governments should take time to look at these situations objectively and in doing so accept responsibility for their influence and the part they play directly and indirectly in these situations.

Maybe the British & Irish Governments should consider the actions of their allies, but I doubt the Irish Government will prosecute itself for supporting terrorism, or the British Government will stop allowing CIA rendition flights, but then again the files on the role the British Government played in rendition flights were conveniently destroyed due to water damage. Convenience or cover up?

I'll leave you to make your own minds up on that one.

Whilst on the subject of taking responsibility for actions maybe both governments could also examine their failure to address the issue of financial terrorism at the hands of the bankers? The severity of the impact of their actions should never be underestimated, yet bankers are still rewarded with huge bonuses and not criminal convictions.

If you are resident in the North of Ireland and at this point have considered writing to your local Stormont representative to voice concerns then my suggestion would be not to bother as in this situation as with most our political leaders are as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

21 comments:

  1. That new law.. What'll they do is water it down a little, similar to the secret evidence law that today can be used to take kids away from parents because some social worker got out of the wrong side of the bed and wrote a report in anger..

    Anyhow soon they'll water it down so sites like yours and TPQ wont be allowed to voice dissent or question the powers that be..

    And one day we'll all be able to tell our grandkids.. "I remember the day when the internet was the internet and freedom of speech was allowed".. Just look at how much it has changed in the past few years..

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like you Pauline was involved in the campaign to have Marian McGlinchey released from custody; attending public meetings, attending public vigils and lobying elected representatives.
    I don't foresee the proposed legislation restricting similar such campaigns for as long as those involved adhete to peaceful and lawful methods.

    Since so many in Ireland have been wooed in from the extremes and since this process of inclusion and involvement is continuously consolidated I am reluctantly resolved to to the current reality of the centre holding firm.

    Though I can understand and respect many of your concerns I believe that with the passage and test of time they will be recognised for what they are ... habituated and alarmisted.

    I for one don't support the unrestricted advocacy of the jihadist purge that's currently underway. I will not support the unencumbered and hateful radicalisation of disaffected Muslim immigrant youths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What did the DUP expect at the Ardoyne Fleadh... For The Druids to sing God save the Queen?

    What I'd really like (but wont happen) is for a spook or serving Garda/PSNI officer to set up a profile on TPQ and explain to myself this new law about recruiting 'home grown terrorists' include the informers and agents you have who entice young men & women to join the various PFR groups.. Or is entrapment not included...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scary stuff Pauline a cara and here I ,d like to refer Henry Joy to that powerful book by Ian Cobain Cruel Britannia,the very idea of a further erosion of our already diminished human rights should make anyone with any sense fear for the future,once enacted these new powers will be stretched to the limit and saying anything outside the permitted thought will result in lock down be it in your own home or the pokey,the very definition of terrorism will be open to interpretation,and can you imagine how FG FF QSF and all the other cunts in power will use it to enhance their vice like grip on an already downtrodden people, there is enough legislation on the books at the moment to deal with perceived threats whether foreign or home grown, we need imo more freedom not legislation, and if this proposed bill is allowed to pass then I fear it,s BIG BROTHER how are ya,scary stuff indeed Pauline Henry Joy a cara ya need to wake up ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Henry Joy

    I feel it is important that we ask these questions and raise concerns given the ambiguity around the new and proposed measures. That said I suspect these measures will entail a test case in the ECHR before we are any better informed.

    As you know yourself ignorance of law is not considered a reasonable excuse which is why we must seek clarity on these issues. This is why I will remain consistent and inquisitive irrespective of how others view it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pauline as Russell says in some of his essays an opposition is essential for social cohesion. It's only through open exchange and challenges that soome sort of consensual position is reached.

    Marty it's difficult achieve or maintain freedoms in the absence of legislation. You say we need more freedom and less legislation ... more freedom from what? ... more freedom to do what?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Henry Joy you have to be a wind up merchant ,using the pseudonym of a man who knew the meaning of freedom and give his life fighting repressive legislation and subjugation,which as you probably know legislation is a prominent tool in the arsenal of those who would keep us subjugated,in all its forms freedom to think,to hold an opinion and to express that opinion is being eroded by the year with an never ending list of repressive legislation,ask ex quisling $inn £eind adviser Leo Green about the right to express an opinion his case is an example of where those who would govern us would have us all,like ants ,is that really the type of society you want a cara it surely isnt what I want for myself or my grandchildren .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marty I don't know what oppressive weight bears down on you but I certainly am free to choose my own thoughts. Not only am I free to think I am free to access a plethora of resources that support me in developing my critical skills at minimal cost as compared to previous generations.

    I am free to express and develop my opinions in on-line forums, I am free to write blogs and e-books. I am free to write to local, regional and national newspapers. I am free to participate in phone-ins on local and national radio (both of which now have a transnational penetration).

    And you say we can't think nor express opinions freely (sigh)!

    Marty I hope you nor none of yours ever have to try and live under the jihadists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Henry Joy well a cara we survived the catholic church..you need to remember the old saying that "when those who make the law break the law .then there is no law"I did not say "we cant think or express our opinions freely"(sigh) I referred you to the recent case of Leo Green Head ex honcho in quisling $inn £eind and his successful case against that party over holding an opinion .that is a party who claim to be a govt in waiting and are partners in govt here ,(sigh)more and more draconian legislation will not stop or stall jihadists they live by the martyr,when I was a kid it was the bogey man,when I grew older it was the commies, here not long ago it was the "RA" now its the "JIhadists" and all the while successive American presidents ,British prime ministers,and Isreali leaders have been engaged in human rights abuse on a colossal scale,they piss down your back and tell you its raining and you believe them or so it seems .

    ReplyDelete
  10. Henry Joy

    These freedoms you speak of are under threat. At present we are all aware that with freedom of speech comes responsibility, hence your use of a pseudonym. These new and proposed measures will no doubt see an increase in the use of pseudonyms with more people airing on the side of caution for fear of legislation or standing over an opinion as opposed to just for personal or employment purposes.

    I refer you to the case of Eirigi's Press officer Stephen Murney from Lurgan who endured a lengthy prison term for what many believed to be his vocal stance on Police harassment. Stephen Murney was later freed having been cleared of the ridiculous charges which were clearly designed to temporarily remove and silence him.

    I am truly glad that you feel this to be a non-issue or least have no real concerns I on the other hand do and I doubt I will be alone in this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marty in July of the year 2000 I waited on the southern side of the border for my Da and Ma to arrive across to collect my daughter and bring her north for a visit.

    As was her way my mother had some of her home-made bread and a few other gifts. She also had the previous evening's Belfast Telegraph. The front page of the Telegraph was entirely given over to coverage of the release of Michael Stone.

    I felt physically sick at the almost manic image of Stone and commented to my mother that if this was the 'parity of esteem' offered by the GFA then I wanted no part of it. A vigorous exchange followed about the merits or otherwise of the agreement. Attempting to end (and win) the debate I used McCracken's quote "the rich will always betray the poor".

    My late father, a mild mannered and pragmatic man, who tended to remain outside of mother's and I's often heated exchanges, then quietly quipped "and that's the way it'll be son, right to the end of time".
    (With hindsight they're probably the most profound words my father ever spoke to me).

    I like you Marty and like Pauline too would want to protect civil liberties but I also like most people want to live the best life I can in a peaceful and civil community. I can no longer delude myself by denying the realities of how the world moves and works; the ever expanding universe may be un-constrict-able but life on this planet, as best as I can figure, depends on ebbs, flows and limitations, human relations depend on give and take and the inherent limitations thereof, societies are made of rules, rules and morals of acceptable behaviour for society to function, underpinned and restrained by religious ideation and constructs, enforced by criminal and civil law. It's the way of the human world.

    In the ebb and flow, after all the pushing and shoving acceptable outcomes emerge. Bad law eventually makes good law.
    Some of us, sometimes like the drama too much to see the true nature of things.

    Societies can be expected to respond to perceived threats and legislate to protect their perceived interests. It can also be reasonably expected that a cohort will oppose ... some who oppose will defy that legislation and as often cautioned ... 'if you can't do the time don't do the crime'.

    Fook it, I think I've turning in to my old fella! :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am free to express and develop my opinions in on-line forums, I am free to write blogs and e-books. I am free to write to local, regional and national newspapers.

    Henry, you may be free to write what you want to an online forum but that doesn't mean your views will be carried. It depends on the person behind the online forum if what you say will be carried, not you. Same as when you write a comment in reply to a newspaper article, if the editor thinks you have put your big toe over the line he wont carry it.. Your freedom of speech depends on others. How many times have letters appeared on TPQ that editors have refuse to carry because they think it may offend someone or they disagree with the person view point? Once, twice or have you like the rest of us lost count...?

    I am free to participate in phone-ins on local and national radio (both of which now have a transnational penetration).

    Same as, with radio there is a delay of 10 seconds (sometimes a bit less) and if you say something that the producer doesn't like, no one is going to hear what you have to say. If you want to believe you are free, think that way..


    And you say we can't think nor express opinions freely (sigh)!

    I'm saying that.. The only place anyone is really free is in the space between their ears.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Henry,

    Here is a true story about a comment I made on an online forum recently that was 'pulled'...

    I asked one question as joke.. If I wanted to make rabbit stew would it be cheaper to go to the butchers or the pet shop..

    If you want to think there is freedom of speech and comments aren't moderated then you are free to think that way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like you Frankie understand the limitations you draw attention to. I acknowledge and respect all you've mentioned in this regard.
    Indeed it's implicit in my last post (published at the same time as our last one).

    That said though I have always had my words published and voice heard any-time I have offered my opinions in the various media forms mentioned.
    Though I sometimes have trouble logging onto the Irish Times webpage and some of the old paranoia kicks in (lol) my opinions have never been deliberately censored to date, at least not that I'm aware of.

    I'd be curious to know if yours have.

    On your closing point:
    I'm not sure if we're totally free between our ears either. Those in neuro-psychiatry seem now to challenge any possibility of that.
    They suggest that we're essentially reactive to a myriad of stimuli; we react to a combination of stimuli and then rationalise and intellectualise that reaction subject to our self-interest. It seems we can't escape our fate of being meaning-making machines.

    We all have blind spots due to incessant exposure to biased media outlets (yes, that includes 'The Quill') and their advertisers (where appropriate). Not to mention conditioned responses arising from our individual socialisation processes that give rise to many deep-rooted biases.

    Our deep-rooted biases take time and effort to weed out.

    And even if we were to succeed in that I believe we'd find very few original thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pauline the headline to your article reads; Censorship Or Protecting Society?

    I realise that this byline may be the editor's but that's what shows up on my screen ... your article only presents one side of that implied debate. My comments and opinions address that imbalance.

    I fully respect your right to your opinion as I hope you can respect my right to differ.

    I use a pseudonym because regrettably there's a thuggish element in republican circles who do not tolerate dissenting voices and I'm fearful for the consequences to both myself and my extended family if I were to post under my own name.
    I believe this to be a prudent and respectful decision even if some might deride it as a sign of weakness. (Brave men ran in my family). (lol)

    Back to the topic of 'Censorship Or Protecting Society?'. I'm inclined to be of the opinion that in this case we really can't have one without some small bit of the other so any attempt to create a dichotomy is facile for in truth under current circumstances they are more akin to the two sides of one coin. It's not a case of either censorship or protecting society. What's involved is a small curtailment of free speech that potentially could protect society in a substantial way. The more secure the citizenry are in themselves the more likely the society is to be tolerant.
    All this needs to be weighed into our deliberations on this.

    I know Pauline you'll agree with me that the right to free speech is precious and I also know that you said "we are all aware that with freedom of speech comes responsibility".
    The proposed legislation merely buttresses that responsibility to temper communications that are spiteful, hateful or venomous; and that responsibility to curtail actions and words that seek only to incite violence resulting in further pain and suffering.

    Sometimes the rights of the individual must be subsumed into the commonweal.

    Beat the drum as loud as you want but the citizens won't march on this one.
    As imperfect as this solution is the vast majority of us will happily err on the side of protecting society.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That said though I have always had my words published and voice heard any-time I have offered my opinions in the various media forms mentioned. ..I'd be curious to know if yours have.

    Not all the time. Sometimes I've had things pulled that I put online because someone, somewhere thought something like "You can't have free thought.. you must comply with our rules'.. Or "Sorry, what you have said isn't very PC and we've had complaints,".

    This is a link to a youtube video about James Foley... it has this message before you see the video...

    The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

    There is nothing, I mean sweet fcuk all thats graphic in the video.. The only image is the photo that's being beamed across the world in every newspaper & TV outlet of a Jihad John standing over James Foley.. What is deemed as offensive is the narritive and it's exactly what I have been saying on TPQ and other places since the 'non video' appeared. What did the spooks want to do? They want to bring out a law that prevents anyone from trying to get to the truth...Exactly the same as The Belfast Project and the attemps to stop the contents being made available.. They don't want any other narratives out there that goes against the grain..


    I'm not sure if we're totally free between our ears either. Those in neuro-psychiatry seem now to challenge any possibility of that. They suggest that we're essentially reactive to a myriad of stimuli; we react to a combination of stimuli and then rationalise and intellectualise that reaction subject to our self-interest. It seems we can't escape our fate of being meaning-making machines.

    I don't listen to shrinks full stop. I'll listen to neuro surgeons. But take advice on how to think from someone who ask's me to lie a couch and tell him/her what I think of an ink stain on piece of cardboard, while he/she doodles on a note pad then hands me some mind altering drug... Can't see that happening somehow.



    We all have blind spots due to incessant exposure to biased media outlets (yes, that includes 'The Quill') and their advertisers (where appropriate). Not to mention conditioned responses arising from our individual socialisation processes that give rise to many deep-rooted biases.

    Our individual what? I have no idea what you mean (not taking the piss)....


    Our deep-rooted biases take time and effort to weed out. And even if we were to succeed in that I believe we'd find very few original thoughts!

    What people don't like about orignal thought or people who think for themselves is simply it scares the shit out of them (the masses/sheeple).....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Henry Joy



    The title was of my own choosing a and is in reference to the ambiguity around the Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence law in the South of Ireland and the proposed legislation in Britain to Curtail the word of radical preachers who currently exercise their right to free speech without breaking any laws.

    I totally respect your right to a different opinion in fact it would be a very boring debate if we were all in agreement. Furthermore I understand the need to use a pseudonym knowing too well of thuggish elements under their various guises. I was merely pointing out that more people may choose to use pseudonyms for fear of unwittingly breaking the law or indeed face recrimination and /or repercussions from the state or it's servants.

    My article does represent my own opinions and questions, just as your contribution provides your perspective and as such addresses what you believe to be an imbalance. My concerns stem from the right to voice an opinion which is a world away from communications which are 'spiteful, hateful or venomous' or inciting violence.

    There is legislation in place to deal with such actions namely the Malicious Communications Act. The Act has been used in a number of cases including that of the DUP's Ruth Paterson and also Daryl O'Donnell from Derry who was fined £500 and given a suspended gaol term over inappropriate comments he made about the DUP's Gregory Campbell on social media.

    You stated “What's involved is a small curtailment of free speech that potentially could protect society in a substantial way.” This remains to be seen and therein lies the ambiguity I referred to in my article.

    Would you have considered the broadcasting ban implemented by the British Government in 1988 as a small curtailment of free speech? What about the draconian bail conditions imposed on Martin Corey after being interned without charge or trial for nearly 4 years would you consider that as a small curtailment of freedom of speech? Or how about the fact that an individual in the 26 counties can be convicted of IRA membership solely on the word of a Garda chief superintendent? I suppose a question for me in the application of this legislation is how soon the BBC will be prosecuted for giving airtime to the Israeli spokesman for genocide Mark Regev?

    The central theme of the article for me still remains when does the protection of society end and the censorship of opinion begin? If you're happy with the ambiguous nature of the legislation that's up to you, as for me I'll keep beating that drum.






    ReplyDelete
  18. Frankie

    socialisation is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society. Socialization is thus ‘the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’.
    (From Wikipedia)

    Essentially it's a term to describe how peoples come to hold the values they hold. It considers family of origin, community, religious and educational influences.
    Monkey does what monkey sees and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. yip without doubt Henry Joy a cara if your granny had balls she would have been a wheelbarrow

    ReplyDelete
  20. Henry,
    socialisation is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to describe how peoples come to hold the values they hold. It considers family of origin, community, religious and educational influences.

    In the real world (the rock that's the third from the sun), everyone else call's it life experience.

    Monkey does what monkey sees and all that.

    The only monkey expression I know that's worth anything is this one... "When you put a monkey in a suit, it's still a monkey

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pauline

    In truth I can't definitively say where the line, between the right to free speech, and the right of society to protect itself, lays.

    Both are rights, both need to be weighed into our deliberations on this.

    At the moment it seems that my deliberations lead me to a point that differs from yours. I respect the fact that you have deliberated somewhat on this as have I. That we have a tendency at this stage to view it from different perspectives is just the way it is.

    The ineffective broadcasting bans lend some weight to my point on the self correcting tendencies that work in emergent systems.
    Rather than being effective in silencing republicans they turned out somewhat a charade when the broadcasting companies in the UK employed actors to do voice-overs.
    It wasn't much different in the 26 counties; we seen silent videos, or library photos of the speakers and still got reports of what was said. It was a form of editing yes, but not really censorship in the truest sense of the word.

    With regards to the Chief Supers putting people away down here I can't of the top of my head remember any great outcry from the citizenry. There was no public outrage. The state it could be argued used the legislation in a judicious manner, they didn't want to make the same mistakes as the Brits did with Internment and use it wholesale or consistently act with poor intelligence. Of course I can't presume that all convicted were active volunteers but there has never been many claims about wrongful convictions in this regard. Yes there have been miscarriages of justice in the south; Peter Pringle's and Nicky Kelly's cases immediately come to mind but whilst I've often over the years been a party to discussions as to the coercive nature of the legislation I don't remember any examples of specific miscarriages in membership convictions being highlighted save the case of Don O'Leary in Cork. And that was because he was sentenced to a much longer period than the standard 2 years.

    You exampled two cases from the six counties; I'll refrain from any comments or opinions with regards to those because I'm regrettably not fully informed on them.
    But I do know of at least three people from my own native area who were charged with 'terrorist type offences' post 2004 and who served a couple of years on remand and who either didn't come to trial or were acquitted.
    Some could rightfully argue this was internment by remand but in all probability, were they to write a memoir or contribute to an oral history project, these three people would in all likelihood claim to 'have beaten the rap'.

    The fact of the matter is there is in all likelihood a substantial majority who will say, that if such interventions save lives, they are justifiable counter-insurgency responses.

    These types of emergency legislative responses do create a real moral dilemma. Whereas I don't want to see people deprived of their freedom without due process I also, like all reasonable people, have a desire to see innocents protected from loss of life and injury by violent extremists.

    ReplyDelete