Protests mount in Ireland over jailing of Margaretta D'Arcy

First topic message reminder :

Protests mount in Ireland over jailing of Margaretta D'Arcy

Margaretta D'Arcy, the acclaimed Irish writer and peace activist, is serving a three-month prison sentence in Ireland for her protests at the US military use of Shannon airport.

She could have avoided the jail term if she had agreed to sign a bond to uphold the law and stay away from unauthorised zones at Shannon. She refused to do so and was taken into custody last Wednesday (15 January).

But the Irish authorities have been confronted with a torrent of protest, and a measure of embarrassment, since D'Arcy, who is 79 and suffering from cancer, was incarcerated in Limerick prison.

She has been visited by Sabina Higgins, wife of Ireland's president, Michael D Higgins. And protests on behalf of D'Arcy have been growing day by day. Some 240 artists have called for D'Arcy's release, including journalist Nell McCafferty, film-maker Lelia Doolan and former UN assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday.

Yesterday's demonstration outside the Dail - as in the video above - was attended by several politicians, journalists, writers and supportive members of the public.

Former staff of the late, lamented Irish Press will spot one of their old colleagues, the poet Hugh McFadden, among the protestors.

D'Arcy is no stranger to prison, having been arrested on dozens of occasions down the years. She was a campaigner against the Vietnam War and British involvement in Northern Ireland. She also joined the Greenham Commons peace camp.

Her latest arrest has certainly heightened interest in, and opposition to, what D'Arcy has called "acts of unfathomable criminality" by the American military at Shannon.

She lives in Galway and, apart from receiving treatment for cancer, also suffers from arthritis in her neck.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jan/23/protest-ireland

The lady is an inspiration and has stuck to her principles for so many years.

This has a lot more info on why she is doing it:

http://www.shannonwatch.org/

NemsAgain wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Thanks FTL, cannot believe she said that, I hate she is suffering, but that really was poor to throw that at me

It was only to get at me Didge, Im sorry you got caught up in it.

Its as FTL correctly  states some will do anything because winning an online argument is everything

Like you don't come on here just to create an argument.   You are a shit stirrer Nems.  ::zomb:: 

From Amnesty International...

Ireland, and Shannon Airport in particular, was used as a stopover for CIA operations known as extraordinary renditions.  Binyam Mohammed, was released from Guantánamo Bay without charge in 2009, after being unlawfully detained in harsh conditions for more than six years.  He was allegedly tortured and otherwise ill-treated over prolonged periods. His physical and mental health had reportedly declined alarmingly prior to his release. The plane used to render him to Morocco in 2002 returned to the USA via Shannon, and the plane that rendered him from Morocco to Afghanistan in 2004 transitted Shannon on the way to Morocco.

As far back as 2002, Ireland has been concerned that it would be in breach of its obligations under international law if it was found to be used as a stopover on rendition circuits.  However, the State chose to rely on discredited US assurances instead of fulfilling its obligation to ensure Irish territory and airspace was not used for the illegal transfer of prisoners.  The Irish authorities still cannot proactively identify foreign aircraft engaging in illegal activity.  In October 2008 the Government set up a Cabinet sub-committee to review the law on searching planes at Shannon but it has never issued any findings or reports.

http://www.amnesty.ie/content/rendition-flights

Exactly what she was protesting being made to be a part of, by the Irish Government allowing it to continue.

[quote="NemsAgain"]

PhilDidge wrote:


Thanks Nems, sorry I meant to say you would not say a thing like that, though I know you knew what I meant

Anyway back to the debate.

Irn, sorry the belief of troops being passed through Ireland really does not concern me in the slightest, sorry being again how the conflict up North has affected my family I consider that problem insignificant to what I see as the real need for peace protesting with the troubles in the north

No worries Didge the more things change the more they stay the same as the saying goes   

A new guy has recently started at our place he is from Belfast and from what he has said to me I think he would agree with you[/quote]


Thanks and I know this is true Nems, why it means much more to me, anyway have a good evening and to everyone here, all the best

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I agree with you on what is highlighted above because that's what will happen at Shannon Airport if people don't speak out and question what is going on.

Affecting millions of people, not just hundreds.   Why anyone thinks they have the right to tell someone else what they should protest about is beyond me.   Talk about ego.

One must also remember that if some folk did not have the spunk to challenge how we live our lives, we'd be slaves to the master.

This woman has every right to protest, she is the best example any human being can forward to the next generation, greed begets greed, it must be made clear to the Americans we're aware of the fact that money is their god, only some of us are not prepared to sell our souls for it.

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I agree with you on what is highlighted above because that's what will happen at Shannon Airport if people don't speak out and question what is going on.

Affecting millions of people, not just hundreds.   Why anyone thinks they have the right to tell someone else what they should protest about is beyond me.   Talk about ego.

Said without one iota of irony  :-:cawg:-: 

scrat wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Affecting millions of people, not just hundreds.   Why anyone thinks they have the right to tell someone else what they should protest about is beyond me.   Talk about ego.

One must also remember that if some folk did not have the spunk to challenge how we live our lives, we'd be slaves to the master.

This woman has every right to protest, she is the best example any human being can forward to the next generation, greed begets greed, it must be made clear to the Americans we're aware of the fact that money is their god, only some of us are not prepared to sell our souls for it.

Couldn't agree more, but she not only protests, she has written books and made films to bring attention to different causes. A truly amazing lady, who nobody has to right to tell who she should be protesting against.

Sassy wrote:

scrat wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Affecting millions of people, not just hundreds.   Why anyone thinks they have the right to tell someone else what they should protest about is beyond me.   Talk about ego.

One must also remember that if some folk did not have the spunk to challenge how we live our lives, we'd be slaves to the master.

This woman has every right to protest, she is the best example any human being can forward to the next generation, greed begets greed, it must be made clear to the Americans we're aware of the fact that money is their god, only some of us are not prepared to sell our souls for it.

Couldn't agree more, but she not only protests, she has written books and made films to bring attention to different causes.   A truly amazing lady, who nobody has to right to tell who she should be protesting against.

Correct. When people are banged up for protesting against something that is of a matter of concern to most reasonable people then you know there probably is something to hide.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Sassy wrote:Re-read!

just as Mary Kelly did in 2003 when she was charged with ‘criminal damage to a US Navy aircraft without lawful excuse’ when she took an axe to a war plane.

It was Mary Kelly who did that!

Margaretta D'Arcy simply stood on a runway to protest about the planes being used to take people for torture etc.

  

Which is trespassing.

Which is a CIVIL not criminal issue......

Catman wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

It was only to get at me Didge, Im sorry you got caught up in it.

Its as FTL correctly  states some will do anything because winning an online argument is everything

Like you don't come on here just to create an argument.   You are a shit stirrer Nems.  ::zomb:: 

Yeah you said

grumpy old git wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Which is trespassing.

Which is a CIVIL not criminal issue......

Correct lol. Don't think they were very happy that she tried to do a Citizen's arrest on the Judge.

On Wednesday 11th December, In Ennis District court. Margaretta D'Arcy of Galway Alliance Against War attempted to make a citizen arrest on Patrick Durcan the presiding judge. Margaretta claimed he was complicit in supporting criminal acts at Shannon Airport because in passing sentence on her and Niall Farrell who went onto the runway to protest against the US military use of the airport, he ignored the fact that Shannon Airport has violated the integrity of the Irish Constitution Articles 28 and 29 as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognised by the European Union and European Court of Human Rights. According to Margaretta, it puts the security of the U.S. war machines above the security of its civilian passengers.

Way to go!!!!!

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Bang of out order to say that sassy, so people cannot be witty now because of your treatment. Yes I hate you are suffering at the moment but don't pull that guilt bullshit on me, that is low beyond belief

So you have protested as many others have, so what, none of which has any relevance to the debate, or my points I have made, being as the problems in Northern Ireland matter

She asked if I had booked by flight to Shannon Airport, knowing full well I couldn't even if I wanted to.  Right, and you thought it witty.   After all the 'I'm sorry for your condition' etc.   Got nothing to do with guilt.   You have no need to feel guilty about me.  

That's the wrong road, sassy. Let's stay on topic.

Catman wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

It was only to get at me Didge, Im sorry you got caught up in it.

Its as FTL correctly  states some will do anything because winning an online argument is everything

Like you don't come on here just to create an argument.   You are a shit stirrer Nems.  ::zomb:: 

Two bullshit comments. You are interfering with the discussion. If you've got problems with Nems--and I don't know why you do--take it to a PM. Let's get back on topic.

Sassy wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

What a totally peaceful protester clearly exercising her rights in a perfectly lawful way.

And another one who can't read.   She stood on a runway, a peaceful protest.

She probably digs up dead grandmothers too - that's peaceful and doesn't harm anybody.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

And another one who can't read.   She stood on a runway, a peaceful protest.

She probably digs up dead grandmothers too - that's peaceful and doesn't harm anybody.

No, she normally makes extremely good films to get her point across.

grumpy old git wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Which is trespassing.

Which is a CIVIL not criminal issue......

Nope!
It's a criminal offence punishable by fine or up to six months imprisonment.
Get your facts straight.

Sassy wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Which is a CIVIL not criminal issue......

Correct lol.   Don't think they were very happy that she tried to do a Citizen's arrest on the Judge.

See above.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Which is a CIVIL not criminal issue......

Nope!
It's a criminal offence punishable by fine or up to six months imprisonment.
Get your facts straight.

Erm...nope it isnt....

trespass is CIVIL
it only becomes a criminal matter if DAMAGE is caused......

grumpy old git wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:
Nope!
It's a criminal offence punishable by fine or up to six months imprisonment.
Get your facts straight.

Erm...nope it isnt....

trespass is CIVIL
it only becomes a criminal matter if DAMAGE is caused......

Nope.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0011.html#zza2y1994s11

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Erm...nope it isnt....

trespass is CIVIL
it only becomes a criminal matter if DAMAGE is caused......

Nope.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0011.html#zza2y1994s11

Entering building, etc., with intent to commit an offence.

11.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to enter any building or the curtilage of any building or any part of such building or curtilage as a trespasser, or

(b) to be within the vicinity of any such building or curtilage or part of such building or curtilage for the purpose of trespassing thereon,

in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.


Hmmmm...irish laws....HOWEVER

the section in red takes some defining...... you would have to prove "intent to commit an offense" or "intent to unlawfully interfere with....."and the act of simple trespass is not criminal.... (i.e. in general, though there are obviously exceptions like military installations, simply being where you should not is not a criminal offense...So walking across a farmers field is trespass...but is a civil matter not criminal...unless you damage his gate, fence, hedge etc.....)

grumpy old git wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Nope.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0011.html#zza2y1994s11

Entering building, etc., with intent to commit an offence.

11.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to enter any building or the curtilage of any building or any part of such building or curtilage as a trespasser, or

(b) to be within the vicinity of any such building or curtilage or part of such building or curtilage for the purpose of trespassing thereon,

in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.


Hmmmm...irish laws....HOWEVER

the section in red takes some defining...... you would have to prove "intent to commit an offense" or "intent to unlawfully interfere with....."and the act of simple trespass is not criminal.... (i.e. in general, though there are obviously exceptions like military installations, simply being where you should not is not a criminal offense...So walking across a farmers field is trespass...but is a civil matter not criminal...unless you damage his gate, fence, hedge  etc.....)

It seems to me that obstructing a runway counts as interfering with the property.

Respect the laws of the land your in they say  :::grouch:: 
Looks like it is a criminal offence

grumpy old git wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:
Nope!
It's a criminal offence punishable by fine or up to six months imprisonment.
Get your facts straight.

Erm...nope it isnt....

trespass is CIVIL
it only becomes a criminal matter if DAMAGE is caused......

Erm, Vic...criminal trespass is, in fact, a criminal law.

Tess. wrote:

sphinx wrote:
Why should they when she is refusing to uphold the law?  Presumably she in that refusal she indicated that if put on probation or tagged she would have wasted no time in returning to her law breaking activities.  Generally in order to get probation or tagged you have to promise that it was a one off non typical thing that you will never ever do again - if you stand in front of the judge and say you knew what you were doing have no  regrets and will do it again the judge tends to imprison you.

She's a peace protester, not a terrorist!  So you think all the Vietnam protesters in the past, all Greenpeace protesters and their like should be imprisoned?  So does Kim Jong Un.

 

SINCE WHEN did anyone ask North Korea's Clown Prince for an opinion on fights between Japan and Australia/NZ/USA ?

IT IS actually Japan ~ a leading capitalist enclave ~ who wants to jail the Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace anti-whaling activists !

IT is Japan who has illegally and falsely locked up protestors, and illegally taken piracy actions against innocent civilian boats in both international and Australian waters, in recent years..   

 

I WONDER how many of those protesting Ms D'Arcy's treatment from afar would quickly change their tunes, IF they just happened to become one of the next victims of traffic holdups or other delays caused by one of her pointless little protests ?!?

 ::attn::

NemsAgain wrote:

Sassy wrote:
Affecting millions of people, not just hundreds.   Why anyone thinks they have the right to tell someone else what they should protest about is beyond me.   Talk about ego.

Said without one iota of irony  :-:cawg:-: 

  

HEAR, HEAR !

 

Original Quill wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Erm...nope it isnt....

trespass is CIVIL
it only becomes a criminal matter if DAMAGE is caused......

Erm, Vic...criminal trespass is, in fact, a criminal law.

yes, but there is a difference between simple trespass, i.e being somewhere you shouldnt, and criminal trespass(which is actually causing damage whilst trespassing OR trespassing with intent to (usually) commit a crime). For instance ..it is simple trespass to be in private woods off public foot paths. There is little the owner can do except ASK you to leave, the use of force is not allowed (usually) and the police cannot become involved (except as "observers " (their "peace officers role") to ensure NEITHER party commits a breach of the peace) and the only recourse a land owner has is an injunction to prevent repeated acts from that individual....as I said ...a civil matter.

However, if you were in those woods poaching, be it with a gun or with snares or whatever, then that becomes a criminal matter and the police are then involved as law enforcement.

In this country it could be either civil or criminal...

This note provides some background information about issues relating to trespass to land. It is worth noting at the outset that in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence in the absence of some special statutory provision that makes it so.

In civil law trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another. Civil trespass is actionable in the courts.

Two separate standards notes on Gypsies and travellers: camp sites and trespass and Squatting in residential premises are also available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05116/trespass-to-land

Irn Bru wrote:In this country it could be either civil or criminal...

This note provides some background information about issues relating to trespass to land. It is worth noting at the outset that in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence in the absence of some special statutory provision that makes it so.

In civil law trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another. Civil trespass is actionable in the courts.

Two separate standards notes on Gypsies and travellers: camp sites and trespass and Squatting in residential premises are also available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05116/trespass-to-land

Yes, but only as a civil tort, not a criminal charge...

grumpy old git wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:In this country it could be either civil or criminal...

This note provides some background information about issues relating to trespass to land. It is worth noting at the outset that in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence in the absence of some special statutory provision that makes it so.

In civil law trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another. Civil trespass is actionable in the courts.

Two separate standards notes on Gypsies and travellers: camp sites and trespass and Squatting in residential premises are also available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05116/trespass-to-land

Yes, but only as a civil tort, not a criminal charge...

Yes, and if you click on the link you get a more detailed definition of what is criminal and what is civil.

Irn Bru wrote:In this country it could be either civil or criminal...

This note provides some background information about issues relating to trespass to land. It is worth noting at the outset that in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence in the absence of some special statutory provision that makes it so.

In civil law trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another. Civil trespass is actionable in the courts.

Two separate standards notes on Gypsies and travellers: camp sites and trespass and Squatting in residential premises are also available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05116/trespass-to-land

You are right about that. But all criminal law is statutory law. There is no such thing as criminal common law.

Originally, trespass was a part of Real Property law. It is an unauthorized entry upon land. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:In this country it could be either civil or criminal...

This note provides some background information about issues relating to trespass to land. It is worth noting at the outset that in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence in the absence of some special statutory provision that makes it so.

In civil law trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another. Civil trespass is actionable in the courts.

Two separate standards notes on Gypsies and travellers: camp sites and trespass and Squatting in residential premises are also available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05116/trespass-to-land

You are right about that.  But all criminal law is statutory law.  There is no such thing as criminal common law.

Originally, trespass was a part of Real Property law.  It  is an unauthorized entry upon land.  Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.

So, is it criminal in Ireland?

Apparently it is.  They have the statutes.

But let's face it. D'Arcy was playing a high stakes game. She wasn't merely marching down the sidewalks in front of the Federal Building, or whatever they have.

Original Quill wrote:Apparently it is.  They have the statutes.

But let's face it.  D'Arcy was playing a high stakes game.  She wasn't merely marching down the sidewalks in front of the Federal Building, or whatever they have.

Very true

I don't think that Margaretta D'Arcy has been charged under Trespass pass laws anyway.

Irn Bru wrote:I don't think that Margaretta D'Arcy has been charged under Trespass pass laws anyway.

Can you document that?

in England you cannot be prosecuted for trespass unless you have damaged property.however you can be removed from the land by force if you refuse to go.

Well what ever she was charged with, going to prison could have been avoided, she chose that way to continue her protest.

nicko wrote:in England you cannot be prosecuted for trespass unless you have damaged property.however you can be removed from the land by force if you refuse to go.

Yeah but this happened in my country where the law differs.

NemsAgain wrote:Well what ever she was charged with, going to prison could have been avoided, she chose that way to continue her protest.

Absolutely Nems, anything for the cause

feelthelove wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Well what ever she was charged with, going to prison could have been avoided, she chose that way to continue her protest.

Absolutely Nems, anything for the cause

Absolutely

A very principled gutsy lady, who knew that by going to prison she was giving publicity to a cause that should be publicised.   As she said, the runways at Shannon Airport are directly linked to crimes against humanity, and Margaretta has made it clear that her integrity would be violated if she undertook not to confront this improper use of the runways of a supposedly civilian airport in a supposedly neutral country.   So many things have been changed by protest, and she has been party to many of them.   She stands head and shoulders above most.

Sassy wrote:A very principled gutsy lady, who knew that by going to prison she was giving publicity to a cause that should be publicised.   As she said, the runways at Shannon Airport are directly linked to crimes against humanity, and Margaretta has made it clear that her integrity would be violated if she undertook not to confront this improper use of the runways of a supposedly civilian airport in a supposedly neutral country.   So many things have been changed by protest, and she has been party to many of them.   She stands head and shoulders above most.

Absolutely, she is indeed all of these things. Anyone who is prepared to give up their liberty in support of standing up for peace should be admired for the stance they take. I support that and as you can see from the posts just prior to yours there are others who agree with you.

LOL, you mean the two blank spaces!   They did?  Well there's a miracle.