Israel Continues to Shoot Itself in the Foot 20:25 Dec 16 0 comments Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let it Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off... 00:48 Oct 21 1 comments Israel Confesses War Crime 23:49 Oct 10 0 comments Ukraine and West prepare media space for their potential false flag attack on Zaporozhye NPP 23:34 Jun 26 1 comments Zelensky was ready for Neutrality But UK refused to allow the Ukrainian leader to negotiate – Pentag... 22:18 Dec 13 1 comments more >>Blog Feeds
Anti-EmpireRussian Firms Rush to Buy Anti-Drone Def... Wed Apr 17, 2024 08:58 | Bloomberg Ukraine Buys Huge Amounts of Russian Fue... Fri Jan 20, 2023 08:34 | Antonia Kotseva Turkey Has Sent Ukraine Cluster Munition... Thu Jan 12, 2023 00:26 | Jack Detsch New Israeli Government Promises to Talk ... Tue Jan 10, 2023 21:13 | Al Majadeen Russia Training Iranian Pilots Ahead of ... Tue Jan 10, 2023 15:19 | The Times of Israel
Human Rights in IrelandA Blog About Human RightsUN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
Lockdown Skeptics
The Insane World of Intersectional Climate Change Thu Apr 18, 2024 15:00 | Steven Tucker
Electric Car Demand Plunges Across Europe Thu Apr 18, 2024 13:00 | Will Jones
Deadly African Heatwave ?Impossible? Without Climate Change, Claims BBC Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:00 | Sallust
Did BioNTech?s Experimental Cancer Drugs Promote Cancer? The Plot Thickens Thu Apr 18, 2024 09:00 | Robert Kogon
Climate Change is Class Warfare Thu Apr 18, 2024 07:00 | Martin Durkin
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international editionThe cost of war, by Manlio Dinucci Wed Apr 17, 2024 04:12 | en Angela Merkel and François Hollande's crime against peace, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 16, 2024 06:58 | en Iranian response to attack on its consulate in Damascus could lead to wider warf... Fri Apr 12, 2024 13:36 | en Is the possibility of a World War real?, by Serge Marchand , Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 09, 2024 08:06 | en Netanyahu's Masada syndrome and the UN report by Francesca Albanese, by Alfredo ... Sun Apr 07, 2024 07:53 | en |
88% of 2fm theoretically support Mary Kelly's actions
clare |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report
Tuesday July 08, 2003 02:15 by David Rynne
In a 2fm text poll today (07 july on Gareth o Callaghan's show)) where the question asked was "if you saw a young child in distress because he/she was locked in the back seat of a car on a hot day would you, Apart from the fact that there was no option d: to mutter under your breath and silently allow the child to suffer, |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (15 of 15)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Poor David. You'll find out how things work for grown ups when you become one.
PS. make the most of your childhood.
I hate having to agree with Seainin, but it has to be done. Let's count the problems:
(1) it's a poll,
(2) it's by text,
(3) it's for radio station listeners, [(3a) who the hell listens to GO'C anyway?],
(4) the question was about the car scenario, and the legal argument is by analogy, not direct transposition,
(5) the defence is much more sophisticated than either you or "Love the show" Gareth puts it, and of course
(6) a moral case like that of war resisters does not rely for its justification upon opinion polling, even if flaws (1) through (5) were corrected!
That's very reasoned of you Daithi. I might have to soften my tone if there's going to be some sense spoken around here.
Ná bac le sin. Lean ar aghaigh, in aon teanga is mian leat. Ach ná bí ag smaoineamh go mbeidh muid ar an leathanach céanna go luath. Ara is fearr liom agóid maith aon lá.
eadrainn. Ní maith liom agóid nó easaontas ar chor ar bith, go háirithe nuair nach mbíonn cúis cóir leis.
A garda spots a peace protester wearing a balaclava on a hot summers day attemping to climb a fence at an AIRPORT(warport?????)) and gain access to the taxiways and runways thereby endangering the lives of the travelling public..
Should he
(A)Give him a hand by holding his hatchet and peace banner as he struggles to clamber over...
(B)Issue a warning that any attempt to enter a restricted and dangerous area such as an airport is not only foolish and dangerous but also illegal and will led to the protesters arrest.
(C)As soon as he touches the fence do as the did in Iraq in Saddams good old days,smack him with his garda baton,throw him into the back of the gardacar,interrogate him for a while using various and barbaric means and finally shoot him in the back of the head and bury him in an unmarked grave along with 300,000 thousand others listed as missing under the old regime.
The ole (C) option's a little tired at this stage Paddy, we *do* all know how nice saddam was, but this isnt about ex- US state department employees. In any case, is the existence of tyranny elsewhere a reasonable excuse to accept it in any degree at home?
Electrify the fence,and put a armed patrol on the airport perimiter,as any good military "warport" would have.Put notices on it every 40 feet warning the general public thereof,also in cartoon symbolism,for the illiterates under us.Thussly it becomes everyones choice wether they wish to breach an electrified fence and wants to run a armed patrol now know the consequences thereof their actions.
I know text polls are very unreliable.. I know that the defence was much more complicated than this, and Gareth never mentioned Mary Kelly during his show (as far as i know)(btw, i only listened to his show because it was on while i was at work) Maybe he did intend the poll to draw parallels with the peace activists arguement, but he probably didn't, this is not what i was trying to say.
I just wanted to acknowledge the naturally obvious fact, with a little something to back it up, that most people do not consider it wrong to break the law with the intention and/or effect of saving a life. (the fact that it probably wasn't even against the law to damage the car, again, is not the issue here, most people would not be aware of the defence of necessity).
That the poll engaged in subject matter that was entirely uncontravercial allowed the results to be free of the political brainwashing that people have been subject to over the last year and for most of their lives.
Needless to say, this is not a legal arguement and it would be thrown out of a court, but i still believe that it should be heartening to the peace activists that they have so much latant support just waiting to be awakened through education.
Following the 2002 blockade of Faslane Trident base, a mainstream Scottish newspaper did a poll on who supported the nonviolent lawbreaking blocakde to evict Trident from Scotland. Over 58% polled supported the civil disobedience against Trident. The Church of Scotland it's annual meeting passed a motion in support of nonviolent civil disobedience to resist Trident.
This is not merely a poll on general opposition to nuclear weapons in Scotland, but one over the use of nonviolent civil disobedience etc.
Please spare me.
There is a minor difference between breaking the window of a car and wrecking a jet.
Remember, there was no young child in the plane at Shannon.The plane wasnt even going to Iraq and the war had not even started.Wake up and smell the aviation fuel or is your own smell too overpowering, crusties.
I see the two A10 warthogs are still at Shannon.
By the way someone was right who the fuck listens to 2fm which is run on our tv licence fee money (those of us who pay it) and then wont tell us how much that sicko gerry ryan makes.Theres a scandal. Go up no and wreck 2fm with a hatchet.
the child in the car probably wouldn't have died but 88% of people still claim that they would break the window and call the police. In shannon the police had been called over and over again, but they took the side of the negligent parent.
What's the difference between smashing a car window to protect a life and smashing a plane to protect a life? a difference is in scale only, but how can we put the cost of airplane parts as higher than the value of human life?
The plane was not going directly to iraq but it was going there, it just would have stopped off in Itay first. it would have directly or indirectly contributed to killing in an illegal war. (if it was carrying spare parts or supplies they were directly necessary for the bombers and soldiers that couldn't operate without them.
And that is only assuming that the government were not lying about what exactly was being carried by that plane. (they lied consistantly about the whole issue of military flights through shannon for over a year)
Mary Kelly stopped the child from suffocating in that one car on that one day, she could not be responsible if the same parents lock the child in another car the next day, that is not her fault, it is ours for not taking action to protect the child.
"the child in the car probably wouldn't have died but 88% of people still claim that they would break the window and call the police. In shannon the police had been called over and over again, but they took the side of the negligent parent".
Oh please. Are you trying to make Mary Kelly etc. look silly on purpose? 88% of people don't claim anything, 88% of a triple-flawed stupid little 100% unscientific opinion poll claimed it. And trying to squeeze one scenario into another just doesn't fly. It's superficially attractive but has no purpose other than to make the genuine defence look absolutely pathetic and desparate. The use of the necessity defence is an attempt to use the legal system for a strategic purpose, not some sort of game. The more times this grossly simplified and erroneous approach is trotted out, the less credible the actual defence seems. And as I said earlier, the whole point of a principled opposition is that it DOESN'T rely upon public opinion - if a poll went the other way around, the case against war is still as strong (which I believe in, and argue, but not based on trivia). Even if it was a genuine poll, not the so-far-removed-it's-in-another-space version of polling (on a different subject!) that you cite.
That if the results of the poll were in some way an indication of general public opinion, that it would mean that most people do not have a philosophical objection to the concept of non violent direct action? and that they would not put property ahead of human life given a plausible real life situation?
That's missing the point. The poll doesn't indicate anything, so the entire story is based on a fallacy.