Finian McGrath opposed to protecting workers' rights

by Janus Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22

Wasn't he running on one of those Independent Health Alliance tickets? That is a bit of a surprise.

by pat c Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:34

He is generally sound on most other issues. In every other area he has always defended workers rights and hes certainly an anti-imperialist and internationalist.

Anyone know what brought on this blind spot?

by John Player Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:56

Don't get too excited. Sit down, have a fag and calm down.

by matt Fri Nov 07, 2003 13:53

Finian as has been said is one of the few sound TDs in the place and is perfectly entitled to his opinion on this issue, which is one that is being pushed by a Health Minister who has a fucking nerve trying to ban smoking in pubs while children are dying in ambulances.

by Chekov Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:01

The thing about the smoking ban is that it basically costs the taxpayer nothing to implement it and therefore it has nothing to do with ambulances or anything else. It's not a question of diverting resources from elsewhere to implement it.

Actually, in terms of health, we can say with reasonable certainty that this ban will free up beds for sick children that are now occupied by sufferers of emphysema. Since it is a way of freeing up health resources that costs nothing, we should ask how the hell can anybody oppose it?

I am a smoker btw.

by Paul Kinsella - CPSU Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:11 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9 087-9748511

As a constituent of Finian McGrath's in the largely working class constituency of Dublin North Central I agree 101% with matt. Where are all of you when people are dying lying waiting in hospital trolleys and in the backs of ambulances taking ambulances out of our already inadequate ambulance service? Where were you when people including babies have died in ambulances because they were refused admission at the nearest general hospital and have been forced to travel many miles? Where are you defenders of workers and worker's rights when workers are being thrown into jail for refusing to pay the unjust double tax bin taxes? I'm especially disappointed in you pat c. What do the lot of you want? A special garda anti smoking task force that anytime anyone lights up in pub will arrive and cart them off to jail? That sounds like fascism to me. P.S. Before you start your usual abuse that is the trademark of Indymedia that will follow this I'm a non smoker myself.

by pat c Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:17

If you have the freedom to pollute my air in the pub then why shouldnt I have the right to spit in your pint?

I acknowledge the work carried out by Finian, read my comment. I just think hes wrong on this occasion.

by iosaf - º Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:18

I am a smoker.
=next!

by Chekov Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:22

"A special garda anti smoking task force"

This is a red herring. Experiences elsewhere have shown that the ban is either enforced by publicans (fearing expensive lawsuits taken by staff) or by the public. It is only a civil rights issue if you think that you have the right to poison others.

by pat c Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:25

it will also be enforced by environmental health inspectors.

by Mike Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:26

Is any mention of how the PEOPLE of McGrath's Dublin North Central constituency feel about this matter. Maybe they like to smoke in pubs? I am getting sick and tired seeing people (here too) argue that politicians should be standing for the RIGHT decision as opposed to the one which the people whom they represent want. DEMOCRACY ISN'T ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE "RIGHT" DECISIONS BUT THE ONES THE PEOPLE WANT. I suggest that those of you who feel otherwise take a close look at what you are actually saying (and maybe then you'll understand why the masses aren't eager to support your vanguard).

by research and development Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:28

Do you smoke?

by ec (cmoker) Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:30

.

by development and research Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:33

not completely unrelated material suitable for a Joe Duffy show, and for pondering "what do Indymedia people have in common around the world at 13h00 - 14h00".
,(it aint one of mine).

by Paul Kinsella - CPSU Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:41 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 087-9748511

The scene in my local come next February:
Operator: "999 Emergency, Which service do you require?"
Caller: "The Gardai"
Garda 999 emergency controller: "What's the problem caller?"
Caller: "Somebody is smoking in the pub in blatant breach of our Health Minister Michael Martin's anti smoking ban." "Can you send somebody around to lock them up."
Garda 999 emergency controller: "Don't worry caller we're on the way." "We have a special new Garda anti smoking task force and we'll be up to you in two minutes."
Caller: "Thank you, but what are you going to do with that dangerous criminal and threat to society."
Garda 999 emergency controller: "Don't worry." "They'll be locked up for the weekend and then they're facing a lengthy prison sentence and a hefty fine."
Caller: "Many thanks again Garda for removing that dangerous vermin from society."
Garda 999 emergency controller: "Thank you."

Call ends. Less than 2 minutes later as promised the new Garda anti smoking task force dressed up like a cross between the Riot Squad and the Emergency Response Unit and carrying extended batons, CS spray and revolvers burst into the pub and throw the smoker kicking and screaming into the back of one of the special new Garda Riot vans looking like a cross between the RUC/PSNI landrovers and the Italian Riot Squad vans which have purchased to deal with any 'incidents' during Ireland's 6-month EU Presidency starting on January 1st.

by matt Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:55

Yes, smoking does divert resources and smoking bans divert attention from the fact that Martin is making a balls of the system which is he charged with running. Sorting out that mess ought to be his priority. What really annoys me, however, is that an excellent TD (for whom I didn't vote nor have any connection with) should be attacked over his perfectly valid point of view on this issue. And at least he is not afraid to speak his mind rather than trying to figure out what the PC line might be. As regards smoking, I personnaly don't and don't like being too close to it, but if I go to the pub it is to be in an athmospehere where people drink and generally act in what in other circumstances might be considered socially unacceptable. So I accept peoples right to smoke there just as they accept my right to get drunk and talk a load of nonsense. Or should we ban that as well?

by Moi Fri Nov 07, 2003 14:58

Really, Paul? Is that you? You havn't been on here for weeks, and you suddenly get into a tizzy about the right to smoke, despite the fact you are a non smoker. Is it the real Paul Kinsella?
Anyway, I think you are being a little over the top. The garda response times are definitely not THAT good (or bad, whichever way you look at it)
Have to say I agree with pat c's comment:-
pat c Friday, Nov 7 2003, 1:17pm
- Nice one Pat.
Personally, I don't like going into pubs and coming out with the smell of cigarette smoke on my clothes. The same goes for standing behind some smoker in a bus queqe and having their smoke blowing into my face.

by Paul Kinsella - CPSU Fri Nov 07, 2003 15:13 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9 087-9748511

Have to go now to something genuinely productive. One of the members of our (An Post) Branch of the CPSU, Fionn Ryder was jailed for 21 days and fined €1,500 last Tuesday for taking part in a blockade at the Ballymount waste depot so we're having an emergency Branch Committee meeting this afternoon (Yes a Friday afternoon) in the CPSU head office to discuss what we'll be doing about this.

by PK Fri Nov 07, 2003 15:18

I hope there is no smoking at it.

by barry Fri Nov 07, 2003 15:43

Biffo looks like getting in a corner so Bertie bails him out of health and into Iveagh House.

Mikeys boxing Bertie into a corner, so he gets the poison chalice, maybe even learn him his place.

McCreevy gets a sly one in on Mikey whilst he's down, no money for pay and a few cutbacks to boot should keep him quiet.

Mikey spots an opening, they're at it in NY and Aussietralia, sure and why not ban the auld fags here too!

Bertie, spotting the trap, tries all the old tricks and even one or two new ones, but to no avail. The people (jaysus) seem to want it so, never the man for a challenge, Bertie tries to wait a while.

T'is down now to a matter of being more concerned about public health or the publicans. Blinded by such a clear choice, Bertie stumbles and tries to sway for a while but the meeja gleefully portray this as a first, a firm position taken and expressed.

Whilst all the loyal backbenchers and building contractors try to put Bertie back on the fence, the boys that run the country know that the only safe way forward is for Mikey to go and that'll have to be over the dead bodies of a lot of elderly people on hospital trollies.

This smoking ban has caused Bertie to take a position publicly, now that it has succeeded in its only purpose, the law will have to be made as meaningless as possible and the minister for health will have to be made look as bad as possible.

By the time this all finishes up the only workplace you won't be able to smoke will be in a confession booth or a hospital A&E ward and sure there'll be none of them left anyway.

Meanwhile WE argue about it as if our interests were ever more than incidental to the whole affair!

by Ciaran Fri Nov 07, 2003 15:57

Its says much about the state of the Irish left that Finian Mc Grath's position can be described as opposition to workers rights and he can be attacked because of his position on a very minor issue.

The smoking ban is one of the best ruses ever devised by FF. Everyone is lured into a complete non-debate and FF's duplicity and lies about the health service before, during and after the election is forgotten about. FF will be hoping against hope that this debate runs until the next election and we forget in the meantime all about the real issues regarding the health service - inequality, underfunding etc, etc.

From the government's perspective it's way better to have acres of coverage about publicans revolting over the smoking ban than stories about, as others have pointed out, babies dying in ambulances.

I'm an lifelong non-smoker BTW.

by non smoker Fri Nov 07, 2003 17:53

An authoritarian ,anti working class government has made a law to stop working class people from going out and enjoying themselves at the weekend.
That's all there is to it.

by Mike D - none Fri Nov 07, 2003 18:06

No it's not its about stopping working class people from injuring and killing workers in bars and clubs. You have the right to enjoy yourself but not the right to harm your fellow workers.

by benito mussolni Fri Nov 07, 2003 18:49

Wotkers killing workers in bars! Isn't it great that we've got the state to keep the workers from killing one another.

by on the whole Fri Nov 07, 2003 20:13

I think McGrath is a decent enough TD, he does have a fine record in fighting for working class communities. I was some what surprised with his stance on the smoking ban issue. He is mistaken I believe. But I think we should not now recatogorise Finian over this, on the whole he does stand up for working people.

by Mike Fri Nov 07, 2003 23:17

Dear "R&D",
Why on earth would my being pro or against smoking bans have the least relevance? Finian is not MY representative. I don't live in his district (or anywhere in your country, for that matter). I have no right to have him take MY opinion on the SPECIFIC subject into account.

But if you had bothered reading what I wrote you would realize that the specific issue was irrelevant. I was objecting to an attitude among us "activists", one not specific to your area but mine too, and as far as I can tell pretty much all over the place.

IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY. It's about the sad fact that all too many of us do not seem to believe in it. Not really. We have some insane idea that when the "right" decision isn't being favored by "the people" there must be some kind of trickery at work, that the people are being duped. We do not seem to ever consider that maybe, just maybe, "the people" really and truly want something other than we (in our inifinite wisdom) believe that they SHOULD want.

Until and unless we can shake this we are not going to be leading the masses in revolution. They aren't such fools as to follow what clearly are simply another set of (wanabe) rulers who know best.

by Questioner Fri Nov 07, 2003 23:30

OK, That's the smoke. Where's the mirrors?

by Chekov Sat Nov 08, 2003 14:12

All the opinion polls that I have seen have indicated majority support for the smoking ban - despite the massive amount of money spent by the vintners and tobacco lobbies. So what is your point?

In fairness this issue is, as several people have pointed out, a very minor one compared to the health crisis etc. However, in our democracy representatives pretty much never carry out the wishes of their constituents. For example, for all Mike's lectures about democracy, he can hardly claim that Finian has a mandate from his constituents for his stance - did he canvass everybody in his constituency about the issue? I think not.

by Mike Sat Nov 08, 2003 15:11

PLEASE REREAD WHAT I WROTE AND LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT YOU JUST SAID

I have absolutely no idea what the people in that district want. I don't know whether Finian ACTUALLY has checked (but a competent representative usually has a fair idea of his or her own district).

But not only do you not know, you see nothing wrong in introducing "All the opinion polls that I have seen have indicated majority support for the smoking ban". THAT'S PRECISELY MY POINT (what I'm screaming about). You see THAT as having the slightest relevance, you see nothing wrong with arguing something like "if the overall opinion favors X , then the representative for district Y should do so also WHETHER OR NOT the people of that district are in favor".

PLEASE -- I was objecting to the lack of ANYBODY even thinking it relevant "what do the people of THAT district want". What people were saying was that "it (smoking ban) is the right position" and now YOU are saying "it's what we know people elsewhere want".

--- Since some you think THIS is relevant.
a) I'm a smoker (but read on)
b) I do not frequent pubs (we call them bars)
c) We have pretty complete bans on smoking in bars and resturants here(and other public places)AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THAT.
In other words, WERE I in Finians district I would be telling him to be in favor BUT I'M NOT. I recognize that I am not and so should have no say in how he should or should stand on the issue.

LOOK --- at least ONE person commenting on the subject says that he is in the district. As far as I am concerned, , his opinion (is Finian doing the right thing) counts but not the opinions of the rest of you. What I am objecting to is that too many of you don't seem to feel that way, feel that "being right" outweighs "democracy". I am saying that in my opinion we are not going to get the people to follow until we can break ourselves of that way of thinking.

by Chekov Sat Nov 08, 2003 15:51

I live in Finian's district. There is no reason to suppose that public opinion in the district is in any way different than the national average. The idea that an elected rep will naturally know the feeling on the ground is also nonsense, in fact I'd say that they are normally the last to know the feeling on the ground (I'm not having a go at Finian by the way). Finally, there is nothing wrong with people arguing for what is right, against what is popular as long as they don't demand that others abide by it. In this case I think the two are the same - most people support the ban and this is right IMO. Anyway, that's it for me, it's not that big a deal.

by Sean Keegan Sat Nov 08, 2003 19:56

I too live in Finian's constituency. I agree with him on a lot of things, including this. If we're to take the logic of this poster, then Micheal Martin and Fianna Fail are defenders of workers' rights. Cop on for Gods sake. But one thing I diagree with Finian on is his blind support for illegal immigration. As far as I am concerned we'd have a far less serious hospital crisis if they weren't full of illegal immigrants (especially the maternity wards). But other than that Finian is sound.

by Big John Sat Nov 08, 2003 20:40

Yes Sean, occasionally the politicians do find themselves doing something worthwhile, and effectively helping to safeguard the health and safety of workers.

I don't recall Finian ever supporting "illegal immigration". When has he ever said that? He does oppose racism, are you equating the two?
As for the hospital crisis, immigrants of whatever legal status are not the cause of it.
I never hear of people like you opposing the way big multinational corporations shunt vast amounts of capital around the globe. If people find their part of the world denuded of capital are they not entitled to follow the money trail? As an Irish person you should know, after all, Irish people have had to do the same in the past.

P.S. Me too - I live in Finian's constituency.

by Sean Keegan Sat Nov 08, 2003 21:22

Let me understand your position, Big John. You support unlimited immigration, is that correct ? So you'd have no problem with a couple of million from Romania and its neighbours, another few million from Nigeria and the Congo, and maybe 1% of the population of China (i.e about 10 million). Throw in a few million from other places--as recent years show, there really is no shortage to the millions who would like to settle Ireland.
One question --what would happen to the native Irish people in that situation ? Should they be like the Palestinians, who allowed immigration to their homeland, and now have none ? Or maybe like the American Indians ?
Of course if you don't support unlimited immigration--though your posting suggests you do- then the only difference between us is in the numbers. I think we've had enough, and I am fairly sure that's a common view in Dub North-Cent.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Nov 08, 2003 21:45

you're a racist moron. If it weren't for immigration of (eg Filipinas working in Irish hospitals) then our society would be in even greater trouble. Immigrants (and other people) are a resource not a problem.

by Nonsmoker Sun Nov 09, 2003 03:00

I am entitled to go about my business without having to breathe in cigarette smoke. My human rights are being infringed by these nicotene addicts, and yet they manage to portray themselves as the ones whose human rights are being infringed. Of course the politicians may also have ulterior motives for pushing the issue at any particular time, but for once they have got it right. I am surprised that Finian has taken a position against the smoking ban, but on the whole his general politics seem to be ok.
As for Mr Keegan, he only got involved in this discussion for an opportunity to snipe on the immigration issue.
This discussion has moved from smoking and on to the state of the health system and where we get our nurses from. So bearing in mind the drink and drive habits of some of our politicians, one of whom recently managed to hospitalise a nurse, is anyone advising nurses to watch out for these politicians while crossing the road? It is costing us a lot to bring more nurses from the Philipines to replace them.

by otto diesel Sun Nov 09, 2003 09:51

As a cyclist, I vehemently protest about having to constantly inhale "car farts" while going about my daily business ...

Don't get me wrong, I am not against cars per se ....

I have no problem if car-owners want to generate and inhale large quantities of carbon monoxide and other noxious substances in closed spaces within the privacy of their own homes .... in fact I would heartily approve of this ....

But out on the public highways and by-ways ....NO THANK YOU ....

MY RIGHTS TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THESE LACKIES OF THE PETROCHEMICAL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES .........

Will some noble Irish politician take up the cause ....?

Michael Turley perhaps ....?

by Benito n/s Sun Nov 09, 2003 18:04

Just do as the policemen - oops, I mean the health and safety inspectors -say and you'll be all right otto .They know what's best for you .

by ordinary man Tue Nov 11, 2003 16:20

however the uper class yuppies on indymedia would know nothing about how the other half lives! You never see any material on the rip off price increases that effect real people, the mainstream media is often better at reflecting popular anger on this that the indymedia rich kids!
The is always a scramble for the crumbs among those at the bottom of society and rich liberals are unable to understand why this is so. It can take a racist form in some instances but if you you want to see real racism just wait untill the yuppies jobs are outsourced in a few years time to Eastern Europe and India!

by extra ordinary man Tue Nov 11, 2003 18:20

Ordinary man,

If you think these are not been covered by Indymedia you are free to do so anytime you like. There is nothing about Indymedia or the people who use it from preventing you do so. That's the whole point of Indymedia. It's for every body.

BTW, the mainstream media is owned by the upper classes.

by Maurice Methane Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:40

Farting - the emission of poisonous gas from the back passage is to be banned by Minister Michael Martin. Stomach gases are a major source of pollution and are also potentially explosive.

by Myself Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:50

...is mainly from Clontaft and Collins Ave. The middle class areas. The unfortunate reality is areas like Kilmore and Coolock in DNC have a huge Fianna Fail vote mainly due to the "Haughy Factor" (both current and historic and Ivor Calley. Both do huge clientelist constituency work.

by Watchdog Sat Dec 27, 2003 21:33

Workers are being HOODWINKED.

Workers are NOT being protected by the "smoking" bans. They are being tricked into thinking they are protected by a government that shows little interest in protecting workers anywhere else or from any forms of industrial harms on the job or elsewhere.

The bans serve to DISTRACT from the issue of UNPAID compensation to workers, and most smokers and "second-hand" smokers, for DECADES of being poisoned by the many NON-TOBACCO substances in typical cigarettes.
Have these victims of Indoor Smoke been checked for DIOXIN LEVELS...from cigs' chlorine bleach and chlorine pesticide residues? How about checks for radiation from still legal use of uranium-contaminated phosphate tobacco fertilizers? I don't think so. To do so would indict A) the cig makers even more, B) the suppliers of the bleach and pesticides and fertilizers, and C) the gov't and health officials who tolerated and benefitted from this for so long.

THIS could (and should) indict some of the world's biggest oil/petrochemical/pesticide industries. THEY are among those who prefer we just blame Mother Nature's tobacco...all the contamination notwithstanding. When a gov't starts baning "Pesticide Contaminated Cigarettes" will will be on the way to justice....and honest, uncorrupted medical science.

This matter must NOT be about criminalizing what they call "smoking" (of WHAT, precisely?) but of criminalizing the ADULTERATION of smoking products with, often, some of the world's WORST industrial substances...not to MENTION addiction-enhancing things, and sweeteners etc to better attract the kids.

* The laws are patently ARBITRARY and therefore unjust. To be sound they MUST address ALL workplace air pollutants...auto exhaust, paints, solvents, wood/metal/glass dust, and smoke from other things like candles, incense (in churches too), fireplaces, stoves, cooking, woodworking and so forth.

* The very fact that laws use "tobacco" language makes the fraud clear. Laws or legislators who use THIS language are lying as much as the cigarette makers have been. There have (to my knowledge) been NO documents presented to legislators, courts OR health agencies regarding the actual or expected health effects of tobacco itself! How then can there be law based on harms of tobacco?
If one dumps anti-freeze into wine, we don't ban wine...we prosecute for contaminating the wine. Is this a complicated point?

Ah...but what HAS been studied, most unscientifically and fraudulently, is effects of using TYPICAL multi-ingredient, highly-processed, chlorine-containing, DIOXIN-DELIVERING, addiction-enhanced, burn-accelerated (at least in the US), smoking products that, in some cases, may contain no tobacco at ALL! Of course, to protect the complicit industries, this description isn't used.
(I don't know Irish laws but...hundreds of US patents exist for materials and processes to make FAKE TOBACCO out of all sorts of industrial waste and so forth. It may LOOK like tobacco and be CALLED "tobacco" by firms and officials ,but....)

It is absurd and illegitimate to ban something that hasn't even been DEFINED for content. This is about SCAPEGOATING a natural plant, scapegoating pub/hotel owners, scapegoating workers, and scapegoating smokers...for the enormous crimes of the cig cartel...INCLUDING all their suppliers and insurers and investors and Gov't allies.

People who get mad at "rude" smokers for health reasons are mad at the wrong target.

ANY non-tobacco cig adulterant that is not pre-tested for safety in this use, and that is not listed on a label, is evidence of experimentation on subjects without their informed consent. Didn't the Nuremberg Convention have words on this subject?

Workers and Pub etc proprietors and smokers and non-smoking customers have all been coldly treated as Guinea Pigs, for years. Now that the gov't and insurers don't like the COSTS of health care for THEIR OWN victims, it's time to NOT stop the product adultaration....NOT compensate fhe victims...but to pass laws AGAINST the victims.

To stop these laws in their tracks, and to make a GREAT Stride towards uncorrupted consumer protection governing, simply insist on thorough, complete, public DESCRIPTION of this "tobacco".
INSIST on qualifications between "tobacco smoke" and " INDUSTRIALLY- CONTAMINATED SMOKE".
It's the difference between inherent natural risks from ANY product or ANY substance... and the intentionally-caused risk, and health damages and deaths, to millions by use of such industrial contaminants in products of mass consumption.