Jobstown protest teen appeals guilty verdict

 

Joan Burton picture: Tom Burke

 A Dublin youth found guilty of the false imprisonment of Joan Burton during the Jobstown protest has commenced proceedings to have the verdict overturned.

The 17-year-old boy denied falsely imprisoning the former Tánaiste and her advisor Karen O'Connell in two garda cars for three hours during the demonstration at the Fortunestown Road in Jobstown in Tallaght, on November 15, 2014.

He was found guilty last month following his trial at the Dublin Children's Court but was spared a custodial sentence. On October 21, Judge John King imposed a conditional discharge providing the youth does not re-offend in the next nine months.

The boy came back to the Children's Court yesterday. His solicitor David Thompson told Judge Timothy Lucey that he was lodging a "notice of application to state a case" and he handed the necessary paperwork into court.

This means the defence will bring an appeal to the High Court and contend that the teenager was erroneously convicted on a point of law.

The teen's conviction will be stayed pending the outcome of his High Court bid to clear his name.

Source: Irish Independent, Nov 3, 2016 

Barrel Bomb: The Cataclysmic Close of Campaign 2016

Written by Chris Floyd 02 November 2016

Well, here we are: at the bottom of the barrel under forty feet of slag. In a few days’ time, we’ll know our fate: the five-alarm fire of Trump Rule (oh, how those police unions are chomping at the bit!) or the Clinton Age of Hyper-War (oh, how those neocons are chomping at the bit!). In either case, the entrenched coagulation of corporate interests and war profiteers that have strangled the peace, prosperity and prospects of the American people will not be budged an inch. The change that people are so desperately hungry for — so hungry that that some of them might well elect an Establishment insider whose sinister clowning makes him appear to be a ‘rebel’ — will not come. Thus their bitterness will grow deeper, more sour, erupting more and more often in physical violence: from militarized police against protestors, from Trump-empowered racists (if he wins or loses), from extremist militias, from angry, maddened people on every side. And of course there will be more — much more — of the horrific, never-ending, globe-spanning violence of the bipartisan Terror War that churns on and on, no matter who is sitting temporarily in the White House.

There’s no use in pretending that’s not what we face. But there’s also no use in pretending that this situation is somehow sui generis, some terribly unlucky conflation of unforeseen circumstances coming together at this particular time. It is in fact the culmination and embodiment of the deliberate choices of the most powerful forces in society: the choices to enrich themselves beyond all reason and extend their military and economic dominance over the earth.

It doesn’t matter that many if not most of the practitioners and functionaries of this system “believe” in its rightness. It doesn’t matter that brutal neoliberal nostrums and extremist imperial notions have become religious dogmas for those who see themselves as the “meritocracy.” It doesn’t matter if the leaders and factotums genuinely believe in the “exceptionalism” they preach or if they are cynical power-seekers. It doesn’t matter if they actually believe their rapacious financial machinations are reflections of the “natural law” of the “the market” that will eventually benefit all, or if they know themselves to be what they really are: ugly souls disfigured by greed. The end result has been the same: a long series of deliberate choices by a bipartisan elite that have hollowed out the lives and communities and futures of millions of Americans, and created a living hell of war, ruin and hatred over much of the earth.

This is a system that has delegitimized itself, a system that has undermined its own institutions. Through its own actions, it has rotted out the foundations of trust and reason which once upheld it. Some might say, “Oh, but there’s been a decades-long, concentrated effort by right-wing billionaires and corporate forces to foment ideological and religious extremism to undermine the legitimacy of secular government, which might restrict their profiteering or let more people have a share in power.” And that’s true. But it’s been accompanied at every step by the collusion and cowardice of the putative opposition. The so-called New Democrats, exemplified by the Clintons, jettisoned concern for the common good to embrace “centrist” and “technocratic” policies: i.e., to adopt the neoliberal dogma that unbridled pursuit of private profit by a connected elites will somehow, someday, lead to general prosperity. The idea that the party should fight to improve the lives of ordinary people in the here and now, to fight for their quality of life in a genuine, substantive way,  came to be seen as old-hat, a quaint and fusty notion of has-beens and dreamers who didn’t understand the way the world really worked. A true, savvy “moderate” knows you must compromise every ideal, show yourself to be a willing and avid servant of the monied interests and the militarists, in order to gain power so you can … make a few cosmetic changes around the edges, a few little social improvements here and there (but only — of course! — in “partnership” with private interests), but never, ever challenge the system at its core.

This is the only deal in town: outright, unvarnished right-wing rule, or simpering, cowardly “moderate” management of a violent, rapacious system. That’s been the choice on offer since 1976. That’s the choice on offer today. The only difference is that the system has metastasized to a monstrous degree over the years: lacking any genuine opposition, the system has grown more violent, more rapacious.

Establishment collusion — and Democratic cowardice — finally and completely degraded and delegitimized the American electoral process 16 years ago, when the Supreme Court — with two members who had direct family ties to the Bush campaign — stopped a recount that would have resulted in the actual winner of the election to take office. This outrageous action was accepted by every single organ and institution of the American system. (With the momentary exception of the Black Congressional Caucus, whose members tried, in vain, to get a single Democratic senator to challenge the result.) Instead, Americans were encouraged to applaud the fact that power had changed hands “without tanks in the street.” That is, we were to celebrate that an actual coup d’etat had taken place before our eyes without the slightest show of resistance.

Once in place, the coup regime — staffed at the highest levels by extremists who a year before had publicly called for a vast militarization of American policy and society, even if the public had to be “galvanized” by “a new Pearl Harbor” — led the nation into a disastrous war based on false pretenses, a vast crime that not only killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people but has led directly to unbridled turmoil, extremism, conflict and corruption around the world. The elite-supported coup regime instituted torture programs and death squads, and launched an orgy of war profiteering unprecedented in world history. The regime then presided over the worst economic collapse in generations.

Not a single member of the regime was ever tried — or even investigated, at even the most preliminary level — for a single crime committed during its time in power. There were no high-profile Congressional investigations into the hideous carnage and ruin and instability they wrought; not even a “Chilcot Commission” into the origins of the war, as the UK belatedly launched. Instead the regime’s leaders and top factotums were heaped with honors and wealth. Today their endorsement is eagerly sought — and gained — by the “progressive” Democratic candidate for president.

In 2008, the desperate electorate turned to a figure presented to them as an outsider who would at last bring real change. He had the trappings of difference — a black man with a Muslim name, who spoke eloquently of peace and social justice, who most people thought was far to the left but voted for him anyway. But Barack Obama was of course a meritocratic “centrist” to his core. Riding an enormous wave of popularity, and a strong Congressional majority, he proceeded to … bail out Wall Street fraudsters and finaglers with tax money and create a health care system based on the plan of a rightwing think-tank that prioritized corporate profit — and probably killed the chance for a genuinely public health care system for generations, if not for good. He also doubled down on the Terror War, expanding it to more countries, extended Bush’s death squads, helped destroy nations like Libya and Yemen (thus spawning more chaos and terror), expanded illegal surveillance of the populace (and the world) to an extent beyond the wildest dreams of the Stasi or KGB. And after saving Big Money from itself and securing the guaranteed profits of the healthcare-insurance corporate complex, he spent most of his time on the domestic front trying to strike a “grand bargain” with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Again, all hopes of any real change were thwarted. So now the nation swings from being ready to embrace a perceived leftist to the brink of voting in a bellicose rightist as it seeks the genuine change no one will give them. Of course, after the scorched-earth tactics of bipartisan neoliberalism and the inevitable moral degradation and brutalization that comes from year after year after year of vicious aggressive war, the choice for Trump is more nihilistic. It’s as if people believe positive change is no longer possible — so let’s tear everything down and see what happens. (This is the actual, open philosophy of the Breitbart gang, who are now directing Trump’s campaign.)

Even if Clinton wins, this nihilism will still be rampant. And given that she happily embodies the bipartisan Establishment now roundly despised on all sides for its many depredations, the nihilism will grow even worse — especially as she has given no indication whatsoever that she will even try to make substantive changes in the neoliberal-militarist system that is strangling us. Quite the contrary.

So yes, this has been a campaign like no other — but mostly because it has brought the systematic decay of the Republic into the sharpest possible relief, and has shown, more clearly than before, that the neoliberal-militarist ascendency offers no hope for a better life, a better world; indeed, that it offers nothing at all — except more violence, more bitterness, more ruin, more degradation for us all.

source: Empire Burlesque


Fianna Fáil TDs divided over party’s position on water charges

In today's Irish Times article by Sarah Bardon 'Fianna Fáil TDs divided over party’s position on water charges',  are we once again witnessing the slippery slope of Irish politics and politicians speaking with forked tongues? 

It will be interesting to see how and if Fianna Fáil wriggle out of their commitments to the Irish electorate.   Maybe they know something about the outcome of the secret Commission on Domestic Water charges due out this month and are now gearing themselves for a sea change and softening the blow by drips and drabs - good cop, bad cop sort of thing? 

Let us remind all those Fianna Fáil dithering TDs, Councillors and members who seem to be unclear of their party's commitments on the Water Charges issue, to read their party's 2016 election manifesto Here and all the consequent leadership promises to abolish Irish Water and Water Charges. 

Fianna Fáil's promise is clear to us and all those who voted for them specifically on their commitment to abolish Irish Water and Water Charges.

Fianna Fáil TD John McGuinness said many members of the party did not know what the party's policy on water charges was.  "We are trying to be on both sides of the argument."

Irish Times - Fianna Fáil TDs divided over party’s position on water charges
November 1, 2016

by Sarah Bardon

Fianna Fáil TDs are unable to agree on whether the party’s policy is to suspend or abolish water charges.

The Irish Times has spoken to a number of TDs who have divergent views on what the party’s stance is.

The party’s housing spokesman Barry Cowen is currently holding consultations with individual TDs and Senators on the issue.

Mr Cowen said the aim was to ensure members were fully aware of the policy and to assess any concerns.

“This is an exercise in ensuring they are prepared for the process as it unfolds, and obviously if people have concerns I want to hear them.

“The aim is to unite the party behind our policy on water charges because the expert commission is due to report soon.”

Fianna Fáil’s general election manifesto committed to abolishing Irish Water and water charges.

However, at the launch of the manifesto in February, party leader Micheál Martin said it would be a five-year suspension and the position would be reviewed in 2021.

Last month the party made a submission to the expert commission examining water charges which signalled a shift in their position. It said water charges could not remain and it would support their abolition. This was repeated by Mr Martin in a radio interview.

Mr Cowen insisted there had been no shift in the party’s position since the general election.

“The submission to the commission should not be seen as an absolute position. We are committed to the end of the water charging regime but accept their reintroduction may have to be re-examined, but only when the water system is fit for purpose.”

Abolition

Asked what they believed the party position to be, some TDs, including Dublin West TD Jack Chambers, Louth TD Declan Breathnach and Dublin South-West TD John Lahart, repeated the position articulated by Mr Cowen.

Sligo-Leitrim TD Marc MacSharry, Meath West TD Shane Cassells, Roscommon TD Eugene Murphy and Kerry TD John Brassil said they believed the party was in favour of outright abolition.

Carlow-Kilkenny TD John McGuinness said many members of the party did not know what the policy was. “We have been caught out on water charges because our policy is not defined. We are trying to be on both sides of the argument.”

Mr Brassil said there seemed to be “confusion” over whether the party was in favour of abolition or suspension. “I understood the charges would be suspended for the lifetime of the next Government and it would be up to any future Dáil to reintroduce charges. That is what we have campaigned on.

“What Barry [Cowen] is saying is we haven’t changed position but when we were asked for a submission for this commission we said we wanted to abolish them,” he said. “I am a member of the party so if we adopt a position I will live by it. But I do not see the logic in having a substantial investment for water metering and just saying we are not going to use them.”

Mr MacSharry said the party’s position was abolition. “That is the position in our submission and repeated by the leader. If that is not the position I certainly have not been told about it and it is a matter for the parliamentary party to discuss.”

Mr Cassells said the party’s position is “crystal clear”.

He said: “The submission speaks for itself. We have suspension and we are working towards abolition as a permanent solution to water charges.

“There has been no ambiguity on this from our perspective. If people in the party are unsure they should come to us.”

Reintroduction of charges

Mr Chambers said he accepted different terminology had been used by various members of the party. However, he said he believed the policy to be suspension of the levies for this generation.

This view was shared by Mr Lahart, who said he did not believe a Fianna Fáil-led Government would reintroduce charges.

As part of the confidence and supply arrangement agreed with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil secured the establishment of an expert commission to examine the future of water charges. It was due to report back by the end of November but there is some speculation it will come sooner.

Mayo TD Lisa Chambers and Wicklow TD Pat Casey said there were diverse views within Fianna Fáil about water.

However, all TDs were in agreement that water should be paid for. Roscommon TD Eugene Murphy said he believed general taxation should be the source of funding.

Many of the party members said they believed the party should have fought for a “household” charge where property tax, water charges and waste services would be paid for.

Many TDs, speaking off the record, admitted they were not consulted before the party made a submission to the expert commission.

One long-standing TD said: “The first we heard of it was when we read it on the front of The Irish Times.

“And no matter what you are told by party headquarters, it was one step further

than what we had said before and a definite change in our general election manifesto.”

Source: Irish Times, Nov 1, 2016