|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on May 18, 2009 19:00:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Harris on May 18, 2009 23:42:35 GMT
Why was he arrested? Was it for trespassing or something? Surely the handcuffs were not necessary.
Although it does look like he was refusing to walk to the police car when arrested and decided to lie down on the ground. Was he really overcome or doing this to enhance the affect of his arrest?
Either way its not the best PR in the world for Notre Dame University. I'd imagine after seeing this on TV there will be twice as many protestors outside the university this time tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on May 19, 2009 5:59:10 GMT
I agree there appeared to be no call for the cuffs. Alas the american police force does not allow independant thought on such matters. Its all procedure. If a suspect being arrested makes it difficult to execute the arrest the procedure is to use cuffs regardless. There clearly was no use for them but they are also clearly just following procedure.
It is hard to see why he was arrested. I am for free speech and peaceful protest, I do not see why this man was arrested. However we only see footage of some of the event so maybe something happened off camera. The US also has some laws about the legality of protest in areas of security, which this would have been if Obama was speaking. If this is so then the arrest was valid as the man was breaking the law.
Not that I _agree_ with that law of course. But if i disagree with a law I campaign to change it. I do not go breaking it and expect not to get arrested for same.
Much more to this story than we see in the video I reckon. Anyone have more details?
I am also saddened to read this:
A shame that some students who have worked for years for this day had to be caught in the cross fire of those who wished to take their day and make an example of it.
Also, do these words reflect what actually happened in the video MG posted above?
I saw no dragging, the priest put himself on the ground AND the hand cuffs were put on slowly, gently and without any apparent excess of force. There is enough about this story that is sad and worrying without this Pastor making stuff up too.
I have read a good few articles on this now, mostly in catholic journals. Not one "reporter" has yet seen fit to actually say what the charge was or in any way attempt to find out what it was. These people call themselves reporters? IT is the FIRST question I would ask and report on as a reporter.
Has anyone else found an article which explains exactly what the charge was?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 19, 2009 12:08:23 GMT
My understanding is that he was charged with trespassing. I am not sure whether the charge was brought by the university (unauthorised entry to their property) or the government (entering a retricted area). Direct action protest is a grey area in my opinion (cf the "Free Speech" thread). The Birmingham ministers who criticised Martin Luther King for breaking the law had a point, in that if everyone refused to obey laws they didn't agree with there would be chaos. At the same time most commentators believe that King had the better of the argument en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_City_Jail In this case the priest did not, presumably, expect that his protest would keep Obama from speaking (and I would be opposed to any attempt to forcibly prevent Obama delivering his speech given that Notre Dame have the legal right to invite whoever they like, though I think they should not have invited Obama in the first place). The point of his protest was to protest against the ND authorities' inviting Obama, to register dissent for Obama's use of the speech to imply that there is no real conflict between Catholic teaching and his views and actions, and to show that abortion is not a dead issue and people are willing to endure arrest and imprisonment as a form of moral protest against it. I share his views on abortion and on the wrongness of the Notre Dame authorities' inviting Obama, and I therefore say he was justified. For an analysis of Obama's use of the speeech, see article.nationalreview.com/q=YzNhZDI1MDAyMjcwNTFhMDM3NDZkOGQ5ZWZhOGUzNWI=(NB this is by a political opponent of Obama, but I think it fairly clearly gets across what he was trying to do.) The big problems with direct action protest are: (1) When it has no chance of success in any terms, it becomes pointless (2) When it is undertaken frivolously (3) When it is done without discipline, so that the most reckless and extreme use it as a means of emotional self-indulgence without regard to moral constraints or actual consequences. The disruption of the Cork lecture was in my opinion a mild version of this sort of excess; the people who shoot abortionists are the worst example of a good cause being harmed by thsoe who place themselves above morality in its pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 19, 2009 12:38:23 GMT
Direct action has kept surgical abortion out of Ireland.
Fr Weslin is to be commended for his carrying of the cross on a Catholic campus. The President of the University is of the same order as the late Fr Peyton.The arrest of Fr Weslin was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on May 19, 2009 15:07:19 GMT
Veritas, 'truth', is an incredibly arragont moniker bordering on blasphemy. Because only God is Truth itself. I would ask the so-called Veritas to adopt something more becoming to a human being.
Direct action has no responsibility for Ireland's current abortion regime except insofar as a small, vocal and irresponsible minority within the pro-life movement bring the more reasonable and responsible majority into disrepute, while damaging their capacity to negotiate with political stake-holders. Should surgical abortion be introduced into Ireland, we will have the advocates of so-called 'direct action' to thank.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on May 19, 2009 17:32:44 GMT
It seems myself and Hibernicus agree on nearly everything to do with free speech. That is something at least.
I would disagree that the Uni should not have invited Obama. The uni is made up of a lot of people, the most important of which is the students themselves. The majority of the students, according to all the stories I have read and my quotes above, were in favour of the visit. They has to count for something. If the majority wanted it, then on what grounds can we say they should not have done it. This is a democracy we are talking about after all.
Alas, as I said, I am sorry to see the man arrested and if I could make it "un-happen" I would. That is not in my power. However, trespassing is trespassing and if he was in fact guilty of that then what more is there to say? There is a law, he broke it, he was arrested. This is how our system works. We can not waive the law when it suits us.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 19, 2009 17:46:18 GMT
I suspect our views on free speech have less in common than Hazel thinks, and that mine have a stronger prudential element than his; I simply say that in general the right of people tohold a meeting should take precedence over the right of others to disrupt it. (I would make an exception for direct and immediate incitement to murder or riot, for example. Note also that I say to disrupt it; there should be a right to protest agaisnt it or to ask awkward questions.) Hazel's argument that the fact that a majority of students support the invitation justifies it is treading on dangerous ground, since it logically implies that if a majority opposed the invitation it should not have been issued; it is possible to be unpopular and still in the right. My objection is partly based on the fact that Obama was not invited (say) to express his views as part of a debate, but in a context which gave him an unhindered platform to implicitly claim the college endorsed his views. I would also point out that law enforcement does not operate automatically, there is or should be an element of discretion involved. It is not a pleasant sight to see a professedly Catholic university involved in the arrest of a priest for protesting against that university's failure to uphold the principles which it is supposed to promote. (So far as i can see the trespass was purely symbolic and involved no dammage to property, blockage of thoroughfares, or danger to the President or others). It's not jsut a protest against Obama's views, repugnant as they are, but agaisnt the Notre Dame management.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 19, 2009 17:50:49 GMT
I endorse benedict's point as well. Direct action (by which I presume is meant such activities as picketing ministers' houses etc) has done nothign to keep surgical abortion out of Ireland; under present circumstances it is foolish and counterproductive. What we need is more educational material, work with pregnancy services (preferably outside the CPA framework), and more strategic thought on what the problems are and how best to meet them. This is not best done by accusing everyone who disagrees with you about tactics of being pro-abortion, as certain people have done. I suggest VANITAS might be a better moniker than VERITAS.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on May 19, 2009 18:00:27 GMT
Hibernicus, again we agree. As I said on the thread that is actually about this what the pro-life movement needs is more arguments, more education about what their points actually are, and less shock tactics and attempts to stiffle free speech which only serve to harm their own cause in the long run.
I want to hear the pro-life people. Not hear them chanting, or see them waving shock photos. I want to hear them in front of audiences, in front of microphones, on our stages, radios and televisions to hear what their points actually are! Get those points made, get them out to the masses, and let us discuss the merits, or lack of merits, that they contain.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on May 19, 2009 18:05:11 GMT
Hibernicus,
OF course it is possible to be in the minority and still be in the right. However who are you to deem who is right and who is wrong? No one has that power. That is why we have democracy so that the minority can not usurp the majority and force upon them their own will. Are you against democracy now as well as talking to people politely in the first person?
If the majority of the campus did not want the speaker selected then of course said speaker should not have been invited. Again, this is democracy in the real world. Glad you could join us!
I do agree however that a lot more discretion should be given the police in the US. However there is a difference between what SHOULD be and what IS. As long as this is what the procedure IS we can not expect them to break it. We can campaign to have it changed.
Depressingly this will be hard. The US sueing culture is what has put these procedures into force. The police procedures become stricter and stricter and the fear of breaking them bigger and bigger as the public sue them for every minor mistake they make.
As long as this sue-culture exists in the US then we will have awful strictly followed procedures in place to counter it.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 19, 2009 19:21:34 GMT
Who mentioned such activity only yourself? Direct action such as counselling women to not have an abortion has saved many lives. Praying the rosary in public for the victims of abortion is hardly wrong. This is direct action. Direct action is about setting up centres where women from all walks of life can rest after having their babies. Many may decide to put their baby up for adoption but atleast a place was there for them to rest. Direct action is educating and showing that a baby is human life and that abortion is never necessary.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 19, 2009 19:26:23 GMT
Am I not human? You lack charity. I will pray for you. Your insults have no power over me.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 19, 2009 19:29:05 GMT
I offer your insult up. I will pray for you.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 19, 2009 19:33:07 GMT
Why would someone waste time picketing a politicians house or even petitioning them? Many politicians are in agreement with abortion. Picketing a politicians house will not save a babies life.
|
|