Wednesday, June 11, 2008
McCann and others acquitted of criminal damage
The law may sometimes be an ass.. but a jury can also be a joke. Were the three who had previously “refused to acknowledge the court” among the six acquitted of criminal damage at the Raytheon software factory in Londonerry in August 2006? Writer Eamonn McCann was found quilty of stealing two computer discs belonging to the company. From the BBC report.
Speaking outside the court, Mr McCann said the men welcomed the jury’s decision and said it had “completely vindicated” their actions.
It did nothing of the sort, Eamonn. Let’s see if other interested parties continue to pressurise the US-based company.
Pete Baker @ 06:16 PM
Sad decline of an interesting, intelligent man.
He was a good commentator, a controversialist who could genuinely make you think.
He’s been getting sadder and a little pathetic since he started standing again for election (His previous attempt against Eddie McAteer and John Hume was youthful and off its time)
And this escapade was silly, pointless and removed the credibility he used to have
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 08:43 PMThe Raytheon story and its protagonists (both the jury and the protesters) offer an interesting counterpoint to that other story of democracy in action in the House of Commons Wednesday.
The action of McCann and his fellow activists had a long history, going right back to the announcement of Raytheon’s arrival in the city. A history of conscientious opposition to the international arms trade, made all the more remarkable given the city’s unemployment profile.
So so easy to tap tap indignation and dismissives at the citizens of a jury….and those who risk liberty in pursuit of their politics.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 10:18 PMBit harsh I reckon lamh dearg.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 10:24 PMI think its a tad harsh. im no fan of McCann, but i admire him for being more than just a rehtorical windbag. He took action, which he knew was undoubtedly going to fail, but the victory is in the action itself and not the outcome. Long gone are the days of the likes of Tony Benn, it seems pay packets not principles are the reasons why people get involved in politics now.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 10:32 PMThis is fantastic news for Ploughshare and other peace activists everywhere.
According to their supporters in an earlier, yet premature, news post the jury had agreed that their actions were legitimate insofar as they disrupted the workings of an organisation whose activities were resulting in the killing of civilians in several parts of the world, including Israel and Iraq.
A similar view has already been taken by juries elsewhere on these islands when judging similar actions by Ploughshare peace activists, amongst others.
Fair play to all nine involved. I only hope that the resounding success of this piece of nonviolent, direct action is not lost on some of their number.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 11:10 PM“This is fantastic news for Ploughshare and other peace activists everywhere.”
Ah yes but this group weren’t ‘peace’ activists were they? They support war and warring factions, the only problem they had with Raytheon was not that it produces weaponry but that it produces it for the democratic governments that they don’t like.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 12:02 AMSomeone once told me that a mark of a civilized society is the that it is safe to be unpopular.
One gathers, by this turn of events, that NI would be regressing towards tin pot status.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 12:48 AMGood for McCann and co. Pity the poor warmongers getting a few computers getting thrown out of the window, compared with the misery their weapons of war cause.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 07:14 AMHarry Flashman,
You should read to the end of my post.Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 08:13 AMAm I to understand, as an uneducated layman, that one may be vindicated in court for the wilful destruction of the private property of a legal and publicly traded (and taxed, you brew lovin’ hypocrites) company, simply because the private moral opinions of the jury ?
This is madness…..and I’m saying that as someone who has serious moral reservations about the arms industry, rather than reservations on the military capabilities of those I don’t like, a la McCann.So what happens when some nut job/people’s hero carparks an abortion clinic in a few years time ?
also,
The guys at Raytheon have recently developed a “pain ray” that emits micro-waves pitched to stimulate nerve endings to dramatic, non-lethal effect. If only those poor boys in the Paras had had that when they were attacked by that mob in stroke city, they would perhaps , in their youth and in their panic, have had a better and more wholesome recourse than that which was employed. Still McCann, smash up their facilities and puff about how smart you are, sure its all good crack.Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 09:29 AMWho cares about any of this ?move on
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 10:32 AMDOG: “You should read to the end of my post.”
P’raps you should take your own advice and read the whole of his, Damien.
A) McMann’s mob of merry marauders are partisans, not peace protesters. They were not protesting against violence, just that the side they don’t like has the upper hand.
B) The more one goes to the well of what amounts to a “hot” invasion of a place of business, the greater chance there is of unintended consequences.
C) The more one goes to the well of “direct action,” the greater chance there is for escalation and confrontation, with a gradual coarsening of the high standards these groups like to claim.
Lastly, Damien, if not agreeing with someone’s politics or business is reason enough to burst in and break their stuff, how far are you willing to accept that notion? Are you willing to accept it were you to be targeted on a personal or professional basis?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 11:55 AMFor the few who are decrying the actions of the jury, can you tell us what you would replace the jury system with? A Star Chamber? Consisting, of course, only by people who think like yourselves?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 11:57 AMDemocracy is about more than governments buying votes in parliament or the likes of the DUP selling the hard earned liberties of those they govern, especially when the pottage is a here today gone tomorrow sum.
McCann and his comrades deserve respect if not support, although I give them both. As to the Jury they did no more than one expects from 12 good and true people, bless them
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 12:25 PMWell actually he has been vindicated by a jury of his peers Pete, you may not like it but he and his co-accused have been exhonerated by the courts for their actions.
If only you were concerned as much for the little children with their stomachs blown out their heads blown off or their legs and genitals burned to an unrecognizable charcoal mush as you are for a country hopping tax evading question ducking morally bankrupt organisation which makes financial profit from human misery destruction and death.
Perhaps then Pete decent people like McCann and his co-accused wouldn’t have to risk jail because we as a society would have totally rejected these hideious organisations and expelled them from our midst.
Or is it okay bye you Pete because these weapons are normally reserved for Niggers Gooks Commies and Wogs, the clue is in the word normally Pete, that means they can be used on you one day if you face doesn’t fit, or in your case the word face should be plural.Guns ‘n’ Posers
It’s “bru” the Scottish shortened version of the unemployment bureau not “brew” which is somthing which is modified by heat or chemical reaction.
If you could also remember that you do something for the “craic”(fun and humor) not crack (something flawed) even though they are pronounced the same they have totally different meanings, rather ironic considering that your statement was funless and flawed.Dread C
you have a problem with a business being invaded but not a country, computers being broken yet not bones, production being ended yet not lives…???
Perhaps Dread C you should take Pete B down to the Albert clock and run a little competition between the three of you to see which one has the most faces, my money is on Albert finishing 3rd
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 01:20 PMDread,
You too have not seemed to have read or understood my original post.I said that peace activists everywhere should take great encouragement from this, seeing that a jury has, once again, agreed that such nonviolent, direct action is legitmate. I then went on to point out that some of those who were involved in that very action could learn from its nonviolent nature, the very part of my original post that neither Harry or yourself seem to have read or understood. At no point did I say that any of the Raytheon 9 are pacifists.
I also agree that such actions are legitimate if they are targetting an industry which is involved in the military industrial complex, and which is involved in supplying the weaponry which is being used for the state murder of thousands of innocent civilians the world over.
Acting in self defence or in the defence of another against aggression is legitmate in my view, and, it seems, in the view of the court in which the Raytheon 9 were tried. Sweet.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 01:38 PMNevil,
The term brew is used as a colloquialism in Ireland as well as Scotland, and as a colloquialism is subject to regional variations and no formalised spelling, and I believe in written language both spellings, maintain phonetic integrity, are acceptable and appear in print. people might think you mean irn bru, after all. ;>
I would ask you to remember that the expression crack (as in humour ) is a Belfast expression most likely originating in the phrase ‘to crack a joke’ the rendering of this colloquialism into Modern Irish phonetics and passing it off as an Irish word for fun is a contrivance of Ulster Scots proportions (the word act as suffered a similar fate). I fail to see any Irony, although you arrogant tone is amusing.to those who defend the jury,
It is the function of a jury to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty of the illegal act they have been charged with, not to appraise that persons actions by their own standards and treat them accordingly. A more disgusting abuse of our “hard won freedoms” is difficult to imagine.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 01:39 PMThe Devil: “you have a problem with a business being invaded but not a country, computers being broken yet not bones, production being ended yet not lives…???”
I simply asked if DOG was willing to allow an extension of this policy of “direct action” against those whom one disagrees, including himself, should the circumstance arise.
DOG: “I also agree that such actions are legitimate if they are targetting an industry which is involved in the military industrial complex, and which is involved in supplying the weaponry which is being used for the state murder of thousands of innocent civilians the world over.”
In other words, what is gravy for a goose is not gravy for a gander—i.e. were some organization that you supported were targeted in this fashion—vandalism, invasion of the work-place, etc., you would not support it. An interesting, if somewhat hypocritical and cowardly, approach. One hopes you don’t find yourself in an unpopular position or profession, DOG, lest you find yourself on the receiving end.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 01:51 PMDread,
In other words, what is gravy for a goose is not gravy for a gander—i.e. were some organization that you supported were targeted in this fashion—vandalism, invasion of the work-place, etc., you would not support it.
I never said any such thing. If I was involved in a profession which was responsible, to a large degree, for the killing of civilians, then I’d deserve such an action being taken against me.
How you were able to drag hypocracy and cowardice out of any of my previous posts is beyond me.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 01:57 PMDamien
“I also agree that such actions are legitimate if they are targetting an industry which is involved in the military industrial complex, and which is involved in supplying the weaponry which is being used for the state murder of thousands of innocent civilians the world over”
Who defines what is “the military industrial complex”?
Do factories making uniforms for armies count? What about Kevlar production? What about supplying other goods and service to armies, communication technology?
It sounds like you are reverting to our local arguments about “legitimate targets”
McCann and anyone else has the right to campaign against Raytheon or abortion clinics or the existence of a joke of a parliament in Stormont.
They have a right to campaign for a change in the law to ban such firms from setting up here, from trading here. They have the right to campaign for and support people who refuse to work for Raytheon and its ilk despite pressure from the DSS.They do not have the right to forcibly enter other people’s buildings, destroy property and remove other people’s belongings.
I wonder what McCann’s opinion would be of an extreme Christian organisation doing onto a Family Planning Clinic what he did unto Raytheon.
But if he is allowed to do it then they should be allowed to, their opinions and beliefs are as valid as his whether he or you or I would agree.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 02:01 PMMcCann etc’s said their Raytheon attack was sparked by events in Qana a couple of years ago.
The BT has the Belfast court seeing footage of a dead baby in the wreckage of a building in this south Lebanese village after an Israeli airstrike.
But the Qana incident is by no means as straightforward as it has been presented in the media.
See dossier at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 02:01 PMLamh derg,
You make a very good point about which products actually facilitate war crimes and which do not, yet few would draw any real similarities between a cloth uniform manufacturer and a ballistic missile manfacturer. The case in question, however, is about Raytheon and an arms manufacturer. It is also well known that the weapons they make have been used in what many consider to be war crimes.
If someone was to have knowingly supplied a weapon to an individual to commit an act of violence against someone, would they not have broken the law of the land? Would they not be convicted of a crime in a court for doing so? Just because Raytheon and companies like it operate within the realm of international law, doesn’t make what it does and less criminal in a moral sense. It is no less responsible for the deaths of those killed with its weapons and someone who supplies a knife which is used to murder someone in a street outside a pub. Just because it is legal business, doesn’t mean to say that it is moral.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 02:18 PMbut morals shift and your moral values are not my moral values.
In some societies it is “moral” to stone adulterers to death, in some societies it is “moral” to eat human flesh.
Which is why we have the law which applies to us all, stops some people stoning women, others blowing up abortion clinics and others attacking firms like Raytheon. If you make exceptions for one you give up the right to insist on the others.
A direct question to you. If an extreme right wing Christian group did to an abortion clinic what McCanndid to Raytheon would you support them and regard their acquittal on charges as a reason for celebration?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 02:31 PMI’m astounded at some of these posts. With regard to suggestion that the jury’s verdict reflected their own moral sensibilities: the judge himself ruled last week that the defendants should be acquitted of all charges. His ruling was based on very tight legal grounds (of course) and anyone who was there to hear the ruling could tell you that it clearly was not some reflection of his own personal morality. The trial only progressed to a jury decision because the judge’s ruling was over-ruled by the appeal court. So in fact the jury’s verdict was entirely consistent with that of the judge.
The legal argument is much more nuanced than some of the posters here seem to believe, and certainly this decision does not allow anyone to trash the property of someone whose actions or beliefs they disagree with.
The arguments in court made it quite clear that the damage caused by McCann and others was legal because it was motivated by an honest belief that they were attempting to protect the property (and lives) of others whose property was in immediate need of protection and that their actions could reasonably be expected to assist in providing such a protection. The defence made a watertight case establishing that these conditions held, and both the judge and jury were left with little option given the law and the failure of the prosecution team to provide evidence to the contrary. The verdict was reached on legal rather than moral grounds and this was evident to all in court.
Can I also say that I am amazed that people who risked their own liberty to protect civilians in other countries should be vilified and their motivations questioned. If only we all had the courage to lead such principled lives.Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 03:11 PMCinte
indeed
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 04:48 PM
