A veritable "sea of Santas" will be protesting outside the Four Courts on December 23 at high noon. This is according to an e-mail I received today from Niall Murphy on behalf of the The Unmarred And Separated Fathers Of Ireland.


The purpose of the protest is "to highlight the pain and suffering unmarried fathers have to go through because of the Family Law Courts." According to the Press Release this is an annual event at which at wreath-laying ceremony and a minute's silence mark the memory of four members who have taken their lives in recent years.

I am not aware of this organisation and have never heard of them. I don't believe that a correct balance has been struck between the rights of the father, the rights of the mother and the rights of the child in cases of unmarried or separate fathers.

However this kind of protest has been given a very bad name by a similar organisation in the UK which likes to dress up as Batman or Spider Man and climb the Houses of Parliament.

Yes they got great publicity but not the right kind of publicity. What kind of trust can be placed in middle aged men dressing up as super heroes and climbing things?

If this organisation is genuine, and I have no reason to doubt it at this stage, then I hope it goes about its campaigning better that the UK version.

I have to say I don't see the purpose of protesting outside the Four Courts. In fact I don't agree with it. A protest is an attempt to change a decision or a system. However the courts must remain independent of this kind of influence or attention.

A better target for this group would be the Dail or the Dept of Justice. These are legitimate targets but not the Four Courts. The courts just implement and interpret the law as the system dictates (are you listening Michael McDowell TD, Minister for Justice?). That is the role of the judiciary and the courts therefore they are not a legitimate target for protest.

I wonder has this group approached the political parties and the Minister for Justice. If so what was the response? If not, why not?

I will report more when I learn more but if anyone has any more info please post it below.

‘No es facil’ - It’s not easy.

I am not a fan of Castro. I don’t like dictators. I think the execution of over a thousand Cubans after the Cuban revolution in 1959 coupled with ongoing Human Rights violations, repressive censorship and the jailing of dissenters does not make him an admirable man or his regime likeable or even acceptable.

However Cubans have fared better under Castro then they would have under the continued government of the likes of dictators like Fulgencio Batista whose corrupt government murdered, tortured and jailed dissenters and allowed the exploitation of the Cuban people, their country and its natural assets.

Until the revolution the Cubans were illiterate and lived in poverty. With the connivance of Batista the Mafia had the run of the Cuban Casinos and US big business had a licence to do what they wanted in the name of commerce.

This had come about since 1902 when Cuba became an independent republic after over two years of occupation by the US who had installed a governor. As part of achieving their independence Cuba was forced to accept the Platt Amendment, which gave the US government the power to intervene militarily in Cuban affairs. In 1903 the US used this to obtain a Military Base in Cuba, which he maintains to this day in Guantanamo Bay.

After independence a series of weak and often corrupt governments left the country vulnerable and the US sent its military into Cuba in 1906, 1912 and 1917 to protect its interests, which were considerable.

By the 1920s US companies owned two-thirds of Cuba’s farmland and most of its natural resources. The prohibition years in the US meant that Cuba was host to rich Americans who came to gamble and drink in the many Casinos. A series of US backed dictators ran the country inflicting terror campaigns to keep the population in line.

The last of these Fulgencio Batista came to power with a coup supported by the US government. By 1958 half of Cuba’s land, most of its industry and commerce and essential services were owned by US businesses.

Castro’s Revolution toppled Batista in 1959 and set about nationalising Cuba’s industries, banks, and services at the same time redistributing the land to the people.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone was right when he called the Cuban Revolution a highlight of the 20th Century, it was. It was a massively popular public uprising against a brutal, murderous and unjust regime and such a revolution would have been welcomed by the US had it occurred in Iraq anytime within the last 15 years.

In response the US put in place the trade embargo, which is still there today. The US government has also plotted to kill Castro and to date there have been over 630 plans for his elimination. These have become a bit of joke, but is it a joke that a nation like the United States openly admits to plotting to kill a man? Would it be so funny if they had succeed in killing Castro? Would that be ok?

Of course there was the Cuban Missile Crisis in between which strengthened the US's resolve and motivation to continue the embargo and it was neither Cuba’s finest hour nor Castro’s.

As the 1960s turned into the 1970s conditions radically improved for Cubans with universal health care and education. The income of the average Cuban skyrocketed, as did employment levels as the USSR took up the slack created by the US embargo. Trade withe the USSR and other Communist countries accounted for nearly 90% of Cuba’s international trade.

But the collapse of the USSR and that of Cuba’s international trade has meant a return to the poverty of old. The problems of housing were never successfully addressed and as a result the Cuban people live in substandard housing. And now they are poorer than ever.

With the 1990s began the severe rationing of food, forcing the legalisation of private income and the opening up of Cuba to tourism and US dollars.

In the 21st Century Cuba is creaking under the strain with only tourism and Chavez's oil for doctors scheme keeping the system afloat; though last year the economy grew by just over 1%.

The situation that Cuba finds itself in is in no doubt due to the un-workability of the ideal of Communism. But the suffering of ordinary Cubans is also due in equal part to the US’s maintenance of an embargo that serves no purpose, that is vindictive and spiteful in nature and which hinders the development and quality of life of the ordinary people of Cuba.

When one considers that the US trades openly with China whose Human Rights abuses, torture and execution of dissenters dwarf those of Castro and Cuba in scale, size and barbarity it is amazing that the US can keep a straight face as they continue to justify their embargo. Indeed under Bush the embargo has been strenghtened.

It has been estimated that the US loses over a Billion dollars of trade a year and is missing out on nearly 20,000 new jobs in the US by the continued embargoing of Cuba. Surely this is a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face on a massive scale. Or is it a case of cutting off one's nose to spite Castro?

Castro and his regime should go but so too should the US embargo.

‘No es facil' but it could be!

I have concerns over the police use of CCTV in small towns like Westport (pop. 5,000) as I feel not only is the population too small to require such an expensive system but that as we are such a small town it is very likely that the those watching you will in fact know you personally thus breaching your privacy.

I am opposed to whole scale CCTV surveillance as I think it breaches my rights as a citizen to go about my business without being subjected to surveillance. I also believe that CCTV is used to justify less Gardai on the streets.

I don't believe that CCTV is either effective as a deterrent to crime or as a useful tool for crime solving. The number of cases it is used in is low and the number of convictions even lower.

I am not on my own on this one. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has concerns in this area also. According to the ICCL "a series of studies that seriously questions the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime. Certainly, CCTV does not seem to achieve anything that can't be achieved by common sense measures such as better street lighting or more effective police patrols in city-centres.

"In recent years, many politicians have suggested that extensive spending on camera schemes was a panacea to street crime. Now it is clear that this is not the case. What is also disturbing is that the impact of such schemes on the privacy rights of the public at large has been largely ignored."

You can read more about that here.

Accrding to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, staff must be made aware that CCTV is in place and what the purpose of the cameras are. If staff are told that the cameras are there to protect staff against violent customers that’s the only thing they can be used for.

CCTV cameras can’t be used for monitoring attendance at work or to see whether staff are sitting at their desk all day long.

For more information on this read this article

There is also an interesting blog in the UK on this subject and the issues involved here.

So the issue is not as black and white as some people claim and I hope that after reading this post you might see my concerns or at least have questions over such systems. CCTV is not benign, it does affect your rights. Think about it before you support it in your town or area.

(I do however accept that it is necessary in areas like O'Connell St and high crime areas but this should be the exception not the norm)

Don't let them give you the" eye in the sky", demand more Gardai on your streets instead.

Note: we don't have CCTV in Westport..........yet!!