Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will not labour the debate. We differ in our views on it but I will respond once more to the points the Minister made and will leave it at that. If I understand him correctly, the Minister seems to be acknowledging that there is a link between the last minute bringing forward of these amendments and the proximity of the G8 summit. I find that timing a serious matter of concern, in particular where things are happening around the G8 summit which I do not believe are justified. It is extraordinary that it has been announced that a military base will be opened in the North to detain, or possibly detain, protestors and that special sittings of the courts will be held on a Sunday. It is really extraordinary that drone planes will be deployed, which we know best as planes deployed in Afghanistan with devastating consequences and around which there are very serious moral questions about their use at all. It is also extraordinary that 3,500 police will be brought over from Britain. Let us be honest, they are not short of police in the North in the first place.

It is against this background that the Minister rushes in legislation which gives seriously draconian powers to the Minister to cut off mobile telephone communications if he or she believes there is a serious threat, as defined by him or her. I do not believe these things are coincidental, and the Minister seems to be acknowledging that there is a link. He asked if I was disputing protection for people from attack. Of course, there should be protection. I am opposed to terrorism and to unrepresentative minorities trying to use force to achieve political ends, but I do not believe there is any evidence that such a threat exists to the G8 summit in the North despite the level of mobilisation of security and police forces. In terms of the general level of hysteria being whipped up, these amendments are part of that because the legislation is being rushed through. Why rush it through other than to play our part in creating a certain type of atmosphere around the G8 summit? The big thing one needs to think about is the possibility of a conspiracy, to use the Minister's words, or a potential conspiracy to bomb the G8 summit. Has the Minister any evidence of, or has it been suggested to him by anybody, that such a threat exists that necessitated him rushing these amendments through? I would like to know. If the Minister said we have serious intelligence that such an attack might take place, that certain groups are believed to be active in considering such an attack and that this, therefore, justifies us bringing forward last minute amendments giving us these powers, we would at least have to take the discussion a bit more seriously but he has not said that, nor have I heard it said anywhere else. All we have is police, politicians and governments creating this massive security operation around the meeting of eight individuals. I do not believe it is justified but I believe there is a political purpose to it.

I am afraid there is a history of this, and it is not a conspiracy. People in Italy will tell the Minister about a long history of using what is known as the strategy of tension in advance of protests in order to justify big police operations, usually resulting in confrontations at the time of the protests, and to portray protestors as people likely to engage in violent acts, or acts of violent confrontation. It creates a certain atmosphere which is not justified.

People will protest, and I will be one of them. There will be significant mobilisation in the North and in the South but it will be made up of anti-poverty groups, NGOs and trade unionists talking about issues of global poverty, militarisation and so on. We probably disagree on a lot of the issues but they are entirely legitimate points to be made. There is absolutely no doubt that this kind of thing will scare people and I do not think it is justified. I think the Minister and the police in the North know it will scare people when they hear 3,500 police will be mobilised.

At a very simple level, if one is a parent and decides one wants to protest but thinks there is a possibility mobile telephone communications could be switched off for six hours while one is in Fermanagh and that there is a possibility one might not be able to telephone one's children if anything happens, there is absolutely no question but that would be a deterrent and certainly some people - maybe this Government - are conscious of that.

This has happened repeatedly around these summits. The Minister said there is evidence of people engaging in violent confrontation at these protests but there is not that much evidence. It is now emerging that the vast majority of the violence in Genoa was orchestrated by the Italian police, including some of the so-called protesters engaged in protests. There are serious investigations into police involvement in stirring up the violence in Genoa. I was there and that was very evident. Police columns came out of nowhere and brutally attacked peaceful protesters with the result that one of them, Carlo Giuliani, was killed. It is not paranoia; there is a record and experience of this. I do not believe this is justified on that basis. The Minister said the words "serious threat" refer specifically to explosion but the point is that he and the police authorities will be the ones who will decide what construes a serious threat.

Over the past decade or so - this is not something the Minister can dispute - there has been a pattern of talking about terrorist threats to justify various extraordinary measures, including massive military interventions, which have had pretty horrendous consequences. It, therefore, concerns me that language is now being bandied around in Ireland. We have a history of conflict in the North, of paramilitary groups and so on and the Minister is right to talk about the anniversary. The vast majority of people in the North do not want violence, which ended precisely because they did not want it.

I do not think there is a particular threat from these groups to the G8. Perhaps the Minister might suggest there is evidence of such a threat. If the threat is not coming from them, where else in the country is it coming from? Do we really want to have these draconian powers and create this atmosphere when there is no such threat? I do not know whether the Minister, the American Government or the British Government are pressing for this. I do not know from where the pressure for it is coming. To my mind, it is absolutely unjustified. At the very least, it deserves more serious scrutiny. This should have happened over a longer period. It should not have been rushed just to facilitate the agenda of the G8.

See this speech in context