In Newtownmountkennedy, the state has crossed the rubicon

At about six minutes into  this video footage from events in Newtownmountkennedy last night, April 25th, a man can be seen walking slowly towards the advancing Garda lines. Arms outstretched, and entirely unarmed, he asks the Gardai a question: “Why are you doing this? Why?”

The answer to his question is that the Gardai were ordered to do it. The force of the state has been deployed – in quite extraordinary numbers, according to the Gardai themselves – to facilitate the opening of a migrant accommodation centre that is ferociously opposed by the people who live in that small, previously peaceful village. More than fifty Gardai, including the riot squad, came armed with batons, shields, and pepper spray.

In their statement on the events of last evening, An Garda Siochána claims that force was used by Gardai to “defend themselves” from those assembled to protest. This does not accord with what this media outlet saw in real time, or what videos from the event confirm: That in at least one incident, an unarmed man was beaten by members of the force while defenseless and on the ground. That pepper spray was deployed liberally. And that residents – even those not protesting – were effectively subjected to martial law as Gardai roamed housing estates deploying force against those they deemed suitable targets without any apparent basis for doing so.

The force also claims – in its usual oblique and hopelessly vague manner – that it is “aware of misinformation and disinformation being spread in relation to this ongoing incident”. An Garda Siochána does not specify the nature of this misinformation or disinformation. However, perhaps they could start with their own official statement.

Stepping back from the conduct of the state’s police force, the bigger picture is even more disheartening: As that lone protester asked, why is the state doing this?

For many months now, the official line of Irish officials – parroted religiously by a majority of client journalists and pundits – has been that protests against Irish immigration policy are effectively the actions of a tiny minority of hardline activists looking for trouble. This is simply not credible.

In the first instance, were it true, then it speaks entirely ill of the competence of the state that a tiny minority of individuals engaged in criminal action would still be free and at large. There are but two explanations: Either the claim that these protests are orchestrated by a fringe minority is nonsense, or the state’s security services are too incompetent to deal with a fringe minority.

In the second instance, Newtownmountkennedy is an unlikely battlefield for a fringe minority to choose. Where was this fringe minority in Roscrea? Where was it in Naas?  

The depth of public anger at the Government’s immigration policy is already beyond, it seems, the understanding of most of the media. From the perspective of the people of Newtownmountkennedy, what is happening to them is an outrage on a par with the plantation of Ireland, whether one considers that analogy fair or not. Their small community – a law abiding, peaceful place – is being asked to accept a huge influx of people of unknown origin, accommodated in tents, in a town with (until last night at least) a skeleton policing force, and very few health or other public services.

At the same time, the Government of Ireland is effectively setting up, in its own capital city, a permanent shanty town in the city centre. This week, portaloos were delivered to Mount Street to serve the toiletry needs of those living in hundreds of tents in the middle of Georgian Dublin. Clearly, the state intends for them to be there for some time.

What are the limits on the expansion of that tent city? When the tents cross the canals, or reach Merrion square, what will the state’s response be? What are the limits on the number of people that people in towns like Newtownmountkennedy are expected to accept?

These are questions to which the Government has no answer but blank stares and brute force.

Conflict in a democracy does not emerge when the system is working correctly. A democratic system is designed to arbitrate and resolve disputes peacefully. The purpose of it is to deliver a Government that listens to its people, which is why democracies tend to go to war less, and experience greatly fewer civil wars, than autocratic regimes do.

In Ireland, the system is not working correctly. Despite being repeatedly and firmly told, in endless overwhelming public opinion polls and public protests, that the public does not want the policy that it is enacting, the Government is pursuing that policy anyway. The political class appears intent on deluding itself into the belief that a majority of the public is in fact silently consenting, when in fact a majority is silently seething.

In such an atmosphere, open conflict between the state and the people is not only likely, but inevitable. Acts of violence – like arson or violence against police – must always be condemned, and are, for the avoidance of doubt, condemned by this publication.

Condemnation, however, does not prohibit explanation. When the democratic system of Government is no longer working as it should for the majority of citizenry, extra-democratic reactions are entirely likely and foreseeable. The events in Newtownmountkennedy last night do not make further such events less likely – they make them far more likely.

Over the coming days, as it can always be relied upon to do, the state-funded and state-supported Irish media will attempt, on behalf of its patron, to change the narrative and, once again, blame the public for its own discontent. For several years now, this gaslighting of the populace has been resorted to again and again: Seeing the obvious need for a limit on immigration into the state makes you a racist, or an extremist, or a member of a fringe, or “far right”, or some other label designed to make you doubt yourself while portraying an objectively extremist Government as reasonable and moderate by comparison.

This was never journalism. It was ever, and remains, the public relations function of a compromised and courtesan press.

Last night, one of our reporters, observing a defenceless man being beaten by Gardai, sought in the heat of the moment to ask them to stop. Some, seeking to defend the state or a particular idealised version of the role of journalism, have claimed that she should not have done so – that perhaps the perfect reaction would simply have been to record the event, and set her humanity to one side. We are proud that her reaction was entirely human and compassionate. She paid the price of receiving a dose of pepper spray aimed directly at her face, despite posing no threat to Gardai, and complying with their instructions. She was not alone – many other citizens received similar, or worse treatment, at the hands of the very state whose claimed purpose and duty is their defence, not their oppression.

That this cannot go on is obvious. That if it does go on much worse will follow is something that a blind man – even one blinded by pepper spray – could see.