Jobstown verdict casts shadow on democracy

YESTERDAY’S acquittal of the Jobstown protesters is a clear illustration of the democratic justice system in action.

Paul Murphy and his fellow accused were charged, tried in a court of law, and found innocent by a jury of their peers.

That such a judgment must now be acknowledged, accepted, and respected is, therefore, a given. For that is precisely how the rule of law must operate.

Nevertheless, all anyone needs to do to remind themselves of precisely what went on that afternoon in Jobstown is to view the video footage from the day in question – Saturday, November 15, 2014.

For what you are presented with surely constitutes, at the very least, what can only be deemed to be objectionable behaviour.

And in relation to the frightening situation that the-then tánaiste Joan Burton and her adviser Karen O’Connell found themselves in, it prompts one very important question: Would you like that to be you? Would you like to be in a position whereby you are simply going to work, doing the job you are paid to do, only to find yourself trapped in your car and at the mercy of baying protesters?

Would you think that it was reasonable to be subjected to that?

In the opinion of this newspaper, the answer to that question is a categoric no.

People feel angry about many things in society – bin charges, the tax regime, the housing crisis, our inadequate health service. To feel angry when we witness an injustice is natural. More than that, it is the correct human response.

But in a democracy, there is a legitimate way of addressing that anger, a proper pathway to achieving policy change so that wrongs can be righted for the benefit of all.

That way is to use the democratic process, a process that relies on citizens accepting the decision of the majority in democratic elections.

The right to protest is, of course, an essential part of democracy.

But there is a difference between peaceful protest and mob rule.

The major marches against the water charges, the pensioners presenting their case outside the Dáil, the picketing of Dunnes Stores back in the Eighties – none of these involved the vilification, abuse, and personal targeting of individuals that we witnessed in Jobstown.

Nor, indeed, when we view the nature of protest through an international prism do we see such abhorrent behaviour.

Look at the Martin Luther King rallies, at the way in which Gandhi and his supporters conducted themselves, and what you see is orderly, peaceful demonstration.

For the Jobstown protesters to insist that their intimidatory and incendiary behaviour was peaceful protest is simply ludicrous.

The real danger now, in the light of yesterday’s verdict, is that on any given issue, any disgruntled group of people will feel entitled to raise a mob, turn up at a politician’s place of work, and unleash a tirade of abuse.

And let’s bear in mind that there are a number of contentious issues coming down the political tracks – not least the highly sensitive abortion debate.

But whether relating to abortion, to homelessness or to education reform, the last thing we want to see is individual politicians being stalked by screaming groups of angry people in a manner that can only be profoundly worrying and potentially damaging for society.

The job of any jury is to make a finding on the presented evidence.

Yesterday’s jury did that and we thank them for their service. Ultimately, however, this verdict, and the message that it sends out, constitutes a dark day for democracy and casts a long shadow over the whole democratic process.