Apr 5, 2011
The Policing of Corrib Exposed
It’s effectively gone viral on the internet that last Thursday, members of an Garda Síochána, while discussing the arrest of a protestor joked about getting immigration on her and raping her. It beggars belief. Excerpts from the transcript have been posted on the Irish Times and audio clips are available here. “Hold it, give me your name and address there or I’ll rape you.”
These guards have joked about immigration, rape and the protestors involved in the dispute. Sure, police organisations are pretty macho places, and lots of research has been done on what’s called cop canteen culture – how police officers speak to each other in the canteen. It’s all about banter, bluster and bravado and should not be confused with the subculture that affects how they carry out their job. Canteen culture is all talk. Fielding has written that one of the key characteristics of this culture is “exaggerated heterosexual orientations, often articulated in terms of exaggerated misogynistic and patriarchal towards women” (in Just Boys Doing Business by Newburn and Stanko). That certainly seems to be the case here; it would be hard to imagine police making sexual comments about a male protestor. But these weren’t just sexual comments. They weren’t saying they wanted to have sex with her. They said they wanted to rape her.
That any person would say such a thing is disgusting. But for a police officer, who is supposed to uphold the law, to protect us where possible from crimes being committed against us… Well, of course, I and others have argued already here that the policing of the Corrib Gas Dispute has repeatedly shown us that that is not what happens. Those of you who have read our posts (here, here and here as well as our blog carnival which starts here), followed the story in the news, watched the Pipe or clips on YouTube will know that the police have not protected the protestors wherever possible, and in fact have often contributed to the danger they have faced.
Police officers deal with rape victims on a regular basis. They see the pain, trauma, anguish suffered by these people, women predominantly. For them to make a joke of that is an insult. They still don’t see rape victims enough, in the sense that rape is a massively underreported crime. A lot of women and men fear coming forward and this ’story’ will not improve that situation. Rape is an exceptionally serious crime and for police officers to joke about that, to use it as part of their banter, is entirely unacceptable and could have dreadful consequences. And imagine the impact for the woman concerned, to hear men make such comments about you, simply because you exercise your right to protest.
Equally unacceptable are the comments on immigration and how it would be used against the protestors. A commitment to a fair, unbiased and human rights based approach to policing in Ireland, and in particular the policing of the Corrib Gas Dispute, is evidently lacking. Let us be clear that this is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the police force. In 2005 legislation was introduced to regulate the police and one of the many aims was to make it easier for the Commissioner to dismiss members of the force – something which had proven difficult in the wake of the Morris Tribunal. Section 14 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 states:
The Garda Commissioner may dismiss from the Garda Síochána a member not above the rank of inspector if i) by reason of the member’s conduct (which includes any act or omission) his or her continued membership would undermine public confidence in the Garda Síochána and ii) the dismissal of that member is necessary to maintain that confidence.
This situation merits and requires this response. We need to see now that it is accepted that this behaviour undermines our confidence in the Gardaí and if severe action is not taken that confidence cannot be restored. We have been told that senior officers have been appointed to investigate what happened. I find it hard not to be cynical and worry that this is an attempt to be seen to be doing something. Action should be swift and decisive and send a clear message to other members about what is acceptable policing. On this occasion, we have a video of what happened and its largely through garda incompetence that we have that. The question that hangs in the air is whether this is just what normal happens, is this the usual banter in North Mayo, indeed is this the usual banter elsewhere? This incident raises very serious questions as to the attitudes of police officers to their job in Ireland.
We also must not ignore the reason why this woman was put in this position in the first place. She was protesting against the development of the final stage of the project, the onshore pipeline. This aspect is currently being challenged in the courts and the High Court has agreed to fast track the application. You can read about the case here.
Who going to report rape now? since the Garda joke about it. I can see rape victims saying to themselves the Garda having a good laugh or making insults in private etc about the victims in partrol car etc. Sadly do these police men not have training about rape etc at Templemore, Co. Tipperary?
Way too much censorship infringes peoples rights of expression.
Any thoughts on the lawyer’s answer to a related question which is burning up twitter right now: whether the recording – of a “private” conversation between on-duty police officers not held in the presence of the women about whom the comments were made – should have been broadcast at all(http://twitter.com/#!/search/corribcops)?
If the argument is about defamation/right to privacy, it seems to me that, in the first place, the guards would have been unlikely to succeed in getting an injunction restraining the broadcast. See Cogley v RTE (broadcast of Lea’s Cross documentary) http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2005/H180.html&query=privacy+and+recording&method=boolean . The relevant parts of the judgment are summarised here at [59] – [63] – http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H248.html&query=cogley+and+privacy&method=boolean
As for admission in disciplinary proceedings, maybe Devoy v. The Right Honourable Lord Mayor, Aldermen & Burgesses of Dublin, Beattie, Heavey & Brooks would apply?
Comment to Máiréad Enright:
Dear Madame,
Your comment and post is most interesting. As a lawyer, I had also considered the “private” aspect of the conversation between the Gards in question and I agree that they do indeed have the right to say anything they may in private, even during their time on-duty.
However, on-duty Gards have an obligation to maintain an acceptable immage and the public’s confidence in the Gardai. A lack of discretion should therefore qualify as a failure to fulfill this obligation and permit disciplinary action.
Effectively, in neglecting to ensure that a prisoner’s recording device, which the Gards had in their posession, was turned off during their “silly” banter about rape, and then returning it to the prisoner without ensuring that they had not been recording themselves, is indeed a lack of diligence in being discrete about their “silly banter”. Handing over a recording of a private conversation should, in my opinion, disqualify the conversation from being “private”… and therefore open to publication/broadcasting
Furthermore, the fact that the Gards handed over a recording of their conversation to the owner of the recording device, albeit inadvertantly, should, in my oppinion, be tutamount to inadvertantly letting a persone at a neighbouring table listen in on one’s conversation.
Otherwise said, can a conversation in the presence of the public be qualified as “private”? I think not, especially when the voices are comming from men clad in uniforms of a public service designated to assist and protect citizens.
Given these circumstances, it appears to me that because the men were on-duty Gards AND did not take sufficient care and attention to keep their conversation secret, their words should indeed fall within the public domain and should be permited to be used against them.
J.O. McCarthy
Maitre en Droit
I agree with your analysis Justin. I think in the circumstances they can’t really claim privacy.
Indeed. But even if they could, it wouldn’t foreclose the possibility of publication.