Head over to our T
Are you afraid yet?
Read more about: Uncategorized 
I always liked Halloween as a child we used to play bobbing for coins, apples on a string, wear masks and try and frighten the disinterested cat, go down to the neighbours bomb fire that me and my friends had carefully built from random bits of wood from around their farm. It was always fun. But once I remember waking up at about 1 in the morning. I went down to the Kitchen to get a drink of water. No one else was awake in the house so I decided to turn on the TV. Of course being Halloween a horror movie was on, a serial killer was running around murdering people. In one scene he hid under a person’s bed. They came in lied down, and he stabbed her repeatedly through bed with blood everywhere I screamed waking up my parents. They told me to go to bed, which I refused to do until my father checked under my bed. Now I have grown up. I watch horror movies with a glib self-satisfaction saying “they are so fake hands” to who ever is sitting next to me. See the thing is I am now an adult I have new things to fear. Like a no to Lisbon and crime.
As highlighted by Evert Tony Killian spoke about the Lisbon treaty.
that a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have serious consequences for Irish agriculture and other business sectors.
Yes people be afraid of voting No. You’ll be Doomed. Doomed. Doomed. The world will implode. Agriculture will suffer, our economy will suffer, jobs will suffer, business will suffer, fisheries will suffer, the earth will turn into Venus, the Cassidy’s will return to RTE. Ok maybe the Cassidy’s will never ever return. (Watch the View review it) but the way that everyone seems to be arguing for it , the talking points seem to be based solely on “be afraid be afraid be afraid”. I would not be surprised if the Cassidy’s pop into the debate. And this is not solely the preserve of the yes side. The no side are also about being afraid. Conscription, abortion, never have a referendum ever again, The Big Bow Wow (created by Eoghan Harris did you know) will return to RTE. The whole debate is about who has the biggest scare story. Maybe it is the result of a barely legible boring treaty where only the idea of a bogeyman will make people consider it. But the fact of the matter is the politics of the treaty is reporting it from a background of fear.
It would be nice to consider this an isolated case of fear in Irish politics. That maybe it is just due to the Treaty really doing feck all interesting. But we are not just afraid of Lisbon II
A year or two ago the Sunday Times had a headline that read. Ireland has worst crime rates in EU Now the title would seem to confirm everything Irish people think. Irelands crime was out of control. We were living in a country where it was not safe to go out alone in the day time never mind the night. The start of the article reinforced this.
IRISH people are more likely to be victims of crime than any other country in the EU — according to a new European commission study. The report, which has yet to be published — found Irish people are more at risk of assault, burglary, theft and sexual attack than most other EU states.
However if you read all the article you find this line.
the report, which is based on citizens’ experience and perceptions rather than government or police figures,
So what happens if you look at the actual police figures? Well we find Total Crime even Murder in Ireland is not only low but one of the lowest in the EU. So why is it that we perceive that we have the highest crime rate but in actual fact have one of the lowest? We believe the perception more than the reality, and as a nation warmly embrace the erosion of our freedoms by eradicating the century’s of enlightenment tradition that is the jury trial.
Our views are derived primarily through the media. Through its lens, microphones, pens and keyboards we develop our ideas. Paul Reynolds RTE’s crime correspondent in Ireland is a nightly visitor to most homes in Ireland. Across the water in the United Kingdom with far higher crime rates the BBC crime correspondent is seen far less. When asked about this in an Interview Paul Reynolds said.
So should we stop reporting serious crime such as murder here because there is a danger we are frightening people to death? Clearly I don’t believe so. If we did I’d be out of a job.But I don’t say that simply for selfish reasons of self-preservation. The fact is that we in Ireland still have a different attitude to serious crime, in particular murder, than the public or the media do say in Britain or the US. Murder is the most serious crime that can be committed. It is the unlawful taking of humanlife. The media in other countries may not report all murders but we in RTE and most ofthe Irish media do. Why? For my own and RTE’s part, and I suspect it’s the same for other media here, it’s because we believe human life is sacred
The idea that we in Ireland are somehow more caring of life then other nations seems hard to believe. Certainly looking at the crisis in A+E’s around the country and the lack of a massive ground swell of outrage at it. Do we cherish our child less than the Fins or the Belgians? The way the state turned a blind eye to clerical sex abuse for years suggests no. Take a look at Irish news and you notice a way of presenting that is also uniquely Irish. We give the criminals names like Monk, the General, the Penguin, the Viper and Dutchy as if it is some comic book or gangster film. We talk of drive bys. We glamorise it. I can’t imagine the BBC refereeing to a criminal as “the Viper”. Crime news has comes increasingly become entertainment.
We buy books by Paul Reynolds and Paul Williams with titles such as King Scum, Evil Empire, The General, Gangland and Crime Lords. All very emotive titles, that are chosen to indicate a slightly frightening image of the books contents. We Irish are frighten of everything. What would happen if we had a high murder rate like Sweden? Now that is a frightening thought.
Some might argue that is due to increased competition in the media market. But all the EU has multiple news source competing with each other. Maybe it is a symptom of having a low crime rate. We have news items about one murder, describe it in detail, show the bullet holes and crying neighbours. We cover the trial, with the accused being shuffled into court with a jacket over his face, we cover the verdict. We get a story with a start middle and an end. It captures our imagination. While in New York the news probably does not go “Last night 50 people were shot” murder comes so common it becomes banal. While in Ireland murder is not common enough for us to acclimatised to it, like we are acclimatised to famine victims in Africa on TV. If this is the case it is kind of ironic that low crime rates lead to more coverage leads to more fear of crime. Maybe if the government want to make people feel more safe they should hand out free Uzis
But that does not explain the fear around the Lisbon treaty. I don’t think the average person is that afraid of Lisbon. Confused probably, fearful unlikely. Yet the politicians on both sides seem intent on making us feel afraid. Rather than speak to us as adults they shout “BE AFRAID BE AFRAID” . Possibly it is a symptom of the a lack of ideology in Irish politics. There are no fundamental policy differences to pin point your politician, so they resort to trying to make you afraid of life without them.
Halloween is famous world wide, more widely celebrated then St Patricks Day, possibly more widely celebrated then Christmas. Maybe that tells us something. The worlds celebration of fear is originally an Irish festival. So does that mean that maybe we just like to be scared.
Post script.
After writing this I came across a piece on the Labour Website. Dominic Hannigan talking about the survey he has done on Rural life in Meath. The piece highlights rural isolation and crime. The language he uses about crime is very emotive.
“Criminals prowling the countryside”
“Meath becoming a playground for criminals”
All that language is not going to make people feel any safer in their homes.
Just as a matter of interest. For Burglary which is most mentioned in this piece. According to the 2003-2006 statistics.(newest I could find) Louth/Meaths Burglary rate (page 88). in 2006 was 5.65 per 1,000 people compared to state average of 5.72. In 2007 5.76 in Meath 5.29 nation wide. Or about 1 in every 176 in Meath gets burgled.
For comparrison the rate in Labours favourite country Sweden is 10.57.
Just saying.
I did a piece on the murder rate at the end of last year. http://www.keith.gs/2008/12/crime-getting-worse/
Basically, it’s a combination of saturation coverage and poor risk analysis/understanding. I think.
Interesting post it is odd. I have posted on this a few times before it never ceases to amaze me. Maybe ignorance is bliss in some ways.
Post Script posted after these comments
I can’t help feel that some of the fear angle stems from the 1980s referendum experiences where fear and overly emotive language won the day over rational argument. The pro-life amendment had people accusing those opposed of being murders, actually more than ‘accusing’ they were screaming it at them in public meetings. I recall watching it thinking that this is no way to find the best solution to a problem.
And the divorce referendum was a bad. From then on it appears that the establishment side in a referendum feels they have to try and get their fear angle out first in case they leave the crazy ground to the opposition whoever they may be.
I decided after a long period of reflection (that’s political talk for dithering) to vote Yes last time out, quite late in the day. One of the main reasons being that we were not likely to get a better deal. I wasn’t enthusiastic about Lisbon, I’m still not but I will vote Yes because I’m not marrying it I’m just trying to work with it.
That is how I would like to see someone make the case, and to then couple that with being up front about confronting the crazy people by telling everyone else that they are crazy. The crazies see abortion, gay marriage, conscription in European Armies and the conversion into slaves of ‘working people’ in every blooming treaty and have done since we joined in 1973. They weren’t right then, they haven’t been right since, they won’t be right in the future. There is a time to be polite and there is a time to call a halt to this indulgence that all views are required to be equally scrutinised, they’re not. By all means be calm about it but it must be repeated again and again, some people in this debate are crazy.
Re Lisbon, the whole “You’ll be Doomed. Doomed. Doomed.” aspect is/was essentially the same on the No side – higher taxes, microchipped babies, European war machines, abortion on demand, etc.
While the “No” campaign is mostly led by people with an ambiguous attitude (to put it kindly) towards the entire European project, it is an enormous shame that the “Yes” side cannot promote all of the positive aspects of being part of an enlarged and more efficiently run European Union. Instead, fear is what won it for the “No” campaign first time around and it will most likely win it for the “Yes” campaign this time around. As Bartholomew J. Simpson once said, the ironing is delicious.
Re crime, welcome to conservative Ireland dude. Where ye been? According to Paschal Donohoe in the Senate the other day, “Dublin Central has been utterly terrorised by the existence of gangs and what they have done”. News to me, but I have only lived and worked there for years. Still, there has always been right-wing votes to procure and right-wing newspapers to sell by frightening the life out of old ladies. Ain’t nothing new in that.
@Dan
I was in a similar situation, in fact I was going to vote No until I attended a debate between Alan Dukes and Joe Higgins a week before polling and changed my mind. I’d also agree that this isn’t an ideal treaty, I’m not voting for it because I want, more that I want it more than I want to not want it – if that makes any sense.
@Longman Oz
“it is an enormous shame that the “Yes” side cannot promote all of the positive aspects of being part of an enlarged and more efficiently run European Union”
Problem is this is a mere tidying up treaty that doesn’t *really* do anything tangible, it’s hard to display the improvements it might make to one individual’s day-to-day life, let alone sell it on those merits.
Mark, I have become very wary of that “tidying up” argument. It was initially used by the Establishment as a means of minimising the importance of the treaty. “Its all rather dry and technical, folks. Just sign here and here and don’t be worrying your pretty little heads about what the contract says. We know best (even if we haven’t read the shagging thing, given Bertie’s bother, the upcoming summer hols, and all).”
Following the referendum, this argument then magically transformed itself into an excuse for why it had been so hard to convince the public to vote in favour of the treaty. Of course, the noise in the background was that of returing chickens cackling over the best roosting spots.
Yes, Lisbon is not a standalone document. Yes, it is stuffed with cross-references in its drafting. Yes, it must be understood in the context of the previously ratified treaties. However, here are a few quick examples of underpromoted aspects of the Treaty that can only help to improve the lot of Sean & Nuala McCitizen:
* It will make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. Anyone with half a heart and even less of a brain could sell the provisions of such a document.
* It gives action on climate change a stronger legal impetus. A greener, better future for your (grand)children, anyone?
* It introduces principles of solidarity on matters such as disaster relief and energy supply. My prediction is that energy is going to be the biggest international issue of the next quarter-century. Given that we are a small island, at the far end of the Russian gas pipelines, and with huge energy import requirements, anything that promotes solidarity here is crucial to our national interest. The turbulence will still be bad, but its a step in the right direction.
Anyway, while some of these are not the weightiest aspects of the treaty, a smart person could easily build a case too for a better, fairer, more efficient EU out of the bulkier articles.
Indeed, there is a famous marketing line about selling the sizzle rather than the sausage. However, last time out, the Establishment took a disinterested and low key approach to Lisbon I and it backfired spectacularly on them, as they ended up fighting a huge rearguard action against a motivated and well funded opposition who brillantly turned it into a debate on their terms.
In truth, anyone with a touch of creativity could have readily found ways to properly promote Lisbon. However, to have done the job correctly would have meant spending funds from the political parties’ own coffers (thanks Patricia!) and none of them wanted to do that. Far better to stick airbrushed pictures of local councillors up on the lamp posts, etc.
Lisbon I was promoted on the cheap and they got stuffed. The “tidying up” excuse was one of the smokescreens used to mask that fact. So, sorry, I am not having it!
Great post, and a good point by Dan about “calling out” the crazies, rather than humouring them in the interest of balance.
@Mark, it is always a function of these EU treaties that it is easier to speak passionately and emotionally against them than for them, especially with what you correctly call this “tidying up treaty”.
As a matter of fact FG did spend some of its own money on Lisbon MARK 1 (all the spending was published afterwards) FF spent an embarrasingly small amount, but FF don’t do embarrasment.