a story of patriotism...

[August]

Darkfish vs Tribesman

Not true.
Fact is, he wasn't breaking any rules at all. It's allowed to sit in the public section of the meeting holding up banners and flags and such. Both by law and by custom.
To quote from the above article: "On a previous debate the room was densely filled with banners" He simply wasn't doing anything against the law.

By law and by custom the chair has the say in what is permitted.

The town hall is a public building where you can demonstrate all you want, as long as you don't start any trouble (shouting, fighting etc.). He didn't do any of those so he shouldn't have been asked to leave.

Because it is a public building then it is the public officials holding the meeting who decide what constitutes a disturbance to their meeting and they who decide if the people causing the disturbance should leave.
The funny thing is you say he wasn't causing trouble or shouting yet all that you have posted both from yourself and from that semi-nazi rag your dad got quoted in shows that its exactly what he was doing.

If you want any more facts, don't hesitate to ask

Facts would be a start, but failing that just carry on posting more stuff where you manage to flatly contradict your claims.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

By law and by custom the chair has the say in what is permitted.

maybe in Ireland. But here in the Netherlands the law has the say in that. The chair cannot simply throw out everyone he doesn't like.

The funny thing is you say he wasn't causing trouble or shouting yet all that you have posted both from yourself and from that semi-nazi rag your dad got quoted in shows that its exactly what he was doing.

Then I suppose you have also read that he only started shouting and causing trouble after he got arrested. Which is exactly what I said in one of my posts: "all he did was raising our flag and refusing to lower it when asked. [...] He did resist the officers, but only after he was arrested and cuffed. Most of the 'disturbance' was done by the other people protesting against him being arrested."

I must admit though the exact moment the police turned up is a bit lost in translation, making it look like the police turned up only after the "Outside the hall again following a struggle, ...", where in fact the police turns up at: "...search agents ready!" (Google translate, what do you expect)

Facts would be a start, but failing that just carry on posting more stuff ...

Well if you told me what facts you want to know...
There are too many facts to sum them all up, please ask for something more specific than just "facts" (e.g. "tell me something more about [...]").

... where you manage to flatly contradict your claims.

As you can read above I don't contradict any of my claims

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Darkfish vs Tribesman

That is awesome!

maybe in Ireland. But here in the Netherlands the law has the say in that. The chair cannot simply throw out everyone he doesn't like.

Its dutch law your father was arrested under, dutch law he was charged with and dutch law he was convicted through. Because thats the laws of the land and thats what he broke.

Then I suppose you have also read that he only started shouting and causing trouble after he got arrested.

No that piece of causing trouble came after that "pesky usher" had already told him to stop or leave. That failure alone merits arrest as under the law as that pesky usher is charged with maintaining order in the municipal meeting on the direction of the chair. To then continue after the police arrive could actually merit another charge.

As you can read above I don't contradict any of my claims

Oh but you do, and you demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.

So for entertainment value can you enlighten people as to exactly which paragraph and article of the Criminal code in your country your father was convicted of breaking.....then explain how it isn't the law in your country and how he didn't break it.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No that piece of causing trouble came after that "pesky usher" had already told him to stop or leave. That failure alone merits arrest as under the law as that pesky usher is charged with maintaining order in the municipal meeting on the direction of the chair. To then continue after the police arrive could actually merit another charge.

The making trouble only started after the police came. Maybe something else got a bit lost in translation so please cite the 1st sentence where my dad is shouting/causing trouble according to you.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

you demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.

I think I understand the Dutch law a lot better than you. I see you come from Ireland, you may know all the Irish law by heart but this isn't Ireland and we Dutchmen have got other laws.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So for entertainment value can you enlighten people as to exactly which paragraph and article of the Criminal code in your country your father was convicted of breaking.....then explain how it isn't the law in your country and how he didn't break it.

As you wish
now THAT's something more specific than just a "fact" and something I can actually help you with

OK, this is the Dutch law concerning the article my father was accused of breaking (art. 429bis-442a) (http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Wet...echt.html#2598)
The articles say the following: (allow me for leaving out some obscure articles like "you may not falsely use the name of the Red Cross" and such)
You may not:

• commit blasphemy
• when in function: discriminate because of race, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation
• be on a prohibited place without permission
• photograph/draw any military installations, without permission
• be naked on public places, unless indicated otherwise
• disturb the nightly peace
• claim a royal/noble/etc. title
• etc etc etc

You can read it for yourself, my dad did none of these things.

The making trouble only started after the police came.

No the making trouble began when he refused to follow the instructions of the official.

I think I understand the Dutch law a lot better than you. I see you come from Ireland, you may know all the Irish law by heart but this isn't Ireland and we Dutchmen have got other laws.

You demonstrate otherwise.
In fact you make it very easy.
So under the big set of laws you list can you detail the specific ones for which your father can be prosecuted?
Have a clue, the common term is trespass.
It means being somewhere you are not allowed to be ....like remaining in a council meeting after you have been told to behave or leave.
Disturbing the peace....that means the annoyance of others when you are not allowed to

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No the making trouble began when he refused to follow the instructions of the official.

refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything. As I said, if he were shouting/fighting or something it would have been a different story. But that was not the case.
Besides, the official wasn't even in his right to instruct my dad to leave, as even you acknowledge he didn't cause any trouble before that.

So under the big set of laws you list can you detail the specific ones for which your father can be prosecuted?
Have a clue, the common term is trespass.
It means being somewhere you are not allowed to be ....like remaining in a council meeting after you have been told to behave or leave.

aaargh! please don't make me sum up every single article of the Dutch law! I've got other things to do than copy-translate-pasting it all onto subsim!
But if you insist - http://wetboek.net/20090819/Sr/80ter.html?n=1
"a 'prohibited place' is any place that's indicated as prohibited under the Law for Protection of State Secrets"
I admit I don't know how many state secrets are in the public area of our local town hall, but I don't think it are many.

Disturbing the peace....that means the annoyance of others when you are not allowed to

I fully agree on that one.
But:
1) I fail to see how anyone can possibly be annoyed by seeing a flag
2) As I have said (and repeated until the end of ages it seems to me) it is completely legal to display any flags/banners and stuff. So even if anyone somehow felt annoyed by the flag, my dad was allowed to display it.

It's funny how Americans support the European fringe right wingers in some way. I think they'd be surprised if they found out what the same people have in store for America and Americans. And no, those ideas didn't die off with that little incident called World War 2.

Besides, the official wasn't even in his right to instruct my dad to leave

Yes he was.
Thats his job, keeping order in meetings.

refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything.

Of course it is.

aaargh! please don't make me sum up every single article of the Dutch law! I've got other things to do than copy-translate-pasting it all onto subsim!

Its easy, the person claiming to be your father posted the writ on that blog you linked to. The specific crime is listed at the bottom.

"a 'prohibited place' is any place that's indicated as prohibited under the Law for Protection of State Secrets"

A prohibited place is any place covered by laws and by-laws....like a government building, though even a public park or road can be a prohibited place.

I fully agree on that one.
But:
1) I fail to see how anyone can possibly be annoyed by seeing a flag

You keep on going on about "the flag". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the flag, it is entirely about his conduct.

2) As I have said (and repeated until the end of ages it seems to me) it is completely legal to display any flags/banners and stuff. So even if anyone somehow felt annoyed by the flag, my dad was allowed to display it.

Again, it has nothing to do with the flag.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Darkfish vs Tribesman