Ray D'Arcy is leaving Today FM for RTÉ

Richard, all decent people distance themselves from extremists regardless of what side of debate they are on.

Youth Defence organised the march on Saturday. It appears that a lot of “decent people” are unaware of their true nature or else they don’t really care what they have engaged in. Most of them were institutionalised and/or brainwashed by nationalism and religion.

Damn right Paddy. The presence of that complete numpty Ganley only goes to show the Bierkeller episode’s on the way.

It works the same way that far right groups work everywhere, a cause is identified which excites public opinion – it might be immigration, abortion, no to Brussells etc. – and the extremist group will target people of more moderate persuasions to get involved under their umbrella. And before you know it you have a large vocal movement. By which time the very loud voice that is heard is the voice of the extremists.
Similar scenarios are the UKIP party in England, who have problems with infiltration by the extremely nasty (and Nazi) EDF and BNP
So long as reason prevails the extremists won’t gain the upper hand. But they do enormous damage to the image and credibility of the movements they get involved with. Conscientious and moderate anti-abortion campaigners would be wise to steer well clear of YD and the like.

Graham, I agree with your post wholeheartedly but must make one correction.
EDF is Electrcite De France, a huge power company and I very much doubt they get involved in this sort of thing. Your fast fingers really meant EDL – English Defence League and they are a reprehensible bunch.
Apologies for being Mr Pedantic on such a beautiful day. :-)

They have charitable status…hilarious, do RIRA have charitable status?

In case anyone missed it:

http://www.webcitation.org/6HykTrxkz

I can only give you one green thumb B. Unless any of you know how to hack the Journal.ie…?

As a friend of mine just said on facebook: Karma runs over Dogma?

It’s “Your karma killed my dogma”

oh i see, hacking is wrong but your bigotry excuses it when it suits you

Miraculously, a bit like the Immaculate Conception!

Youth defence…. brainwashed society, somehow I can only think of Salem witch trials when I see Youth defence….

In order to accept donations in Ireland you need to be a registered charity so yes they have claimed their status on many occasions. They use the qualifying strand of education as opposed to religion as they cannot prove charitable deeds done in the name of religion

They are not a charity if you check the register.

They can be registered as anything, could be………….
‘I’m a charity but won’t follow the rules Limited’
Trading as ‘YD’.

For everyone’s info, there’s no body or authority responsible for the registration of charities, and there’s no requirement for charities to register with anyone before they can operate as a charity. The only registration per se is with Revenue, who maintain a list of charities that avail of tax emption status on various taxes like corporation tax, capital gains tax, DIRT, etc. But Revenue’s function is only to determine if the organisation is eligible for charitable tax exemption status, not to establish the bona fides of the charity itself.

More “Friend in high places”, no doubt!

More “light touch” regulation, no doubt….

if they are not a registered charity they MUST pay tax , do they, ? errm no

Ah, yeah, I know he’s in a tricky situation, I just wanted to stick in a ‘freedom of choice’ gag. I’m having trouble with my glee levels this morning since reading this.

The billboard company ought to be boycotted.
And what’s the law on this? This sort of advertising wouldn’t be allowed of TfL in London – far right Christian advertising has had to remove certain posters there in the recent past.
Some of the material used in this campaign is arguably breaking accepted advertising guidelines.
I’m not convinced that, for instance, it is suitable for viewing by children. Yet it is writ large for all the kiddies to see even if it is inappropriate.

Yeah right, you are so concerned about what the poor kiddies read. Does aborting children bother you at all? Laughable.

yeah that would be one to see alright.

Don’t think it’s right to betray the privacy of subscribers. The funding would have been of relevance to the situation, but the subscribers may just have had no idea who they were supporting, they would be innocent parties and their info should not have been shared. Glad to hear it was removed.

Ra-men!

I’d agree with you on names and email addresses of subscribes (unfair and too far) – the country of origin information is the only relevant section and individuals should not be targetted.

But the rest of it is publicly available information they’ve tried very hard to hide. Not to mention the outright lies they tell women about abortion causing breast cancer – which is indefensible. I totally agree with you that the individuals following them deserve protection.

When the information that they publically display and promote is factually incorrect and serves only to further religious extremism then it is fair game for attack.

This is not an attack on personal, private freedoms or property – this is an attack to expose a truth that the people of this country deserve to know.

Sorry ya, I would totally object to the list of individuals names. A step too far altogether but other than that I’m fine with it!

Diarmaid, when “a criminal carries out an act of crime against another human being” we have a justice system to address that. I can’t agree with you saying they’re “fair game”. What you’re implicitly saying here is that vigilantes have a “right” to break the law if they believe others have broken the law also. Most people would say that this leads society down a dangerous path. As I said, we have a justice system to address unlawful attacks on others.

The hacker has taken down the list of users now I see, but all other content is intact.

Truth was exposed. Nothing else. Build a bridge, no one was hurt, just YDs ability to lie.

It’s not illegal to call women murders, to tell a rape survivor that most women who are raped deserved it, to claim abortion causes breast cancer, to advocate that parenting by gay couples is a form of abuse.

Unethical – but not illegal. Luckily for Youth Defence, none of that can be pursued through the legal system.

They haven’t taken down the list, just removed the link from the hacked site. The lists are still in pastebin.

There is no vigilante attack here Del, slow down, if Youth Defence insist on spreading lies, I am glad that someone used their stage to promote the truth about them, however briefly. I understand the point you’re getting at, but I think you are giving Youth Defence too much credit. They don’t deserve the rights of our society cause they trample all over other peoples themselves. The irony in them trying to undo 2 democratic referenda whilst you sticking up for their rights I hope is not lost on you and others?

Looking at these comments the following comes to mind: doing evil in the name of good is still doing evil.

They are a fairly prominent voice, therefore they should expect such attacks. It’s on them to ensure their site is secure enough. I guess the majority of online users focused around this act just don’t support youth defence’s beliefs…. like the Irish population. The hackers made their point and I feel it was a point worth making.

Hacking of websites like this is an effective means of protest. Web sites exist in the public sphere so hacking a website is morally equivalent to putting a poster over another poster on a noticeboard. If anything I’d say hacking websites like this is good for democracy and exchange of ideas in this PR banalities driven world which does nothing but obfuscate the truth.

Nobody was harmed, it raised public interest into valid criticism of Youth Defence, and it won’t take much for youth Defence to restore their site. Nothing wrong with this.

What rubbish Stephen

I agree with you on this one Del. Totally opposed to YD and their FUD scaremongering, but like you said, trying to censor an organisation by hacking their website shows a disturbing moral relativism on the part of the hackers, and an intolerance towards other viewpoints no matter how repugnant.

A better quote would be, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it..” – Martin Luther King.

I’d buy the hackers a pint.

an interesting read re the subscribers, glad I saved a copy ;)

Eric you assume that everyone’s views no matter how offensive or ludicrous should be tolerated. This has never and never will be the case.

Youth Defence and their views will never be tolerated in Ireland.

As one poster above said, hacking a website is akin to defacing a poster.

Diarmaid, again, I don’t agree with Youth Defence, but to say “they don’t deserve the rights of our society” simply because you believe that they don’t is an incredible statement. Until any Irish citizen has been found guilty of breaking the law I hope we are all entitled to our rights. I find it frankly bizarre that people would disagree with the suggestion that we allow the courts to address allegations of criminal behaviour. This is hardly a radical suggestion. I’d ask you to consider what your reaction would be if a pro-life nut hacked a website for a centre that managed terminations, and posted supporter/patient details online? Most right-thinking people would agree that this would be a reprehensible attack – but it appears to me that for some people, so long as violations of common decency/the law are carried out against people they disagree with or dislike, it’s “fair game”. Sorry, this is just utter crap, no matter how much window-dressing you do.

I would mind if Choice Ireland was hacked and its supporters posted – but if they had links to Neo-Nazis (which is totally legal, by the way) – it would be fair enough to broadcast it.

@aidan how is it rubbish?

What “evil” are you on about?
One organisation tells lies and another hacked them for spreading lies. I fail to see where the “evil” is. Stop blowing things out of proportion, or are you a subscriber to YD and therefore prone to making idiotic statements?

Del, again you’re mis-reading what I am saying! This is not an attack on a group because of the side they are on. I don’t know why you continue to refuse to accept that point I have made already. Youth Defence have used every shameful tactic in the book to spread propaganda. They put a Santa themed poster of a foetus outside schools for children to see, they have parked abortion trucks outside rape centres, they have links of vile facist movements, I as a citizen of this country am not glad they have been hacked because I oppose their view, I believe in free speech and democracy above all else, but I am glad they have been hacked because they are backed by foreign interests with no regard for you or I! That’s why they don’t deserve our respect! Anyway, free speech in itself is being exercised by this very move! Youth Defence like spreading propaganda in any which way, the geese are coming home to roost!

Alan, I’m not assuming anything. I’m a proponent of free speech, which unfortunately exposes me to some pretty repugnant (in my view) points of view, but I also feel the pros outweight the cons.

Hacking a website and defacing a poster is a total false equivalence. Defacing a poster doesn’t expose the personal details of those who printer the poster, designed it, funded it. There also tends to be more than one copy of a poster, whereas hacking is a centralised attack that everybody who visits the website sees. You could call it vigilantism if YD were performing a criminal attack, but it’s just vandalism now. You don’t win a debate by excluding the opposing view, you win it by proving the soundness of your arguments and the fallacies of theirs.

I don’t agree one iota with YD or their message, but I also don’t agree with attacks on websites due some arbitrary justification or moral viewpoint. It’s a slippery slope from there to outright censorship.

What is your opinion on the Snowden case Del? There is an interesting comparison!

If you engage in public activism, taking a highly controversial and minority view on a topic on which people have very strong feelings, then you can expect activism in opposition to yours. The onus really is on you to ensure that you have robust security on your website, it’s not like hacking is a new thing.

I’d file this hack under ‘hacktivism’, which does not change its legality of course, but does put a different slant on it – it’s not purely malicious hacking, it’s an activist action designed to show another site to an organisation which regularly disseminate false and inaccurate information.

I would have a problem with releasing the subscriber lists though. People, whatever their views, have a right to their data being kept private and a right to their views, whatever they may be. Also, there will be more than a few names on that list for the purpose not of support but of keeping an eye on what Youth Defence are doing.

Diarmaid, you say you believe in free speech, but everything else you say contradicts this. Defending free speech means you tolerate (*tolerate*, not *agree with*) the right of people to speak, even if what they speak is hateful and/or false. Voltaire understood and believed in the concept of freedom of speech. He said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” You have done nothing but defend the breach of people’s privacy and property, based solely on the fact that you dislike their politics and political tactics. As someone here has already pointed out, while Youth Defence’s tactics may very well be distasteful, there’s a huge difference between distasteful and illegal.

I just can’t stand this ridiculous argument: “it’s up to you to ensure your website is secure”. That nonsense can be used to justify any break-in. “Yes the burglar broke into your house, but to be fair they’ve done nothing wrong because it’s up to you to make sure your house is secure. If anything the burglar is providing a valuable public service by pointing out which houses are unsecure!” < What utter, utter nonsense! It's astounding how some people intent on defending something will twist basic logic and common sense.

@aidan
Firstly I am not with youth defence but might start subscribing to there newsletter for a bit of comedy reading. I am not on the same side as them.
The evil that was done was someone hacked a website (which is illegal). I’m not defending what yd does just that what was done to there site was illegal, if it was done to anyother website I wouldn’t be condoning it either.

I despise YD but I have to agree with everything Del has said here. Whether they are spreading lies or not is not the issue, vigilante justice is not the way to tackle it. Misinformation should be tackled with education, not aggression, and judging by the comments here and elsewhere, their misinformation isn’t actually convincing many people anyway. Today YD may be target, tomorrow perhaps political opponents – we should never strive to silence people just because they have a different opinion to ourselves.

Lies are not opinions.

Del, please answer my question on Snowden and surely the website being hacked is a form of free speech wouldn’t you think?

People resort to vigilantism when they feel other avenues are closed to them. Pro-choice side is a social movement, without comparable generous funding – it would be impossible to bring up any inquiries (or law suits) without State support. I think that’s what prompted the action while government is busy doing the next election maths.
I am certain to raise the issue with YD neo-nazi affiliations with my TD and I would also expect Ms.Creighton make a public statement distancing herself from Youth Defense.

Diarmaid, I see people who have harshly criticised Obama in previous weeks for breaches of citizens’ personal data defending the hacking of personal data in the case of YD. *Both are wrong!* Now, the YD hack wasn’t covert, it’s plain for all to see that it’s been done, but if we subsequently have an Ed Snowden type character to reveal the YD hacker’s identity, I’d say bravo to him or her. I am vehemently anti-government snooping on personal data, and if you are too then you’re being logically inconsistent by not condemning the person who breached personal private data on the YD site.

Do you believe Snowden was right? He did it for the good of the people, as did those who leaked the Anglo Tapes. Both those sets of info were private info leaked to the public in a seemingly “illegal” way? I presume you condemn the leaking of the anglo tapes too because even if something is for the public good, which clearly it is to know that Youth Defence have dubious links, funding etc, you don’t care?

Del, You seem to presume that the internet is just like your typical estate in a town.. you couldn’t be further off. It’s not like there’s some Gardai patrolling around every server protecting them from hackers. There is no effective regulation of the net, its a medium for expression of ideas and culture. As such regulation or monitoring will only stifle these expressions. With your completely ill compared concept of a house to a website you place too much importance on the notion of property of a website. For one, the site is hosted in the US, so YD doesn’t even physically own it. What the hackers did, to use a previously mentioned analogy, was deface a poster. In this specific politically biased situation it is as effective and expected as campaigning door to door or preaching in the town square. The only thing affected by it are peoples opinions, just like this comment.

Diarmaid, if an insider leaks info to the press, in particular concerning his/her organisation violating the rights of citizens under the law, this is justified. If the “whistleblower” has breached terms of his contract he may have a legal case to answer, but (not being a legal-eagle myself) I doubt an org can legally contract an employee to keep silent about them systematically breaking of the law. Not following YD at all I’ve no idea if they’ve broken any laws – perhaps you know if they have?

Michael, one can rent a house and still be entitled not to have it broken into. If someone rents virtual server space on a dedicated or virtual box, an attempt to break into the site is still an attack both on the hosting company’s property and the end-user’s rights. Incidentally, I work in an internet hosting company.

Del, it’s worth noting the end user’s right are largely dictated by that hosting company, a private business not a government. Scenarios arise where such businesses engage in questionable activities such as “evicting” users on no moral grounds (Amazon and Wikileaks comes to mind), or giving end users’ private data to third parties (prism). If the hosting companies engage in such activities for their own interests, it’s no surprise digital activists follow suit. The traditional concept of property cannot be transferred into the digital realm.

I think the quote is actually; “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”.
I know of a large academy, (senior school), that has it displayed as a permanent feature, and writ large, in their reception area.
Great motto to guide the youngsters and should be widely displayed.

Joseph, you are right, that’s why good men hacked YD’s site.

But John Bowe and David Drumm don’t seem at first to have broken any laws and it wasn’t an insider leaked them? It was the Gardai! By your logic the Gardai are trampling on bankers rights by revealing the info or am I wrong, do you take a more a la carte approach? Something ironically you have accused me of!

“but to say “they don’t deserve the rights of our society” simply because you believe that they don’t is an incredible statement.”

Del, in case you hadn’t noticed that is the central plank of the pro-choice argument. The idea that rights can be denied to a certain group (in this case the unborn) because we say so.
As such I am not surprised at their reaction to the website hacking at all.

Another thing that really annoys me is why pro-choicers always have to organise a counter demonstration. This for me pushes the boundaries of free speech and borders on attempts to censor opposing viewpoints. I would of course equally condemn pro-lifers for any counter demonstrations they organise too.

The ‘hactivists’ have also accessed personal data regarding the users of the website.
& posted here by several commenters as a link.
suppose someone gets targeted or hurt here?
Under the law, who would be liable or held responsible?.
(I) The hackers, (ii) the commenters who post the link here, (iii) or those that publish the link?

Michael, if a hosting company as part of their T&Cs insist their users forfeit rights to any data they store on their servers, and if a user signs up to those T&Cs, that is fair enough. While system administrators accept hacking attempts as a routine part of the job, that doesn’t mean hacking is okay (security companies also accept break-in attempts as a part of their job too, it doesn’t mean break-ins are okay). There’s nothing stopping orgs setting up their own private servers it should be noted. Aside from that, while I agree with you on traditional property rights not applying to much of the internet (and digital data including copyright in particular), I don’t think the same can be said for servers, which are clearly people’s property. The fact that this may be impossible to police/trace is irrelevant. I don’t think either of us would agree that we should forget about applying private property rights laws to rural areas where police presence is low or non-existent because catching clandestine thiefs is almost impossible.

Any chance of addressing my point Del seeing as though you seem to be the all knowing one here!?

Diarmaid, it was the Gardaí who leaked the Anglo Tapes and not an Anglo/IBRC insider? Source?

Diarmaid, “all knowing one”? I’m entitled to an opinion like anyone else. I’m always open to being convinced I’m wrong.

Del, yes I agree that hacking a server is not OK. There should however be regulation on how much hosting companies can dictate in their T&Cs. To use your house analogy, regulation dictates landlords cannot just evict a tenant whenever it is at their convenience. A similar perspective should be placed on ISPs and hosting companies as information is a high profile commodity. You are correct that hacking in this context is not okay (hacking can be quite a generic term), the degree to which it is not OK is worth considering however. Jay walking, to my knowledge, is illegal in Ireland but your not going to suffer 10 years in jail for doing it. “Hacktivists” perform hacks with the aim of expressing their views, no self gain or profit came from this YD hacking. It is another means of free speech, keep hacking illegal as it is highly relevant in other contexts, but don’t imply censorship by using the might of the law to prevent this mode of free speech