Three people arrested after thousands gathered for protests in Dublin city centre
Thousands attended an anti-immigration protest on Saturday afternoon, which was met by a counter demonstration organised by the group United Against Racism outside the GPO.
There was a significant garda presence along O'Connell Street and Luas services were disrupted as a result.
Gardaí have confirmed that three people were arrested for public order offences as they policed a number of public gatherings in the city centre yesterday afternoon.
"No further information on these arrests is available. No major incidents of note occurred,' a garda spokesperson said.
In a video filmed in the Garden of Remembrance before the protest, MMA fighter Conor McGregor, dressed in a three-piece suit, told those leading the march to 'be calm, be clear, speak with dignity'.
He said it was a protest against 'the failure of the Irish government and our full disapproval of it'.
McGregor, who is appealing the verdict reached by a civil jury last November which found that he sexually assaulted Nikita Hand in the Beacon Hotel in 2018 and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages, has recently signalled his intention to run in the Irish presidential election.
It is unlikely that he will receive sufficient support to appear on the ballot as candidates need to be nominated by 20 members of the Oireachtas or four local authorities.
He was not spotted in the crowd of protestors and he did not return to address the rally when it gathered outside the Custom House.
Dublin City councillors Malachy Steenson, Gavin Pepper and Philip Sutcliffe delivered speeches alongside Fingal councillor Patrick Quinlan, while a number of anti-immigration activists were also present.
Thousands of protestors walked down O'Connell Street, with many carrying tricolour flags and a number wearing green 'Make Ireland Great Again' baseball caps.
Participants held up signs with slogans including 'Irish lives matter', 'Coolock Says No', and 'Ireland is Full'.
One banner featured pictures of McGregor, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Shouts and chants heard during the protest included 'get them out' and 'Ireland for the Irish'.
Both the protest and counter demonstration also chanted: 'Whose streets? Our streets.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
3 hours ago
- Irish Independent
How Paul McGrath saved Ireland's blushes as Luxembourg almost derailed journey on rocky road to Euro 88
They are the figures from our past that caused us harm, not all of them famous but names that live on in a special chapter of Irish football history. People like Wim Kieft in 1988, Goran Stavrevski in 1999, William Gallas in 2009, Gerson Rodrigues in 2021, scorers of goals which left a deep mark on the Irish psyche.
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Fergus Finlay: Let's restore people's dignity by going back to the Constitution
What are my fundamental obligations as a citizen of Ireland? The Constitution spells out two, in Article 9, and it uses the word fundamental to describe them. I must be faithful to the nation and loyal to the State. In addition, if I am a parent, I have some additional duties in relation to the welfare and education of my children. None of that seems unreasonable to me. I'm proud of being Irish, never wanted to live anywhere else, always wanted to ensure that my children and their children had the same sense of pride as I have. But I've always wondered why the drafters of our Constitution never thought that the country might have the occasional duty to its citizens and all the people who live here. This is exclusive subscriber content. Already a subscriber? Sign in Subscribe to access all of the Irish Examiner. Annual €120€60 Best value Monthly €10€4 / month Unlimited access. Subscriber content. Daily ePaper. Additional benefits.
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
