Article of the Day

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Back to the point of Carnsore

    The anti-nuclear festivals at Carnsore Point, 1978-1981, were recalled at a lively and political event called ‘Memory of a Free Festival’ at the Projects Arts Centre in central Dublin which will now tour nationwide for a year By Caroline Hurley The launch event of ‘Memory of A Free Festival’ was held at the Project Arts Centre, on 21 March 2026.‘Memory of a Free Festival’ is a project conceived by Ormston House Cultural Resource Centre, Limerick, in response to the series of Carnsore Point anti-nuclear festivals that took place in Wexford between 1978 and 1981. Organised by a coalition of groups, the festivals were attended a generation ago by tens of thousands of people unhappy about government proposals to build Ireland’s first nuclear power plant. The free festivals laid on music, theatre, food, lectures, workshops and exhibitions. They are testimony to citizen creativity and democratic activism, for which formal recognition is long overdue. ‘Nearly fifty years later, this commemorative touring project features contributions from contemporary artists and original organisers, among others’ Nearly fifty years later, this commemorative touring project features contributions from contemporary artists and original organisers, among others. It will run in various formats and venues for one year, until March 2027, starting with the recent event at the Project Theatre. Fresh Promotion of Nuclear Energy With Europe importing half the energy it uses and prices rising, worsened by AI data centre demand and fossil fuelled wars, pressure for solutions is intense. Voices for nuclear power are growing louder and now count European leaders who, at the Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris on 10 March 2026, backed expansion of nuclear energy, purportedly for greater independence and affordability. the progress made by solar, wind and other far safer, cheaper and faster renewable energy is compelling, especially if the budgets available to nuclear were provided for renewables to develop at the same scale In August 2024, more than 600 civil society groups across the globe working on climate action launched a declaration in Brussels, Belgium, stating that nuclear power expansion is not a solution to the climate crisis, because it is too dangerous, too expensive, and too slow. This definitive position is in line with esteemed international climate solutions organisation, Project Drawdown, which cautions against relying on nuclear power compared to other solutions: “At Project Drawdown, we consider Nuclear Power a ‘regrets’ solution. It has potential to avoid emissions, but carries many concerns as well”. Other arguments against nuclear energy include that it creates public health hazards from radiation and accidents, that it erects obvious military targets in a fractious and sometimes nihilistic world, that there are no safe solutions for nuclear waste after 80 years of its manufacture, and that in contrast, the progress made by solar, wind and other far safer, cheaper and faster renewable energy is compelling, especially if the budgets available to nuclear were provided for renewables to develop at the same scale. See – https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2024/02/01/nuclear-power-is-a-regrets-industry-some-facts/ As of February 4, 2026 when the latest assessment was made, the time shown by the Doomsday Clock, initiated in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is 85 seconds to midnight; the closest humanity has ever been to symbolic catastrophe. The Bulletin evaluates nuclear-weapons risks, climate change, disruptive technologies like AI and bioweapons, cyber threats, and the state of global governance in evaluating existential precariousness. On 15 March 2026, responding to international events, the British Energy Secretary outlined a package of measures to go “further and faster” in the pursuit of national energy security. The emphasis is on renewables. Top of the list, notably, is support for measures up to recently viewed by state bodies as guerrilla eccentricities suspected of interrupting grid centralisation e.g. making available in the UK for the first time, ‘plug-in solar’, low-cost solar panels available to buy on the high street, to put on balconies or outdoor spaces. Unfortunately, the UK government also naively lists nuclear as an essential green energy, even as built plants remain hazardous for centuries Unfortunately, the UK government also naively lists nuclear as an essential green energy, even as built plants remain hazardous for centuries, with no known effective method to store radioactive waste. Seeing the potential for renewable energies, Nicola Tesla and others had long dreamed, and contributed to the development, of safe free electricity for all; sources of inexhaustible, clean energy. Monopolistic entities and their lobbying arms have repeatedly sabotaged such movements, despite evidence of accumulated harms from fossil fuels and nuclear materials. Several bodies such as Laka and the International Centre for Multi-Generational Legacies of Trauma, track the full list of nuclear and radiation incidents which are reported by national nuclear regulatory agencies to the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1990. They are not negligible. And not counted are many similar accidents before 1990., such as Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and problematic storage sites like Handford. We’re all hot now, already. The European Union recently published advice on which types of defence investments fit its sustainable-finance framework, labelled green or ESG (environment, social, governance). It includes atomic bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorus On 30 December 2025, the European Union published a Commission Notice to advise on which types of defence investments fit its sustainable-finance framework, labelled green or ESG (environment, social, governance). Lucky investors can now include atomic bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorus in this category. To claim this Orwellian reclassification measure was taken for climate objectives rather than to boost defence spending, surely fooled few, and roused significant if as yet ineffectual condemnation. What it does show is the accelerating high-level momentum to divert finance into the most destructive artifacts ever made rather than on meaningful social and nature regeneration. These were the themes that drew so many festival goers to protest at Carnsore Point all those years ago. Launch Event at Project Arts Centre Padraig Moore, manager of Ormston House, introduced the touring exhibition, which, after launching at Project Arts Centre, would open at Ormston House on 17 April before moving to

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    UCD squashes Gaza protest encampment using dubious methods

    Eviction compounds UCD’s  complicity in partnership with suppliers to the Israeli military which implemented the genocide of Palestinians; and UCD  academics were utterly ineffective By Eoghan Harris and Roisin McAleer  The 132-day Break the Academic Chains of Zionism encampment at University College Dublin exposed the limits of dissent when confronted with legal and political power, as well as the depth of partnerships between Irish institutions and Israeli institutions that have been participating in what the International Court of Justice has said can plausibly be seen as genocide. The encampment happened through the combined effort of students, alumni and activists. It began on September 2025 in response to UCD’s participation in EU-funded research consortia—such as CATALOOP, a €2.6 million artificial intelligence project that includes Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Technion – Israel Institute of Technology as partners. These universities are not neutral teaching institutions separated from the Israeli state’s security apparatus; they are embedded in research ecosystems that intersect with companies that dominate Israel’s defence sector. When partner institutions are integrated into weapons, surveillance and military systems, the risk of dual-use contribution cannot be dismissed as abstract Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel’s premier engineering university, hosts industry-linked programmes in aerospace, robotics and systems engineering. According to UCD Students Union, “Technion even offers ‘courses on arms and security marketing and export. This is a central part of the Technion’s history and ongoing identity”. Its Faculty of Aerospace Engineering acknowledges support from major arms producers Israel Aerospace Industries, Elbit Systems and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, inviting them to sponsor student design projects and participate in research collaborations. These arrangements create formal channels through which academic research, talent and technological development are shared with companies directly involved in weapons development. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev hosts the Homeland Security Institute, which maintains partnerships with the Israeli Ministry of Defence and weapons manufacturers, including Elbit Systems. Ben-Gurion’s campus is adjacent to what the Ministry of Defence described as a technology complex “reinforc[ing] the army’s operational capabilities,” and its technology transfer arm, BGN Technologies, co-develops unmanned ground vehicles and robot platforms for military use. There are wide concerns about whether engagement with Israeli institutions that are integrated into a national defence R&D ecosystem is compatible with ethical and legal standards for research cooperation. UCD does not maintain direct contracts with the defence corporations themselves. But in a framework such as the European Union’s Horizon research programmes, universities partner in large consortia where knowledge, funding and personnel are shared. When partner institutions are integrated into weapons, surveillance and military systems, the risk of dual-use contribution cannot be dismissed as abstract. It is a foreseeable consequence of cooperation in fields like AI, autonomous systems and aerospace research. The encampment’s demand was narrow and legally grounded: that UCD review and suspend cooperation with any institutional partnerships that carry a credible risk of contributing to violations of international law. This followed provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice in South Africa v Israel, in which the Court identified a plausible risk of genocide and reaffirmed the State’s duty of prevention under the 1948 Genocide Convention. UCD refused to engage with the substance of that demand. No public legal assessment was produced, and no parsing was made between low-risk academic exchange and research with foreseeable military application. This refusal was compounded by the absence of meaningful support inside the university. Senior management could not challenge the legal substance of the encampment’s case, thus resorted to false and entirely unfounded allegations that the protestors were “homeless” in order to activate Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in early January 2026. Most academics declined publicly to engage with the legal argument for suspension of partnerships. Representative bodies that routinely invoke institutional commitments to human rights treated the encampment as an inconvenience rather than a legal challenge. People Before Profit, though they claim to be ideologically aligned with the protest, failed to co-operate formally with the encampment’s organizational processes and assemblies. However, they participated in the previous year’s encampment, where an agreement was signed without the consent of all of the voting participants, ending the three-week summer encampment. The agreement fell well and disappointingly short of  providing for an academic boycott. Some of the protestors considered this process to be not a negotiation but an imposed settlement shaped entirely by asymmetrical power.  The students’ narrow and legally grounded demand was that UCD suspend cooperation with any institutional partnerships that carry a credible risk of contributing to violations of international law, following the ICJ ruling in South Africa v Israel, reaffirming the State’s duty of preventing genocide Legally, the consequences of this posture are significant. For the Irish State, continued funding and authorisation of such partnerships after a credible risk has been identified exposes the State to claims of breach of its duty of prevention and non-assistance under international law. International law does not prescribe specific policy tools, but once a serious risk of genocide is established, suspension of cooperation becomes the default precautionary response against which continued engagement must be justified. The State must be able to show it used all means reasonably available to prevent material contribution by public bodies under its authority. The State must be able to show it used all means reasonably available to prevent material contribution by public bodies under its authority. For UCD, the liability is domestic but real For UCD, the liability is domestic but real. As a statutory, publicly funded body, the university is required to act rationally, proportionately, and with regard to relevant legal considerations. Maintaining institutional cooperation without differentiation or review in the face of such legal risk exposes UCD to judicial review challenges on grounds of failure to take relevant considerations into account, irrational decision-making, or disproportionate response — particularly where students are disciplined for protesting those same risks. That refusal to act culminated at 5.30 am on 13 January 2026, when An Garda Síochána and Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council dismantled a small protest structure on public land following an invalid notice.

    Loading

    Read more