Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The strong hold of Loyalist and Republican “Communicrats”?
Something that shouldn’t be missed is Gerry Moriarty’s interview with Father Denis Faul (subs only). As ever, he is his own man. He doesn’t reckon a Truth and Reconciliation process will work, but believes there has to be some kind of practical quid pro quo to let former paramilitaries get back into normal life. But, he argues, there must be an absolute right for those exiled by paramilitaries to return if they so wish. He coins a term which may just stick in the wider public discourse:
During the interview, our conversation is interrupted by a couple calling to the parochial house, having driven from the South to seek assistance from the priest. Eight years ago the husband was forced out of a Northern town by the IRA, and even though he was told twice he could safely return home when he did so the local IRA militia sent him and his family packing again - little IRA command dictating to big IRA command.
Under no circumstances, says the man - and he means no circumstances - will he allow further details of his plight to be published. “I was warned by them the two worst things I could do was go to the media or the police. I’m sorry, it just wouldn’t be worth it.”
“It’s the law of omerta,” says Mgr Faul. “You can’t speak, you can’t go to the police, you can’t go to the courts, you can’t go to the press. It’s barbarous. There is a law, but it’s the law of force. There is an order, but it’s the order of fear.” Mgr Faul says there are 5,000 people “banished” from Northern Ireland by republican and loyalist paramilitaries. Recently Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams said that the IRA was no threat to anyone, including those expelled from the North, but that ultimately their return was a matter for the communities.
“But that’s not good enough,” says Mgr Faul, who believes that Adams has the power to facilitate the safe return of those exiled from nationalist areas. “This is a human rights issue. These people were forced out by the ‘controlocrat’ criminals of the IRA, UDA and UVF and must be allowed return home. The community has no right to interfere. Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society.”
Mick Fealty @ 10:50 PM
“Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society”
Indeed.
Of course, some of us have been saying that, to the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland [amongst others], for some time now.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:03 PMFather Faul is a brave man.
This is the activity that only the SF Blogging committee will defend. Those like Mick hall who argue this is a normal political party are wrong.
Father Faul is a real Irish man who is trusted by victims on both sides of the divide. he will not be bullied by these criminals.
A good piece by Gerry and the Irish Times.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:07 PMMartin
The “SF Blogging committee” references are tedious.. and potentially getting in the way of any kind of debate.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:11 PMAgreed Pete. It’s also highly misleading. That so many people from Sinn Fein post here is all to the good. That they should have a common bottom line is also not surprising.
Constantly refering to what you may perceive to be shared tactics is a potential block to actually listening to what they say: and then rebutting it, if that’s what you wish to do.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:19 PMPete B,
How does refering to the activities of Sinn Fein get in the way of debate? please explain.These Blogging committees are being discussed by the press mate so dont lecture me about free speech because this topic is about exactly that.
I find many of your posts potentially tedious and frankly naive but thats life .
Martin.Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:20 PMMartin
As you know, pre-empting those who may disagree with you, by labelling them as part of a conspiracy - such as a blogging committee - is intended to discredit, and/or discourage, such responses.
It is, after all, a favoured tactic of others.
And it is not, in either example, intended to encourage debate.
As for your other point.. thanks for sharing. ;)
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:31 PMAs someone who lives in a republican area and know the anti-social elements that operate here, I and others know full well that many of them are given a license to do whatever they want by the local cops.
The idea is drive the locals up the wall so that the locals will in turn go to local volunteers who, if all goes to plan, will react against these people breaching the ceasefire and giving anti-agreement unionists priceless political ammo. This political policing is clear for all to see. One local hood who was awaiting trial for a robbery of an elderly couple the year before last was not to be anywhere near the village such was the conditions of his bail. Not only did he breach this condition the PSNI stopped and chatted to him every time they were patrolling the area!
What I’m trying to get at is that people who have been ‘banished’ make the hood in the example above look like an angel. What makes it worse for victims of these rapists, thieves, etc. is that Fr Faul makes all of them out to be victims themselves when he talks on the issue. It mightn’t be so bad for those who live in parochial houses but I think that people that live with this day in and day out know the reality of the situation.
I don’t think the IRA, at this stage, is any threat to these hoods. The threat comes from entire communities. Thats who Denis Faul should be addressing his comments to.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2006 @ 11:55 PMI don’t think anyone could or would dispute fr faul’s courage. I didn’t know he was ill and I was very sorry to hear it. I have a huge respect for him even though I disagree with him on political questions.
I think the solution to the problems he raises is to resolve policing. On a day when Ian Paisley is playing political games with the lives of nationalist lawyers on foot of police briefings it is clear that we haven’t come very far from the bad old days. Justice is indivisible. Either we all have it or nobody really has it.
Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein can’t be responsible for the lives and safety of every returned exile. Their responsibility is to get a deal on policing which will mean that ordinary people in nationalist areas will feel that they have a police service which they can trust and which does not have a political agenda.
I agree with Mick and Pete that the Blog Monitoring Committee nonsense has been overplayed.
But where there is a history of allegation it is instructive to see that the basis for allegations made against posters here is flimsy to non-existent.
Pete
We are on opposite sides but you back up what you say and I always read your posts with interest.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 12:30 AMThere should be an adopt a hood scheme that could be co-ordinated through Slugger, Fr Faul or some other benevolent institution.
Under the scheme you could let the hood avail of a property that is adjacent to yours. Indeed, under the scheme you would have to inform your names of the new arrival.
Hoods of course can be lovable and loyal companions and through time can be fully house trained. In fact after a relatively short period they can be trained to break into any house in the locality.But be warned, a hood is not just for Christmas.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 12:35 AMThanks Henry94.. but don’t assume that we are on opposite sides ;)
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 12:44 AM“Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilized society”
That statement is probably the silliest thing i have ever read coming from the mouth of an otherwise intelligent man. Think about it for one moment. The Hitlerite Nazi State operated under the rule of law, indeed between 1933 and 1945 that State introduced literarily over a ton of new laws, which were rigidly adhered to by the State, police, Gestapo, SS, courts, judiciary etc, etc and through fear a great many Germans.
Did the rule of law in Germany between 1933-45 provide the bases for a civilized society, need I ask even. Today in China the rule of law is paramount to the extent companies like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google are prepared to do that states dirty work for it by censoring what the Chinese people can read when searching the internet. As not to do so would be breaking the law and they would not be able to turn a shilling in China. China is in fact, a law abiding police state, what this means in reality is the mass of its people abide by the laws, whilst the people who make them and administer them, do what the hell they like.. Very civilized
What matters in a civilized society is not the rule of law but who writes the law, who administers it and who adjudicates it. The fact is as far as the north is concerned all of the aforementioned fail to reach the norm of a civilized society. Unless one feels Diplock courts, a police service that has a history of working in collusion with criminals and law makers who come from across the Irish sea to make and enforce laws which have had absolutely no democratic input from the people who must abide by them.
If Fr Fall feels it is possible to simple weld on to this corrupt edifice the rule of law then he is either fool or charlatan and it pains me to say that.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 01:53 AMGodwins Law, surely?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:20 AMDefinitely, Mick.
If the comment, from Mick Hall - sorry Mick - had instead begun with “What matters in a civilized society is not the rule of law but who writes the law, who administers it and who adjudicates it.”
Then, it might have been more effective.. might have been. It doesn’t actually address the point.. however emotive it may sound.
The simple point, made repeatedly, is that a civilised society is based on the rule of law.. either you agree with that or you don’t.
The problem for the idealists *ahem* is that they believe that such a state is the natural order of things.. whereas the realists know that such an Utopia can never exist.
It must be based on something.. Peter Hain take note!
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:30 AMHow about, for divilment, “a civilised society is based on one power group becoming dominant and asserting its power over those less powerful through a list of edicts that best serve its interests”?
Also wasn’t Mickhall simply saying that justice is not coterminous with the law?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:40 AMI could’nt agree with mickhall much more. The rule is law is a good thing but it is’nt the be all and end all.
So as not to violate goodwins law think of montgomery alabama in the 1960’s when it was illegal for a black person to sit in the front of a bus with white folk. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to give up here seat to white man. An she was a hero.
The message from a lot of bloggers on this site who talk about the rule of law is the same as it was then---get to the back of the bus!!
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:46 AMNo Yoda.
There’s a simple and straight forward solution to the [assumed] problem.
A constitution.. and a bill of rights.
Against such a criteria, every law passed can, and should, be assessed.
Unfortunately.. we, on this island, can’t agree a bill of rights.. never mind a constitution.
Until then, we’ll try to achieve a rule of law.. that should be the priority.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:48 AMUnfortunately.. we, on this island, can’t agree a bill of rights.. never mind a constitution.
Do you mean island-wide?
Essentially, I agree with what you say about a bill of rights, everybody equal.
But a compromised police force doggedly enforcing laws in the absence of such rights is, to my mind, never going to be anything but a poor and distant second.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 02:55 AM“a compromised police force doggedly enforcing laws in the absence of such rights is, to my mind”
Here’s the point.. it’s that compromised mind.. which you reference.. and that I know exists among certain indidviduals.. but it’s not universal.. that’s the problem.
What Fr Faul is saying is that.. the starting point is the respect for the rule of law.. not that we get what we want, whatever that may be, and then we’ll accept it.. or else..
But that we’ll start that respect NOW!!
The legislative trimmings can be introduced at any stage we want.. or need.. or can vote for..
It’s the compromised mind that’s the problem.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 03:07 AMSo, you don’t see anything at all wrong with the PSNI as it stands? Everything is hunky-dory?
Nothing about the allegations of collusion strikes you as needing further investigation?
What if the administration of law is found to be lacking?
or else..
So, if I disagree about the worthiness of the law and its instruments, then I must automatically be threatening/ condoning/ inciting/ fomenting violence?
Is there no wriggle room at all?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 03:17 AMPete,
Thats fine as long as the next time I am accused of being a securocrat or MI 5 Agent etc you take the same consistent view. This approach which has you know is a favoured one by the Shinners and the Blog Committee is to deflect and or discredit.
Quote"As you know, pre-empting those who may disagree with you, by labelling them as part of a conspiracy - such as a blogging committee - is intended to discredit, and/or discourage, such responses.” Unquote
Quote"As for your other point.. thanks for sharing"Unquote
You are more than welcome.
Martin
Martin
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:27 AMHi !
We have just finished a piece on Fr. Faul’s activities during the 1981 hunger-strike , if anyone here is interested .
Thanks ,
Sharon (1169 And Counting...) .
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:28 AMYoda and others,
The quality of mercy?
This thread has become the usual harangue for or against the police. When it started off, it was a discussion about *exiles* ( surely another category of *on the runs*).
There seem to be many rules in NI, just as there seem to be many laws. If at some stage during the past thirty-odd years you happened to transgress one of these laws, the likelihood is that you would have been punished. If you felt the punishment was unfair, then you should have an opportunity to contest that punishment in an accepted process that is transparent. Those are your existing human rights.
Where do republicans stand on such basic human rights? Who do you stand beside - the individual whose rights are denied, or the organisation that denies those rights?
Even where that organisation is unco-ordinated and as diverse as the local community (and I don’t accept that any of those expelled by elements of the republican movement were expelled by the community), the exiled have a right to be supported.
To question the character of anyone fighting for their human rights is a tendentious political act in itself. To deny or postpone the consideration of anyone’s human rights to assuage the political demands of any group of people (for, say, reform of policing)is also a tendentious political act.
How long must any punishment last for it to become cruel and unusual, how long for it to change into turture?
I am not even mentioning the loyalist paramilitaries in all this, as they have never claimed any legitimacy and I would not expect them to consider anyone’s human rights. Elements of the republican movement, however, have spent the last year or two working on an Ireland wide charter of rights. The question is how far do those rights penetrate the movement, and what responsibility does it have to force change to end these people’s misery.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:31 AMThe problem with Mick Hall’s analysis is that it ultimately leads to one place only - back down the cul de sac from whence we have all just come.
The prerequisite that every villain working inside the state forces should be outed, before nationalists should be asked to lend them their support, is untenable. It is simply not going to happen. The PSNI are not going away; at least not until that great day that Gerry leads the faithful to the promised land (sic).
In the interim period, SF realise that there will be no movement politically, until they give the PSNI the nod of approval - a simple fact. They may not trust the force; they may not believe that it is right for nationalists/republicans to join it - but they do know that if they are ever going to move things forward, then they have to be seen to acquiese on this issue.
For SF, the acceptance of policing is but a stepping stone on a journey (albeit a painfull one)- a journey that would see the securocrats finally driven from our shores. Wishfull thinking, fantasy, perhaps; but a way out of the present cul de sac nonetheless.
The problem with the Sinn Fein detractors, from the Republican side, is that to often they seem incapable of offering any real alternative that is going to lead things forward.
Indeed, often is would seem that many are really harping back to a golden age, when the pubs of Dundalk were filled with majordomos, toasting the latest atrocity across the border.
If we are to move forward we must all learn to liberate ourselves from the customs of the past founded on myth............
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:46 AM“There is an order, but it’s the order of fear”
Lets get real about this, long gone are the days when Denis could speak with authority on what is happening in republican or nationalist communities. “ Does anyone know if he still trains the cops on how to be nice to “taigs”?
I live in West Belfast, I have a fear that the alleged 5000(where did this figure come from?) will be allowed to return and terrorise this community, I agree with Danny Morrison on this one.
Lets take the scenario where a drug dealer was living in your street, selling drugs to your children and it was common knowledge that the PSNI were protecting him, would you not be entitled to organise your friends and neighbours and have him removed from his house?( peacefully)
No amount of pontificating from the great and the good could persuade me to allow that drug dealer to return to live in my street. Even if there was a police service that I had confidence in, even if the Alliance Party & Denis persuaded me that this poor drug dealer was a victim of the nasty, nasty RA, and he deserved my support and sympathy NO WAY would I countenance letting him live near me my family.
Some circles just cant be squaredPosted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:05 AMPat:
Interesting idea - :-). However, it’s little to do with Faul’s polemic. He simply posits two kinds of authority: lawful and unlawful. Both require the backing of force. He further notes that one is open and transparent, the other isn’t.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:16 AM
