“Unlike Gerry Adams & Mary Lou McDonald…”

2 views

In a follow-up to a previous post on his Broken Elbow blog, as noted here, Ed Moloney has “an answer to Gerry Adams, Mary Lou McDonald and other critics of the Boston archive“.

Aside from myself and Anthony McIntyre there is only one other person who has read all of the interviews lodged in the Belfast Project oral history archive at Boston College and that is Judge William Young of the Federal District Court in Boston, Massachusetts.

Judge Young got to read them because at the end of his hearing rejecting an application to quosh the subpoenas in December 2011 he asked Boston College librarian Bob O’Neill to select interviews that were respondent to the PSNI/DoJ request. O’Neill replied, in a sealed affidavit which was leaked in court, that he could not help as he had not read the interviews.

So we know from that exchange that the person at Boston College who was supposed to read the interviews hadn’t, or at least said he hadn’t and we know from what followed that Judge Young did. In response to O’Neill’s startling admission, Young said he would himself read the entire archive over the Christmas holidays and that is how we know that he is the only other person to have read the interviews.

A lot of other people, Gerry Adams and Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein among them, act as if they have and pronounce judgement on them as if they have. But they haven’t. In fact they haven’t read a single interview from beginning to end. Not a single one. [added emphasis]

For another example of that pronouncing judgement, here’s the Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams on his Léargas blog on Friday 28 March.

And Ed Moloney has some advice for any actual journalists out there who are still curious

On the opening page of the blog [http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/] can be found the words of Judge William Young that have great relevance in light of the Adams/McDonald critique of the archive  and here is what he says about it (And I think one can presume that Judge Young is not a critic of the peace process or a sneaking regarder of dissident republicanism!):

“[These materials] are of interest – valid academic interests. They’re of interest to the historian, sociologist, the student of religion, the student of youth movements, academics who are interested in insurgency and counterinsurgency, in terrorism and counterterrorism. They’re of interest to those who study the history of religions.”- Judge William G. Young

So that’s the judgement of the guy who read the entire archive, unlike Gerry Adams or Mary Lou McDonald. Do you get that? Unlike Gerry Adams & Mary Lou McDonald. Do I need to repeat that? UNLIKE GERRY ADAMS or MARY LOU McDONALD.

Is it too much to expect, to ask the media when next they report on the criticism of people like Adams & McDonald that they at least nod in the direction of someone who actually read the archive?

And, it should be added to the list, unlike the former Mayor of Derry City Council, Sinn Féin Councillor Kevin Campbell…

Adds  For the record, on Fair Gaming

The strategy was first outlined by L Ron Hubbard in 1965 as Fair Game Law. Hubbard’s target was ‘suppressive people’:

“Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.”

And, from a related post, as a result they “May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pete Baker

    Adds For the record, on Fair Gaming

    The strategy was first outlined by L Ron Hubbard in 1965 as Fair Game Law. Hubbard’s target was ‘suppressive people’:

    “Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.”

    And, from a related post, as a result they “May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.”

  • Mickish

    Slugger the tool,with his never ending diatribe.i guess with the elections coming up he has to produce something for the old freestate gangsters.Have to earn that purse slugger o’toolish!

  • Pete Baker

    And on a post referencing “Fair Gaming”.

    *shakes head*