Tuesday, February 19, 2008
“That this Assembly condemns the murder of Mr Paul Quinn..”
The NI Assembly today debated a motion on the murder of Paul Quinn proposed by SDLP MLAs Dominic Bradley and Alex Atwood. BBC report here [RealPlayer file]. The transcript will be available tomorrow but for now the BBC report, and this UTV report, carries some of the quotes from the contributors. I’ll just add that Conor Murphy left the chamber after he had spoken and I don’t believe he returned for the vote. On that vote, no MLAs opposed the motion, but none of the SF members voiced their assent, and the Assembly therefore resolved
That this Assembly condemns the murder of Mr Paul Quinn; notes the clarification by the British and Irish Governments that they do not hold the view that the victim was involved in criminality of any kind; further notes the assessments of Sir Hugh Orde and the Independent Monitoring Commission regarding the involvement in this crime of persons who are current or former members of the Provisional IRA, or who have associations with members or former members of the Provisional IRA; and calls upon everyone to encourage people to come forward and assist the police investigations being carried out by the PSNI and an Garda Síochána.
Adds Transcript available via TheyWorkForYou.
And from a UTV report
Mr Storey asked Deputy Speaker John Dallat: “Given that this Executive minister, we believe, has met with an outlawed, illegal terrorist organisation which is in direct opposition to the legitimate security forces of this state, and given that that minister in question knew that to be the case before he met with them, and given that he went to discuss with that illegal terrorist organisation their possible involvement in this brutal murder, can I ask you either for a ruling on the possible breach of the ministerial code and pledge of office and would you take this matter to the Speaker as a matter of urgency so that a full report can be given to the House on this particular matter?”
Mr Dallat told the DUP Assembly member his query had been noted and he had no doubt the Assembly Speaker would report back.
That would be in relation to these comments by the Northern Ireland Regional Development minister.
It’s worth noting, again, that Conor Murphy’s previous assessment still appears to contradict the clarification offered by Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, of his remarks, in a letter to the Quinn family.
However, [in the letter] Adams continued: “I note from some press reports that Paul’s father is reported as accusing me of ‘blackening’ your son’s name with allegations of criminality. I wish to assure you that at no point have I said anything which should be misconstrued in this way.”
Although, as I noted at the time, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ statement from the 22 October, less than 48 hours after Paul Quinn was killed is, however, still there.
[Gerry Adams on 22 October] “I do not believe that there was any republican involvement in this murder.
“This murder is in our view linked to fuel smuggling involving criminals.”
Once again then, “It’s far better people tell the truth on the thing..”
Of course, that requires some clarity of vision..
And, as has been mentioned in connection to another recent event - “Justice is the glue that holds society together.”
Pete Baker @ 08:14 PM
I watched the debate live. Two speakers, Basil McCrea? and David Ford, noting the absence of Mr. Murphy, offered to cede the floor to any member of SF who wished to withdraw or deny the criminality accusation.
They both then paused for a number of seconds. Deafening silence both times. It was quite a telling moment for me.Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 09:18 PMOh, and when Conor Murphy spoke, he didn’t address his accusation directly but said that he stood by his original assessment.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 09:23 PMThe person most responsible for allegations of criminality that I’m aware of is journalist Jim Cusack (no friend of Sinn Féin). Though, I’m unaware of the Sindo ever being made to account for their accusations and this case is no different.
Maybe just one question of the Sindo and Cusack would be in order?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 09:53 PMwould the sdlp have tried to organise a campaign if the victim had been an innocent Protestant, killed by either loyalists, or Catholics killed by British collusion....
Off course not, no political mileage there....
The sdlp wouldn`t even meet the families of those killed through collusion....
can`t wait for the next sdlp campaign ......
Is it any wonder the sdlp are seen as hypocrites by the majority of Nationalists.....
its sad that the south derry lackey party have to stoop as low as using a families grief for political gain.....
gain that will get them no-where....
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:05 PMWas there any doubt that they WOULDN’T condemn the murder?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:06 PMTwinbrook,
If you are going to troll can’t you even get the slabbering right? It’s the South Down and Londonderry Party.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:12 PMGood old predictable Twinbrook. The SDLP aren’t the party with a record of collusion to defend. SF’s conduct over this murder has been nothing short of disgraceful and insulting towards the memory of Paul Quinn and the family of the poor man. SF should hang its head in shame.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:15 PMCast your mind back to when the British Army murdered Majella O’Hare and Seamus SDLP Mallon jumped in with both feet and agreed with the army statement that ‘gunmen’ had been operating in the area. Was that retracted? Conor Murphy’s statement indicates to me that this was a fallout among fuel smugglers and not an IRA operation. Is this incorrect?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:17 PM1967,
And Jim Cusack? The man that put more accusations in the public domain than anyone else? How should he and the stable of papers he hails from hold their heads?
Or is there no mileage in identifying Mr Quinn’s main accusers?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:30 PMFirstly, the apalling death visited upon this young man should be condemned as the criminal act that it was, and all encouraged with any information to bring it to the relevant authorities in either jurisdiction as appropriate.
Secondly, the wording of the motion was clearly crafted to ensure Sinn Fein could not support the motion.
But the wording itself is interesting- taken, I presume, from the IMC assessment:
“regarding the involvement in this crime of persons who are current or former members of the Provisional IRA, or who have associations with members or former members of the Provisional IRA”
Now, stretching the list of suspects to those who may have “associated” with “former members” - or indeed “members"- of the IRA is a rather broad brush, given that, in an area like South Armagh, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find any catholics who haven’t an association of some sort with ‘members’ or ‘former members’ of the IRA. Are Sinn Fein supposed to be accountable for those deemed ‘associates’ of ‘former members’ or indeed ‘members’ of the IRA?
It reminds me of an article Squinter penned in the Andersonstown News some years back. When asked about the number of IRA volunteers he knew, his reply was along the lines of ‘forty- but that’s only in my street and round the corner.’ An exaggeration, but an accurate assessment of the prominent role of republicans in many communities, like west Belfast and south Armagh.
Mark also raises the fact that a journalist with a track record of attacking Sinn Fein and republicans at every possible opportunity wrote at an early stage about the alleged criminal backdrop to this appalling murder; indeed, in their investigation into fuel laundering carried some weeks ago, RTE also referred to the alleged role of the victim in the activities.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:46 PMMark
Cusack’s anonymous sources are probably put into perspective by the date-line on the report, October 28th 2007 - Six days after Gerry Adams’ original claims of a criminal background.
And, importantly, 6 days after Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had first commented on the murder.
I don’t, as a rule rely on Cusack’s reporting, and I didn’t on this either.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:53 PMPete, I repeat my question directly to you. Did Conor Murphy’s statement indicate that, in his opinon, this was a fallout between fuel smugglers and not an IRA operation? No more no less?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:58 PMPancho’s Horse
Conor Murphy’s combined statements do seem to point to that conclusion.
But I’ll refer you to Gerry Adams’ comments to the Quinn family
However, [in the letter] Adams continued: “I note from some press reports that Paul’s father is reported as accusing me of ‘blackening’ your son’s name with allegations of criminality. I wish to assure you that at no point have I said anything which should be misconstrued in this way.”
Who to believe..? If only there was some consistency..
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:03 PMMaybe it’s the late hour or maybe it’s the drink, but I see no contradiction.Republicans do not see revenue evasion as criminality so GA does not accuse him of criminality and Conor Murphy’s statement stands.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:09 PMWell there you are then. It was criminals wot done it. That totally exonerates the IRA since they don’t do criminality; in fact are constitutionally incapable of committing criminal acts.
Someone please provide the relevant link.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:09 PMPete,
We agree on something, Jim Cusack doesn’t count as a source of credibility and I discount him, like you.
I’m wondering why the Sindo and group isn’t being challenged over their very specific allegations around Quinn. No mileage?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:13 PMPancho’s Horse
You appear to have missed the additional, earlier, comments by Gerry Adams - before his clarification.
[Gerry Adams on 22 October] “I do not believe that there was any republican involvement in this murder.
“This murder is in our view linked to fuel smuggling involving criminals.”
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:15 PMThe IRA are not constitutionally incapable of criminal acts just as the British Govt/Army are not incapable of same but statement says that criminals were involved in the murder, were linked to fuel smuggling and were not IRA. Is that not clear enough? The only thing that the IRA is incapable of is treason.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:17 PMMark
Bertie was challenged on his comments at the time.
Hence his proxy was not - especially since the proxy wasn’t referenced on Slugger.
I’m not at all interested in fighting with phantoms. They’re only a distraction.
Unlike those elected representatives..
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:18 PMPete,
Another thing around accepting or not allegations of criminality - in 2005 Slugger ran many dozens of stories around allegations about Phil Flynn - mostly sourced from the Sindo, the same paper that claimed Mr Quinn was a criminal.
Those on Slugger that ran those allegations of criminality haven’t managed to revisit the story once now that each and every one of the allegations has been rejected by investigators.
Seems the Sindo tagging people as criminals only fits when it needs to.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:26 PMWell, Pancho, that’s why I asked if anyone had the link.
One of the leading SF figures was interviewed on TV 4 or 5 years ago. He said that, since the IRA were the constitutional government, nothing they did, such as robbing banks, could be considered to be a criminal act.
Sorry, he did.Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:29 PMChris Donnelly,
“Secondly, the wording of the motion was clearly crafted to ensure Sinn Fein could not support the motion.”
The amendment to the wording on the insistence of SF was, I thought, designed to ensure they could support it. And I note they didn’t vote against it, which makes me wonder if there wasn’t some level of internal disagreement.
Let’s look at each part in turn.
“That this Assembly condemns the murder of Mr Paul Quinn”
I think they would have, arguably hypocritically, agreed to this alone. In any case they ought to, at the very least.
“notes the clarification by the British and Irish Governments that they do not hold the view that the victim was involved in criminality of any kind”
This is clearly intended to ascertain, despite the confusion between Gerry Adams’ comments in his letter to the Quinn family and Conor Murphy’s repeated allegations, the party position. From point 1, which I have yet to check on Hansard, it would seem that the party has gone with Murphy. They didn’t have to. They could have gone with the more senior member’s comments.
“further notes the assessments of Sir Hugh Orde and the Independent Monitoring Commission regarding the involvement in this crime of persons who are current or former members of the Provisional IRA, or who have associations with members or former members of the Provisional IRA”
I quite agree with your points on this. It seems unlikely that any criminal gang in South Armagh wouldn’t have the weakest of “associations”, itself a weak word, with PIRA. I therefore can’t see the problem in supporting this.
“and calls upon everyone to encourage people to come forward and assist the police investigations being carried out by the PSNI and an Garda Síochána.”
The party is obliged to agree to this. It places the DUP on thin ice, in my opinion, to accept its failure to support this and the first element of the motion. And these failings would appear to be the price SF are willing to pay to maintain the allegation that a criminal was murdered in this particular manner. Which makes me question their priorities, on a human level, and less importantly, their strategy, on a realpolitik level.
Am I badly misinterpreting this?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:29 PMI believe that you, once again, have blogging rights here on Slugger, Mark.
So, if you feel that you have a sustainable argument on that - and I don’t recall linking to any particular articles on the Sindo about that myself - feel free to post it yourself.
Otherwise it’s just another distraction from the actual topic here.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:36 PMJoe Canuck, when I refer to criminal acts, I don’t mean robbing banks but criminal acts like gassing villages or blanket bombing. Surely you can see that liberating funds for the cause is not criminal.The Army Council is the de jure government of Ireland. Take it from there.It’s black and white. You accept that or you don’t. If you don’t, let’s change the subject.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:50 PM“.. maybe it’s the drink ...”
Guess so.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 11:54 PM
