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 @ 09:50 PM
Pete,
I really do not feel I was being to harsh with Denis Fall, in truth he made me angry when he said what he did, as he is a past master of using language in a precise manner. For he is well aware it was the way the rule of law was implemented in the north prior to 69 which brought about the nightmare years many people from all communities experienced between 1969-97. I really believe Fr Fall’s problem is he just cannot stand the fact it took a group of working class corner boys to put some manners on those who ran the north of Ireland; and by saying this I in no way wish to minimalist the suffering Republican’s caused to many people in the process..
all the best
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:47 AMThe northern Irish community-based judicial systems or the state one? Which is better, or the lesser of two evils?
I was once forced to lie on the floor of a snooker hall whilst a man, who I did not know, had his forearms crushed under numerous blows from large wooden bats just feet from where I, and others, lay.
His crime, we were told, was that he had assaulted someone the previous night and broken the person’s arm.
I wonder who the investigating officer was.
I wonder who cross-examined the witnesses. Did the accused’s defence get the opportunity to test the verocity of their testimony?
I wonder if the ombudsman got a chance to investigate if those who administered the beating had acted within the human rights guidelines outlined by the legislation which governs their activities.
Whatever the shortcomings of the PSNI and the judicial system in operation in Northern Ireland (and there are many) I would rather my fellow citizens were subjected to them, rather than what I outlined above.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:50 AMBWD:
“NO WAY would I countenance letting him live near me my family”.
I can sympathise with the predicament. Many people well beyond West Belfast will sympathise too. But the problem with the preferred ‘solution’ is that it is entirely unregulated, and open to creation of further injustice.
The hysteria that gripped some parts of southern England after the murder of Sarah Paine is a salutary lesson of what can happen when unlawful means takes over from due process.
Whilst I’m a believer in the wisdom of crowds, the rights of the individual should not be so easily dispensed with. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is worth revisiting in this respect.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 09:53 AM“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.—Pete Baker
Some have been saying it since Bloody Sunday - and long before.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:04 AMIf 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.—peteb
Mickhall’s point precisely addresses the point that you fail to grasp: only a judge has the power to interpret and administer the law. Ergo, a “civilised society” is not based on laws, but on the interpretation and application of law in accourance with sound principles of jurisprudence. That is where the Northern Ireland has failed to be a “civilised society.”
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:27 AMDualta, excellent post.
As far as I can see here, nobody has talked about ‘legitimacy’ which is what makes law (good or bad) work - i.e. the permission that communities give to be policed is a prequisite to effective criminal justice system.
This permission is not one to be formally granted or denied by Sinn Fein or the chromosonally challenged munters in Loyalist estates. It stems from the basic desire and (inalienable right) of almost all people for safety order and a due process of law in their communities.
The real tragedy is that people who are desperate to give their permission for the rule of law to prevali are drowned out or cowed or even physically intimidated by ‘ideologues’ and criminals who know full well that the primary consequence of this would be to destroy their grubby little powerbases.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:38 AM“If we are to move forward we must all learn to liberate ourselves from the customs of the past founded on myth............ “Gypsy Nolan
We have to liberate ourselves from more then we think.
Including that someone else will enforce for us law and order. And if the police are incapable of doing the job, then some other organisation will do, as long as they can keep antisocial crime and drugs at a bearable level. Who ever it will be will become the law because not many of us feel willing or obliged to deal with such uncomfortable issues and quite some of us are just afraid.
The society we live in has become steadily more violent. Sometimes we are scratching on the surface of this problem in the hope it is just a face. Few have dedicated their time and struggle upstream towards the bottom of this pit, areas in decay where people are crushed to an inflammable shell.
I doubt that they are prepared to even accept those individuals back into their midst. And maybe, this is a question of basic human right. Who should get it?And we have to let go this myth as well that everyone can have all his human rights right now. The damage has been done and we have to re-adjust our priorities. The existing police service is still questionable. What shall be equality for all and therefore become law is still under construction and disputed. To bring them back under those conditions cannot be a valuable step.
We should ask for everything and right now, because we know that we will get less.Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:50 AMBig white dove what you are proposing would lead to total anarchy.
Yoda, Alan’s post is an education.
Mickhall Fr Faul is no fool or charlatan. He is a good man that many have turned to in a time of crisis. Some families of the hunger strikers turned to this man and he did not let them down. One must remember he has been on the ground, at the coal face, in with his flock. He has suffered for standing by his people.
A lot of people who come from accross the Irish sea should respect that.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:04 AMDulta,
maybe what you saw was Mick Halls working class corner boys putting some manners on him.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:08 AMWBR:
Can we stick to principles and argument please? There are a number of interesting themes emerging.
Russell:
“...a ‘civilised society’ is not based on laws, but on the interpretation and application of law in accourance with sound principles of jurisprudence. That is where the Northern Ireland has failed to be a ‘civilised society.’”
That sounds like a substantive point. Can I ask you to tease that out a bit more?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:24 AMThis notion that this discussion is about Sinn Fein saying tonight that those people who have left or been advised to leave communities in the past to come back all is ok. Sinn Fein do not have it in their gift to say this, its not about the law, its not about justice its reality. An example Raymond Gilmore an informer who turned supergrass and was responsible for many people be jailed and also responsible for the death of a friend of his and on top of this to sell a book he said that the people of Creggan were alcoholic, wife battering dunken scum. How could he live in Creggan again. In life people make decisions that have consequences for themselves and others, informers know that if found out not many people in their community would want them about, hoods and criminals know that their neighbours would prefer that they lived somewhere else. Raymond Gilmore could come back and live in Creggan without any threat from the IRA but it might be difficult going into the Telstar for a pint. Father Faul knows this more than anyone and he is as usual being mischievious implying that republicans can have this impact or influence in their communities. One simple question if republicans have so much influence how is the anti-social problem such a big issue in these communities?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 12:04 PMJK:
Faul is presenting an Occum’s Razor it seems. It’s a shame we don’t all have access to the whole of the piece. But it makes reference to his background as a Classicist.
Both you and BWD have clearly outline a basic societal problem which is common to working class communities right across the west. It is a pragmatic reality that should not be obscured in any high minded discussion of law and order in Northern Ireland.
As I read it at least, Faul is making the case that making re-dress to the law should be the first rather than last resort. This is unlikely to act as a golden key that magics away the problem in quite the manner that exiling currently does. Indeed it may present the community concerned with more problems than it solves, in the short term at least.
But his proposition is clear, honest, intellectually robust and in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whether or not the communities concerned are actually ready for that transition is a matter for conjecture.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 12:43 PM‘One simple question if republicans have so much influence how is the anti-social problem such a big issue in these communities? ‘
One simple answer, because as long as the spied rabble are mobilised they reinforce the myth that the PSNI are unwelcome. The PSNI cannot police normally even though they probably have the consent of most ordinary people (check the NI Policing Boards own public confidence surveys). The cycle is perpetuated for purely political reasons. Ordinary people suffer.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 01:17 PMA most coherent line Mick
I do believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents the basis for the protection of all human rights in the north and indeed Ireland, clearly though there are those who oppose this, both state and revolutionary forces have been guilty of some terrible mistakes and acts, accountability remains an isue with both, however in my post I advocated the peaceful removal of a drug dealer from an area, this could be through the use of the housing executive, residents association etc, this I believe would be in keeping with the Universal Declaration. How this scenario would lead to anarchy, as suggested, I dont know. I am worried by the current trend that any suggestion from someone who might be a shinner is immediatley rebuffed because it was a shinner. The issues Faul lectures on are extremely complex and I wouldnt claim to have a complete grasp on them, I reserve the right to protect my family and children, in a measured and proportionate manner. I dont not think Faul has the right to lecture me or anyone else on Human Rights abuses as I do not think he has the remotest understanding of the issues facing ordinary republicans or loyalists in 2006Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 03:18 PMYoda, Alan’s post is an education.
Yes, it felt like a lecture! ;)
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 05:20 PMI am worried by the current trend that any suggestion from someone who might be a shinner is immediatley rebuffed because it was a shinner.
You don’t even have to be a shinner!
That’s the part that gets me.
It boils down to absolutes: either you are for the law as it stands or you are not.
If you are not, then you must be concealing an “or else” under your balaclava and you need to be lectured on rights and subjected to lurid details of someone’s arms being crushed to make some sort of a point. Do I really need to say that I don’t think that sort of treatment is acceptable? But, if you’re not with us, you’re obviously against us. Like I asked above, is there no wriggle room at all?
And forget trying to explore the issue of CRJ. It’s usually rejected out of hand as a form of crypto-shinnerism. I’d love to discuss more creative/ imaginative solutions a bit more, but that tends not to happen.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 05:41 PMRepublicans are supposed to support justice, equality and freedom for all - including the right to a fair trial. It’s funny how all that goes out the window when the anti-social behaviour is directed at them.
I find it amazing that SF can stand up there and call for people like Sean Kelly to be kept out of jail, while people like Pat McL and “heck” will defend the right of the lynch mob to keep people they don’t like the look of out of the neighbourhood. It’s disgusting.
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)
Absurd. How can you “peacefully” put somebody out of his house ? What sort of hypocritical crap are you trying to pull ?
What about the scenario where the bank robber, bomber or murderer is living in your street ? The lads who stick six inch nails through the legs of 14 year old kids ?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:30 PMThis notion that this discussion is about Sinn Fein saying tonight that those people who have left or been advised to leave communities in the past to come back all is ok. Sinn Fein do not have it in their gift to say this, its not about the law, its not about justice its reality.
Loyalists say exactly - EXACTLY - the same sort of mealy-mouthed crap as this whenever a black guy or an Indian gets burnt out of a house on the Donegall Road. The community doesn’t want them there, they say. There’s not a lot we can do about it, they add. Bollocks.
What you guys are advocating on here is mob rule. What’s scary is that you are advocating it uniformly. I don’t buy this “blog committee” stuff but it’s telling how republicans are effectively of a single mind on this matter. You guys just don’t understand the basic tenets of justice and human rights. I read threads like this and ask myself, how badly do the chucks really want a police service ? It sounds very much like the kind of police force that republicans will want will be a service which, on the basis of one or two complaints, will go and throw someone out of their house and warn them never to return to the community again ? In other words, a kind of green B-Specials ?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:37 PMC S good post. And you have hit the nail on the head. As I said above about the corner boys, and Dultas post. I too said above that BWDs reckoning would lead to anarchy. Well said.
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 10:51 PMThe lads who stick six inch nails through the legs of 14 year old kids
This mixture of scare-mongering and speculation isn’t really helpful. Who is advocating crushing people’s arms or driving nails into children. It’s certainly powerful rhetoric, but it also radically precludes other alternatives.
Only if such “community based” initiatives were treated and taken seriously, can those communities take concrete steps towards preventing your speculative scenarios from taking place.
Responsibility, non-violence, education and justice should govern this process. If they did not, I would not support anything of the kind.
It’s clear that there are radically dysfunctional communities on both “sides” in NI. They are also simply a fact of life, grinding on in their misery, and they likely aren’t simply going to go away anytime soon.
But something has to be done.
Listening to the people who live in these places, getting them to articulate alternative approaches and structures that they feel gives them both a say AND responsibility, that treats them as useful and potentially productive human beings, can go a long way towards addressing some of the very real underlying problems that exist in these places.
It might not look like the normal, usual or traditional model, but then again, NI has not been a very “normal” place for much of its history, has it?
Posted by on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:13 PMMick
And attempts to emasculate the populace who are most affected by these people: “The community has no right to interfere.”
Are we in 2005 still supposed to defer our rights to people (PSNI) whose motivations most of us can’t comprehend?
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 12:15 AMComrade Stalin,
I take deep offence at your suggestions that i am advocating violence, I am not. There are many peaceful ways (and indeed legal ways) to have a person removed from their home. The scenario you allude to, was not advocated by me. I wold look forward to your assessment of how to deal with the situation you requoted to me.WB Resident tell me how this will lead to anarchy? you have stated it twice but you have given no coherent rationale for your statement.
Removing anti-social elements from their homes by entirely peaceful and legitimate means = ANARCHY
I think as i have said before your objections might be based on the fact that it was someone who MIGHT be a SHINNER suggested it.The rational debate about policing and conflicting human rights was a good thread, pity the begrudgers got involved
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 08:39 AM*There are many peaceful ways (and indeed legal ways) to have a person removed from their home.*
Doesn’t sound like anything you have been talking about. On the one hand you are either expecting the state to rehouse the same perpetrator in another community without any kind of rehabilitation - or you are making them homeless, neither of which are acceptable.
And what if the perpetrator was not the perpetrator - how do you right that injustice?
The whole process has to be above board, independent, transparent and open to appeal. If those boxes are ticked, then I would not have a problem with it, whether a Shinner says it or not. This stuff is basic.
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 11:29 AMThanks to this thread, there’s hardly a Shinner left on this board who can ever mention rights and justice again. Every contribution a disgrace - not least the sneering self-righteous attempt at sarcasm from Pat McLarnon at the top of the first page - and stupid into the bargain, because SF has no choice but to do a total about-face over the whole issue before there can be any more political movement.
Gerry’s tactical cannon fodder are a tragic spectacle to behold.Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 01:38 PMAlan,
“Doesn’t sound like anything you have been talking about”
I disagree, I have not advocated any other course of action, maybe other peoples jaundiced interpretation of my posts could lead you to believe this!!!
I am in total agreement with you the justice system should be rehabilitative and not punitive, should be transparent and above board any everyone should have equal recourse to appeal to ensure no miscarriages of justice
ROLL ON THAT DAYPosted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 01:43 PM
