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 @ 07:50 PM
Mick
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.
The waters are a little muddier from where I come from which kind of authority do you think Faul is refering to as “open and transparent” and do you share the his opinion?
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 01:22 PMCS, one of few sane commentators on this thread.
The shinners have shown themselves up badly. The PSNI aint good enough for them but you cant beat a good mob to run someone out of town when you need one.
Sorry, forgot Pat would have a chat with them and it would be all OK.
Failing that run them out of town. Paedetricians watch out.
What I dont get with the Republican attitude to policing is their arguement can be summed up as
“We wont support the PSNI as it isnt independent, transparent, representative, blah, human rights, justice, blah, collusion, root & branch, blah, plastic bullets,” (OK Im paraphrasing here)but they’d much rather stick with their mob rule whipped up by “community representatives”, go figure? yeah cause that really ticks all those boxes above.
Oh, right, it’s not about any of the above, it’s just your last bargaining chip left so your going to hold onto for as long as possible.
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 01:35 PMJocky
You are correct in what you are saying, problem is we haven’t a police service that we can all subscribe to and even then if the current Police Service is so acceptable in protestant areas why do such attacks prevail?
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 01:47 PMI take deep offence at your suggestions that i am advocating violence, I am not.
Other people on this thread have mocked the idea that due process should apply to people who are suspected of various crimes. You might have been careful to be less ambiguous if you didn’t want to be accused of using violence.
There are many peaceful ways (and indeed legal ways) to have a person removed from their home.
Give me a break. If someone says to me “I think you move out, by the way have a nice day” am I going to pay attention ? If a breeze block comes through my window it might be different.
The legal methods are unavailable to a community where supporting the police is frowned upon. Getting a court to put somebody out of a house takes months of constant legal wrangling. Don’t try to insult the intelligence of people here by trying to say that this is what you had in mind.
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.
I’d set up a resident association, and then I’d pester local politicians, collect evidence of criminality, and get the police to sort the problem out. If the police failed to address the problem I’d complain to the police ombudsman. Due process.
A functioning legal system which does not miscarry means that unfortunately some people are going to get off with criminality. The alternative is a police state or mob rule.
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 08:17 PM
