Sinn Fein discrimination: Granting any institution immunity from public scrutiny can easily become a habit

It’s not entirely fair to say the whole of the southern press went to sleep on the Conor Murphy discrimination case, but Davy Adams has a point that in allowing itself to get spun into near hysteria over the “Tiocfaidh ár Lámh” PR campaign the Irish press took its eye run over yet another controversial story.

And one they knew to be fit to print since most of their northern counterparts were, indeed, printing it.

It’s not good enough, Adams argues, to blame the shiftiness of Sinn Fein. They were only doing what all political parties were doing and trying to minimise damage to their own project:

Aside from it amounting to a clear dereliction of duty, the media seems to have forgotten where this attitude has led in the past. It’s all very well for journalists to daily lambast the likes of the Catholic Church, politicians, bankers and property developers, but where was the vast bulk of journalism when the offending institutions and individuals were at the height of their powers and needed to be held to account?

They were purposely shielding mythologies against realities. It is highly unlikely that discriminating against Protestants will cost Sinn Féin many votes in the North. However, the party is headed, sooner or later, for government in the Republic. If for no other reason than that, the media is duty bound to report on Sinn Féin without fear or favour.

Granting any institution or political party immunity from public scrutiny can too easily become a habit, for which a high price has eventually to be paid.

, , ,

  • Gerry Lvs castro

    I’d suggest that discriminating against Protestants would be unlikely to cost SF many votes in the south either. It’s likely to be a non-issue for most, and even a plus for the party in some circles.

    I’d be more concerned by the DUP’s silence on a matter which a few years ago might well have sparked an assembly crisis.

  • Alias

    It’s not the role or duty of the media in Ireland to subject Her Majesty’s Executive in Northern Ireland to public scutiny. That role or duty is properly assumed by the media in that jurisdiction.

    As this case may be used to support the ‘hardliners’ claim that the Shinners, a vicious sectarian murder gang, are not fit to hold public office, it is a bit embarrassing to those who insisted that they were. Therefore it is simply ignored – that, and general disinterest in NI’s internal affairs.

    To be honest, a lot of folks will hold the view that the Shinners were simply giving the Protestants a taste of their own medicine or engaging in positive discimination, so they don’t really care about it anyway.

  • Regional Development Minister Danny Kennedy today confirmed that he would not appeal the Fair Employment Tribunal’s decision in a case brought by Dr Alan Lennon. ~ Monday, 30 July 2012 source

    Minister Kennedy: “I have considered the merits of an appeal and I have come to the conclusion that it is not in the public interest. The prospect of success in any appeal is at best uncertain.” ..

    also acknowledge that a Tribunal is more often than not in the best position to assess evidence and its value. Therefore I am not satisfied it is in the public interest to appeal this matter.

    “It is important to note that the Tribunal decision sets no precedent in respect of public appointments.” ..

    Danny Kennedy added: “The Tribunal’s finding relates to a specific complaint brought by Dr Lennon and it is not my intention to review any of the appointments made under the tenure of my predecessor.”

    Conor Murphy is not a happy bunny. He claims the UUP Minister’s decision was “clearly politically motivated and a way of scoring cheap political points at the expense of the truth