Martin Ferris, TD and the McCabe Killers

[indepepdenceday]

THe fact of the matter is that people with poor education are drawn to paramilitary organisations. I do not believe this is snobbery to state the obvious.

You would of course be refering to the IRB, the IRA, the Irish Volunteers and the Citizen Army. The IRB was active in paramilitary campaigns from the 1840's and the others were all involved from 1916 onwards.

On the other hand the Irish Parlimentary Party, under John Redmond in 1916, were mostly graduates of private scholls and university.

By 1922 the IPP was consigned to history and the veterans of the rebellion and War of Independence and Civil war took up the majority of seats in the new Dail.

If what you are saying about education and paramilitaries is true then we were served by some very poorly educated people for a number of decades, which in turn served to undermine the social and economic development of this country.

In the Dail in July 1943 TD Oliver J Flanagan called for the use of the governments emergency powers against the Jews, whom he claimed ‘crucified our saviour and ‘are cruscifying us every day of the week’. He called for the Ireland to follow Germany’s example and root them out. Brian Girvin (2002 p110 From Union to Union)

iN 1951 the Taoiseach, Costello, and all his Ministers distanced themselves from Browne and proclaimed themselves Catholics first and Irishmen second. (Cooney 1999 p253 John Charles McQuaid, Ruler of Catholic Ireland)

By 1961 only half of our TD's had been educated past primary school (Union to Union. Girvin p134)

And still today our political system is based on a government vs opposition which have still not grown up since 1922.

Is there any point in real debate on the Irish political system. Its sort of like discussing a playground tit for tat between 6 year olds.

I mean does it matter which side of the isle they rule from. We put them there. You say the paramilitaries are uneducated! What are we? Who elects the politically brainwashed decendents of paramilitaries to govern a modern nation. Jezus its electing people and putting them in power just cos their great grandad was in the GPO...they're still up with those 1920's policies, all they do is a panto called advesorial politics. They agree on most things but they gotta have a few digs at each other now and again just to keep us believing its actually real politics not a panto.

If two mates share a flat and one guy loses his keys there may be a bit of a barney over who get to hold the last key. But really once they can share the key to get in whenever they want its not that important who has the key. Cos they both got the gaff rent free since 1923 with money coming in AND THEY AINT SHARING THE KEY WITH ANYONE.

Great generals rarely make great politicians.

[femmefatale]

You really ought to listen to MLK's "I've been to the highest mountain" speech.

Why? I've told you that I'm a pacifist. Why don't you recommend it to the people who glorify all sorts of violence on here on a daily basis?

They were not on an IRA 'mission, so therefore they were not acting as members of the IRA at the time, or is membership of the IRA a get out of jail free card for any crime? If they were not acting as members than they were just common criminals under the meaning of the GFA. Where's the hypocrisy?

Whether one likes it or not, they qualified for early release. The hypocrisy arises from a willingness to support early releases in the North but block them in the South.

I view most of the peace process as a series of acts of necessary evils which had to be done in order to stop people being killed. It seems, largely, to have worked.

Very limited view. What about the introduction of power sharing and the inclusion, for the first time, of all shades of opinion? What about the equality and human rights provisions of the GFA? What about the first formal acknowledgement of the need to respect and celebrate both cultural traditions? The peace process was about ending conflict but it was and is also about creating a fairer and more just society and overcoming the inequalities and injustices that led to conflict in the first place.

If I've been hypocritical, then please point it out. Back it up with evidence and you'll get an acknowledgement and apology from me. If you cannot back it up then withdraw your remarks.

I said that what had been argued on here was sheer hypocrisy. I did not say that you specifically or alone were guilty of this. Either early release happens across the board without exceptions, or it doesn't. It's hypocritical to support it unconditionally in the North and then try to make exceptions in the South.

[Keith-M]

Anybody be they Catholic,Protestant.Dissenter Black or White born on the Island of Ireland is Irish> except for HeavenHelpUs of course lol

Jes that's progress! You told us earlier that everyone from the North was British!
I knew that Viagra would work for you!

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

[HEAVENHELPUS]

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Out of curiosity, does the M in your name stand for Mary?

[Cato]

Why? I've told you that I'm a pacifist. Why don't you recommend it to the people who glorify all sorts of violence on here on a daily basis?

I commend it to you because your a pacifist and because it argues my case better than I could.

Whether one likes it or not, they qualified for early release. The hypocrisy arises from a willingness to support early releases in the North but block them in the South.

They were not acting as IRA members at the time (according to Gerry A); therefore it was a 'private job; therefore they were acting as common criminals; therefore they were not covered by the GFA; therefore no early realize.

Tell me where I went wrong.

Very limited view. What about the introduction of power sharing and the inclusion, for the first time, of all shades of opinion? What about the equality and human rights provisions of the GFA? What about the first formal acknowledgement of the need to respect and celebrate both cultural traditions? The peace process was about ending conflict but it was and is also about creating a fairer and more just society and overcoming the inequalities and injustices that led to conflict in the first place.

All that stuff is good and welcome (indeed, part of the reason why I voted for the GFA), but it has to be the start of a long normalization process. The current set-up is just a 'compromise' starting position.

I said that what had been argued on here was sheer hypocrisy. I did not say that you specifically or alone were guilty of this. Either early release happens across the board without exceptions, or it doesn't. It's hypocritical to support it unconditionally in the North and then try to make exceptions in the South.

See above.

Again, point me to the evidence of my alleged hypocrisy and I'll acknowledge and apologize. If you cannot, then withdraw your remarks.

[jdaly]

Lads, for the love of God, will you lose the fake indignation.

The men who killed Jerry Mc Cabe were dealt with by the courts and served the sentences laid down by same. What do you want, a system of justice where people have the keys thrown away.. or am I being naive in asking that question.

Do you know, it's strange, but it always seems that those who "laud" the "rule of law", are often those who most vehemently criticise that same law, when it doesn't meet their own expectations.

As for Martin Ferris going to meet them.. if he didn't, you'd probably start saying that he was wrong for not going. Make up your minds.

For the record, I would have condemned the killing of Jerry Mc Cabe, but I am personally sickened by the constant politicising of it

I find it interestingb that Sinn Féin, the party which described those who shot British Soldiers in the 6 counties as 'traitors to Ireland' can extend such a warm welcomet o those who shot members of the gardai for interfering with an ira robbery. Seems to me that there is a bit of twisted logic at work there in a so called 'republican' party.

[femmefatale]

They were not acting as IRA members at the time (according to Gerry A); therefore it was a 'private job; therefore they were acting as common criminals; therefore they were not covered by the GFA; therefore no early realize.

Tell me where I went wrong.

Again, point me to the evidence of my alleged hypocrisy and I'll acknowledge and apologize. If you cannot, then withdraw your remarks.

They qualified for early release under the GFA. SF and Gerry Adams have stated this. They didn't endorse/condone what the men did but they did support their early release in line with the provisions of the GFA. You'll find plenty of non-partisan people who agree. It's a legalistic stance not a political one. Those who were happy to see all political prisoners released in the North but have seen fit to oppose similar releases in the South, acted inconsistently and hypocritically. If you believe the GFA should have been ignored in this case and not in others, I'm afraid you too are guilty of hypocrisy.

[absconded]

I find it interestingb that Sinn Féin, the party which described those who shot British Soldiers in the 6 counties as 'traitors to Ireland' can extend such a warm welcomet o those who shot members of the gardai for interfering with an ira robbery. Seems to me that there is a bit of twisted logic at work there in a so called 'republican' party.

Good point, I wonder if the murderers of the soldiers had managed to pick a few pockets or take the pizza man´s float of cash in the course of the massacre would they have received a more positive response from their SF leadership buddies.

[Cato]

They qualified for early release under the GFA. SF and Gerry Adams have stated this. They didn't endorse/condone what the men did but they did support their early release in line with the provisions of the GFA. You'll find plenty of non-partisan people who agree. It's a legalistic stance not a political one. Those who were happy to see all political prisoners released in the North but have seen fit to oppose similar releases in the South, acted inconsistently and hypocritically. If you believed the GFA should have been ignored in this case and not in others, I'm afraid you too are guilty of hypocrisy.

I've always taken the view that they were not acting as IRA members at the time - as per Gerry A - therefore they could not be protected by the GFA.

Just because you or anyone else thinks otherwise, does not make it so. If they should have been released under the GFA then why did they not go to court and seek their release there?

Because they were not covered, or because in order to be covered they would have had to have admitted to have been acting under orders from the PIRA at the time, which would have been a little 'awkward' for SF at the time?

We should believe Gerry A, and say that they were freelancing at the time and were therefore just common criminals, and therefore not covered by the GFA.

How am I being hypocritical in all this? I sincerely take the view that they were not covered by the GFA.

[ergo2]

femmefatale

How can you categorise those who murder a garda while intending armed robbery as "political prisoners"?