|
Sean
Smyth accuses me of forgetting to mention the
role of paramilitaries in my recent articles on crime
and anti-social behaviour. In order to set the record
straight I would ask Sean to read my article Addressing
Organised Crime again. I would ask him to read
it this time with the word “paramilitary”
etched large in his minds-eye. Hopefully, this time
he will find that term is used at least eleven times
throughout that article. I would ask him to read again
paragraphs six, seven, eight and nine of that article
and tell me again that I have forgotten to mention
the role of paramilitaries. My second article, Crucified,
was written in response to a brutal attack on a young
person by alleged members of a paramilitary organisation.
As the background of the alleged attackers was already
in the public domain there was no need to specifically
use the word paramilitary. Most reasonable people
reading the article, and setting it within the context
of the incident, would have known that already.
Sean
opens his article with a selective quote from my article
on Crucifixion. The words quoted by Sean come after
three paragraphs of text in which I was highly critical
of the barbaric form of punishment meted out to Harry
Mc Cartan by vigilantes. Most reasonable people reading
those words within the context of the previous three
paragraphs, and within the context of the remainder
of the paragraph from which Sean selectively extracted
them, will realise that I was seeking to put forward
a balanced case for addressing anti-social behaviour
in a non-violent manner; but yet in a manner that
reflected the anger of society. Having read and re-read
Sean’s article I still cannot see the relevance
of using that quote.
In
the same paragraph that he falsely accuses me of forgetting
to mention the role of paramilitaries Sean refers
to the alleged activities of one section of a loyalist
paramilitary group and says “But as this is done
for Ulster/Ireland maybe it’s better not to mention
it”. The insinuation is clear, I didn’t
mention paramilitaries in my articles because crime
carried out in the name of Ulster or Ireland is somehow
okay. If that is what Sean had in mind then he is
guilty of deliberately misrepresenting what was said
in my articles and, perhaps more importantly, guilty
of casting aspersions on my own personal integrity.
In
paragraph seven of my article “Addressing Organised
Crime” I state quite clearly that:
“Political
ideology and organised crime are incompatible. There
can be no political motive for poisoning the children
of our country with drugs or for forcing them to
steal to pay for the habit that the ‘trade’
helped them to develop. There can be no political
motive for undermining the local economy upon which
the community depends for its quality of life. There
can be no political motive for bleeding local shopkeepers
or publicans of their hard-earned money until they
feel that it is not worth the bother carrying on.
There can be no political motive for putting personal
selfish greed above the social, economic and cultural
well-being of the community”.
I
continue with this theme in paragraph eight where
I clearly state , “Love of ones country, whether
it be expressed through Irish patriotism or Ulster
Loyalism, is wholly incompatible with organised crime”.
Thus I neither ignore the fact that members of paramilitary
organisations are involved in criminal activities
nor do I suggest that criminal activities are justified
if they are carried out in the cause of either Ulster
or Ireland.
How
Sean can claim that I ignored the issue of paramilitary
involvement in criminal activity is beyond comprehension.
If he wishes to take issue with what I write I have
no problems. But let him stick to the facts. Let him
read what I have actually written and try to use that
information to genuinely understand the issues that
I am trying to address. What he had to say about crime,
anti-social behaviour and the family could have been
said without any reference at all to my articles and
I can only assume that his use of my articles as a
launching pad for his own had more to do with misrepresenting
me than it had to do with the issue of crime and anti-social
behaviour. That kind of journalism does nothing to
encourage genuine dialogue or to enhance the image
of The Blanket as a forum for constructive
debate.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
