No calls for Gerry Adams to resign - why not?

DeepBlue

Since the publication of the Murphy report there has been a rolling news story about the resignations of bishops mentioned in it. There has been calls for the bishops to resign, speculation that they will resign and reports that they have resigned.
None of the bishops actually committed any deviant acts against children themselves. Rather they were in a position to act to prevent such acts being carried out and failed to do so. For that failing they had to go.

The news has since emerged that the brother of Gerry Adams is a suspected paedophile. For years Liam Adams has been working in areas where he has contact with young people. Gerry Adams has been aware for over a decade that his brother was suspected of abusing his own daughter. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything about it or did anything to protect children that his brother would come in contact with.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/dec/27/exposed-gerry-adams-lies-over-brothers-sinn-fein-r/

As with the bishops, Gerry Adams was in a position to prevent acts of abuse being carried out and failed to do anything meaningful.

And yet there is no rolling news coverage calling for his resignation, speculating as to whether he will resign or anthing like it.

Why the silence? Why the double-standard?

walrusgumble

DeepBlue wrote: »

Since the publication of the Murphy report there has been a rolling news story about the resignations of bishops mentioned in it. There has been calls for the bishops to resign, speculation that they will resign and reports that they have resigned.
None of the bishops actually committed any deviant acts against children themselves. Rather they were in a position to act to prevent such acts being carried out and failed to do so. For that failing they had to go.

The news has since emerged that the brother of Gerry Adams is a suspected paedophile. For years Liam Adams has been working in areas where he has contact with young people. Gerry Adams has been aware for over a decade that his brother was suspected of abusing his own daughter. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything about it or did anything to protect children that his brother would come in contact with.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/dec/27/exposed-gerry-adams-lies-over-brothers-sinn-fein-r/

As with the bishops, Gerry Adams was in a position to prevent acts of abuse being carried out and failed to do anything meaningful.

And yet there is no rolling news coverage calling for his resignation, speculating as to whether he will resign or anthing like it.

Why the silence? Why the double-standard?

10-15 years ago, gerry adams and sinn fein, for reasons other than this, could barely get anyone to speak to them or shake their hands in public without the other person getting trashed by the people and the media. Gerry Adams had little or no influence in the police structures etc or any prospects to be able to ensure that all would get a fair trial and investigation, free from taking political swipes on a personal issue.10 -15 years ago, Mr Adams was considered (and in some sections still does) as a pariah, scum bag etc. Was he is an position to change anything? Haven't there being reports of lay people involved in other areas (eg College/Univeristy) with known / suspected records. Not that it makes much difference, but 10-15 years ago, would you expect a nationalist/republican with important connections "with enemy of the state" be able to walk into an RUC barracks to make a complaint without making matters wholly worse or be used to attain unfair politcal advantage? No doubt it would have added more fuel to bigoted loyalists & unionist (i am sure not all loyalists & unionists were bigots) who abused and threated many innocent catholics around the 6 counties (yes, and many protestants suffered same fate at hands of naionalist & republicans - so put balance there)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfsnmhgbcw/
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0713/mcelween.html

We ourselves were well aware of incidents priest brutality and abuse of trust and power.(comedians like, the late dermot morgan,use to highlight some of the well known double standards of religious orders during his stand up routine or television sketches) There is very little in the Murphy Report and previous reports that we were not either aware of or had heard of through rumour mills. We, the people did not do an awful lot until the victims themselves took to courage to come public.

Gerry may not have any right to have gone public without the consent of the victim, his niece. suspicion is one thing, having hard evidence is another. Did Mr Adams have this? If not people are entitled until proven otherwise to the right of their good name and reputation.

If you wish to accuse Mr Adams of double standards, fine there are or maybe other issues to accused him on this, but this issue is not one of them. You can't compare this issue to the religious orders who had control of their victims and abused the their duties of care and confidence.yet for years we allowed to preach the good word and family values etc.

Considering that in Ireland, Albert Reynolds, former Taoiseach, was forced to resign of, inter alia, the Fr Brendan Smith scandal, maybe Mr Adams would be better off leaving the political arena, as no matter what he says now (on a private family member issue), he will only be attacked by his opponents, not in the concern of victims but on basis of cheap political gains. However, after ready one or two articles regarding efforts to shut up his niece, that is pretty gaulling.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, Mr Adams did not appear for the expected radio interview on Newstalk "legends hour" in late November/December (remember the one with many well known Irish people, like Ian Paisley, been interviewed at the IFSC)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DeepBlue

walrusgumble wrote: »

There is very little in the Murphy Report and previous reports that we were not either aware of or had heard of through rumour mills. We, the people did not do an awful lot until the victims themselves took to courage to come public.

So someone, not in a position of power, who has heard a rumour without witnessing it themselves has the same culpability as those with power and direct involvement? Come off it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

If you wish to accuse Mr Adams of double standards, fine their are or maybe other issues to accused him on this, but this issue is not one of them. You can't compare this issue to the religious orders who had control of their victims and abused the their duties of care and confidence.yet for years we allowed to preach the good word and family values etc.

Wait, so you are only culpable if you are in the clergy and don't do anything about potential child sex abuse? I guess since Adams wasn't a priest or bishop then it's ok that he sat on his hands.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Gerry may not have any right to have gone public without the consent of the victim, his niece. suspicion is one thing, having hard evidence is another. Did Mr Adams have this? If not people are entitled until proven otherwise to the right of their good name and reputation.

Bishops have resigned for not having acted despite not having hard evidence. They haven't put forward that defence. I wonder why?

DeepBlue

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if he knows of abuse and does nothing about it then it's ok because it isn't in his political party? That's a bit Jesuitical is it not?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Max Power1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1

DeepBlue

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see the situations as being very similar.

Position of power - check.
Knowledge of potential sex-abuse - check.
Failure to act or protect potential victims - check.

Besides that does Adams' situation have to be an exact mirror of the bishops before it can be condemned?

By the way the double standard I mentioned in my OP was in relation to media coverage i.e. saturation coverage of the bishops versus comparatively minimal coverage of Adams' case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DeepBlue

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think I've explained it clearly enough. If you don't see it then you don't see it.

philologos

To provoke discussion: The OP does make an underlying point even if it isn't valid in Gerry Adams' case. Secular child abuse occurred on a much larger scale than church abuse. Why isn't there as much being discussed about this problem than about the other?

walrusgumble

DeepBlue wrote: »

So someone, not in a position of power, who has heard a rumour without witnessing it themselves has the same culpability as those with power and direct involvement? Come off it.



Wait, so you are only culpable if you are in the clergy and don't do anything about potential child sex abuse? I guess since Adams wasn't a priest or bishop then it's ok that he sat on his hands.


Bishops have resigned for not having acted despite not having hard evidence. They haven't put forward that defence. I wonder why?

1. I need not come off anything. I never said people who are not in a position of power are culpable. gerry adams was NOT in a position of power then either!, so why attack him on this?, is he no different to us on this matter? hindsight is a handy thing.To accuss him otherwise would be double standards.

2. Clergy has nothing to do with this matter - and should not come into this issue. The poster is questioning Mr Adam's suitabibility of continuing as a leader of a political party in light of this information, despite his position or lack of position to do anything then.accusing a civilian, Adams is double standards. He had no power and no influence and the RUC most certainly were in no mood or position to properly address this problem. To accuss him of sitting on his hands is pointless, many family members of victims did similar - why? Because the victims did not want or did not, understandably, have the courage to go public with the abuse. This goes too in relation to domestic violence, rape and other abuses. How many reports have you heard about NGO's telling us that there was more abuse occurring than what was report (same goes today)

One is a complete and utter idiot if they believe that our then TD's, people who knew everything about their areas and who went to the opening of an envelope in their areas, had no awarness of the slightest rumours of church abuse or abuse by civilians. They also did nothing and they sat on their hands. its not for any of us to judge mr adams on this, we don't know the full story here yet.

3. Some of the Bishops were well aware of the rumours of other priests. They had moved them to other parishes in hope that they would change or shipped them off to the missions in Africa. The difference with the Bishops is that they children of his area were put, in trust, into the care and supervision of his men, the priests. They had full control over the children whilst they were in church runned schools, hospitals and shelters etc. They were quick to humilate and belittle a family, even without hard evidence, for their preceived failures to raise their child or live their lives in the manner preached by them, yet for some, often did the opposite of what they preached. The running of the parishes and dioces was the responsibility of the bishops. They failed to co-operate. Even Cardinal Connell fought all the way.

In fairness to some of the Bishops in this country, they are great men and are true christians. they have being tarnished by association. In relation to Mr Adams, though what has the clergy got to do with this issue?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

To provoke discussion: The OP does make an underlying point even if it isn't valid in Gerry Adams' case. Secular child abuse occurred on a much larger scale than church abuse. Why isn't there as much being discussed about this problem than about the other?

What is secular child abuse? Seperation of church and state while sodomising children?

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What is secular child abuse? Seperation of church and state while sodomising children?

Child abuse that occurs outside of religious institutions. I.E family members, or other acquaintances abusing children.

The vast majority of child abuse in Ireland has occurred in these settings.

Of course all child abuse is horrific, but why aren't we so willing to criticise this as well.

aurelius79

DeepBlue, prove to us that Mr. Adams knew all along about what was his brother was doing. Then prove to us that he did nothing to prevent it from happening again. Prove to us that Mr. Adams was somehow responsible for what his brother was doing. If you can't prove any of these then you have no business passing judgment on him.

You have no idea about what might have happened. All you have to go on is some news reports. Why don't you send Mr. Adams a letter asking why he failed to report his brother's actions?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Child abuse that occurs outside of religious institutions. I.E family members, or other acquaintances abusing children.

The vast majority of child abuse in Ireland has occurred in these settings.

Of course all child abuse is horrific, but why aren't we so willing to criticise this as well.

Right, but take a look at both propositions.

1) "Secular" child abuse (you know, the child abuse carried out in a population with a Christian majority).

This is as decentralised as you can possibly get. It wasn't as if whole communities were gathering together every Saturday for a mass raping now, is it? These were all individual cases, with no central authority and no system.

2) Christian child abuse.

This was a system of child abuse, carried out by the most powerful centralised authority in the state, with a network which spread out all over the globe and whose leader is Gods representative on Earth. Given that Christianity is definitely true, that means God must have approved of such behaviour.

In summary, we have on the one hand a completely decentralised group of sexual assaults versus a centralised group which sexually assaulted children across the globe, all with the approval of the creator of the universe.

Gee, why are people so obsessed with option two?

MG

It is indeed strange that there have been no calls for him to resign - possibluy because the other parties know that it does SF more damage for him to remain on.

I find it almost bizarre that people can justify his behaviour on the basis of it being private rather than political - he still has a duty of leadership.

He of course should resign for two reasons quite seperate from the debate above over being a personal matter rather than a political one:

1. He campaigned on behalf of a known sex abuser during the 97 election

2. If the Tribune yesterday is correct, he lied about being in contact with his brother during that period.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but take a look at both propositions.

Let's not get into semantics.

I used the term "secular" because it occurred outside to a sacred or a church setting.

Not specifically religious; Not bound by the vows of a monastic order; Temporal; something that is worldly or otherwise not based on something ...

This didn't occur under a specifically religious pretext, hence why I use secular. The term has numerous meanings.

I'm not saying that it was motivated by atheism or the like. All I am saying is that most abuse took place outside of the church. This is a valid point, we should be questioning society as a whole for allowing such things to happen, not just the Roman Catholic Church. It's a problem in general in Ireland, irrespective of whether or not priests are involved.

walrusgumble

Jakkass wrote: »

Child abuse that occurs outside of religious institutions. I.E family members, or other acquaintances abusing children.

The vast majority of child abuse in Ireland has occurred in these settings.

Of course all child abuse is horrific, but why aren't we so willing to criticise this as well.

thank you for saying this. you hit the nail on the head and no one here could disagree with this.

What can one say? does it open up some serious heavy wounds in many people's family history? - look at all the novels, films, documentaries that have being produced about the deeds of family members of the past. (rape, incest, violent beatings etc) I suppose many families want at least to allow the outside world believe that their family is perfect etc (quiete understandable) we all are aware that people's understanding etc of these issues is far greater and more sympathetic today as oppose to even 10 -15 years ago. look how long it took for Ireland to bring in legislation for legal seperation, domestic violence legislation etc, the problems which the legislation tried to address where longstanding blackmarks in Irish society.How many stories did ye hear about a victim (of eg martial abuse) going to a priest/police/or other upstanding member of society and being told to try and make their marriage work, don't bring shame to the family and it will all work out?

We seem to have being very quick to judge without considering the climate of those times. imagine what people attitudes, beliefs would have being on a forum like this (where we are faceless and annoyonus) during events like the X case, Fr Brendan Smith etc

I simply say, before we point fingers at Mr Adams, allow him and members of his family to completley explain to the people exactly why it has taken so long for him to come public with this and whilst he speak listen with open minds, then we can judge.

DeepBlue

walrusgumble wrote: »

He had no power and no influence

Let me get this straight.
Gerry Adams had no power and no influence in Northern Ireland in the last 20 years? :eek:
Seriously?

It's precisely because he had power and influence that his failure to act gives cause for concern.
Just because others in similar positions may or may not have done anything doesn't excuse him nor does it mean he had responsibilities in the matter.

DeVore

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but take a look at both propositions.

1) "Secular" child abuse (you know, the child abuse carried out in a population with a Christian majority).

This is as decentralised as you can possibly get. It wasn't as if whole communities were gathering together every Saturday for a mass raping now, is it? These were all individual cases, with no central authority and no system.

2) Christian child abuse.

This was a system of child abuse, carried out by the most powerful centralised authority in the state, with a network which spread out all over the globe and whose leader is Gods representative on Earth. Given that Christianity is definitely true, that means God must have approved of such behaviour.

In summary, we have on the one hand a completely decentralised group of sexual assaults versus a centralised group which sexually assaulted children across the globe, all with the approval of the creator of the universe.

Gee, why are people so obsessed with option two?

Jakass, can you speak to Flamings more substantial point then just the semantics of "secular".

The outrage isnt "that abused happened", its with the people who were NOT themselves paedophiles, who KNEW what was going on and yet still failed to act (or in some cases actively hid the culprit).


That is the similarity being drawn here, that Gerry Adams, like many of the bishops and priests, knew what was going on and still alerted no one.

There is no analagous or similar entity or role in non-clerical abuse on anything LIKE the scale we are talking about here.

DeV.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In summary, we have on the one hand a completely decentralised group of sexual assaults versus a centralised group which sexually assaulted children across the globe, all with the approval of the creator of the universe.

Who has ever argued this?

It appears that some people find it easier to blame the Roman Catholics and them alone rather than looking to Irish society as a whole and the disgraceful acts that people did to one another. 27% of children are estimated to have endured this before they are 18 in this country.

This isn't just a Roman Catholic problem, and people need to face up to that.

DeVore: I've made clear, that all child abuse is horrific, and it shouldn't happen to anyone whether motivated by the church, family members or otherwise.

As for the knowing about the abuse, I'm quite sure that people in settings outside of the Roman Catholic Church knew about abuse that had occurred to children. Yet being silent was just better for everyone else. Making a special case out of Catholicism, is just wrong. Are people meant to believe that cover ups on abuse don't exist outside of Catholicism?


N.B - I have no intention of defending anyone for any wrong that they did, rather I'd be more interested if people could take the scales off their eyes and see the full picture maybe for once?

DeepBlue

Flamed Diving wrote: »

2) Christian child abuse.

This was a system of child abuse, carried out by the most powerful centralised authority in the state, with a network which spread out all over the globe and whose leader is Gods representative on Earth. Given that Christianity is definitely true, that means God must have approved of such behaviour.

Off-topic but I don't think anyone has said there was a system of child abuse operating in the church.

There were individual priests who were engaged in abuse and that abuse was covered up but there wasn't any evidence uncovered of child sex-abuse rings or anything like that afaik.
I think Diarmuid Martin was concerned that there might be but to date nothing has come to light to definitively say there was a child sex-abuse ring operating.

walrusgumble

DeepBlue wrote: »

Let me get this straight.
Gerry Adams had no power and no influence in Northern Ireland in the last 20 years? :eek:
Seriously?

It's precisely because he had power and influence that his failure to act gives cause for concern.
Just because others in similar positions may or may not have done anything doesn't excuse him nor does it mean he had responsibilities in the matter.

discredited by Dail Eireann and westminister and the RUC, his seat in West Belfast was worthless in a bid to deal with this issue even if he could (please don't try to be clever with the abstaining ethos).you seem to forget that it wasn't too long ago he was unable to be interviewed without censure by our press. Yes he had power in the higher marks of the Republican movement, but what would you expect him to have done, have his brother knee capped or worse ?(like others)

You telling me had this matter come out then, and that he went to the RUC, the RUC would have dealt with it in the professional manner that it should? That some how the other side of the community would make an excuse out of the issue in order to get their way when dealing with say peace process? Your telling me that the media would have dealt with this issue differently as oppose to say now days (although standards are still not great, no doubt the Sun, particularly the English papers and Irish Sunday Independent would be on a field day.

You seem to forget or ignore that this was RUC and not the Garda you were dealing with here. Say whatever about the Garda, but the RUC were hardly the great protectors of all the people of Northern Ireland.


Do you believe that Gerry Adams is the only politican that was aware of incidents and rumours such as these of their constituents? I would be quiet surprised if you do.

Of course though, this still does not justify Adams and his inactions.

But tell me this, regardless of whether you had power or not, if these events happened to your niece during 1970's up to the 1990's (in light of public apathy towards dometic violence, abuse etc) and you were made aware that your brother was acting up, what would you have done?

DeepBlue

walrusgumble wrote: »

Of course though, this still does not justify Adams and his inactions.

Agreed and I'm glad you said it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

But tell me this, regardless of whether you had power or not, if these events happened to your niece during 1970's up to the 1990's (in light of public apathy towards dometic violence, abuse etc) and you were made aware that your brother was acting up, what would you have done?

The 70's were before my time and I don't know what the culture would have been like then.
And frankly I don't know what I would do now if such a horrific situation were to arise but I hope I'd act responsibly.

However I'm not in the same position as Adams.
By virtue of his position he has to act and be judged by a higher standard than the rest of us regardless of whether he or others think that's unfair or not.

For me the whole issue with the bishops is not that they were clergy but that they had the power to act one way but instead acted the other. And they rightly paid the price.
Others should be held to the same account whether they be politicians, gardai, school principals, or whoever. If they fail to protect children from this awful crime then their position should become untenable.

nesf

Since the people who were abused were adults I think it is up to them to decide which action to take, it was not Adams' place to make that decision for them. If we were talking about children it'd be different but the abuse only came out to the rest of the family when the abused individual was an adult.

I really can't see why Adams' should resign and I think I disagree with him on almost every policy issue etc.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

To provoke discussion: The OP does make an underlying point even if it isn't valid in Gerry Adams' case. Secular child abuse occurred on a much larger scale than church abuse. Why isn't there as much being discussed about this problem than about the other?

I doubt this is true (on a per capita basis).

Anyway, it should be noted that the Ryan report looks further than just the religious institutions themselves, but have a read of it and let us know what other areas of Irish society have a comparable record.

Zambia

Imagine slinging that accusation around when you don't have solid proof, against your own brother.

I would not believe it of my brother unless it was proved it to me beyond doubt.

baubl

DeepBlue wrote: »

So if he knows of abuse and does nothing about it then it's ok because it isn't in his political party? That's a bit Jesuitical is it not?

Jerry Adams did not commit a crime, should not be blamed for the sins of his brother
His brother had a wife who was the mother of that girl, had she told her mother about the abuse, and if so, what did she do about it

Terrontress

baubl wrote: »

Jerry Adams did not commit a crime, should not be blamed for the sins of his brother
His brother had a wife who was the mother of that girl, had she told her mother about the abuse, and if so, what did she do about it

The issue is that Adams' brother worked in positions where he was looking after kids in both Belfast and Dundalk after allegations had been made of him. Regardless of the victim's mother has done, Gerry Adams knew of it. I'm not sure whether the victim's mother or the victim herself would have had the confidence or credibility to have moved against Liam Adams but you can be sure Gerry did. It would appear that he took the allegations seriously because he moved to protect the party by expelling his brother from SF but did not act to prevent him taking up two positions in which he was working with children.

To answer the OP, the reason I'd think there have been no calls for his resignation is that his political opponents don't want to be seen to make capital from the rape of a child.

lostexpectation

the tribune and indo have called for his resigation, the rest are hesitating to see what happens to liam adams