Will Eamon Gilmore apply his own logic to himself?

Min · 03-05-2012 11:57am #1

Eamon Gilmore in the Dáil today:
"As far as your question about the Government's position in relation to Cardinal Brady is concerned, let me say this, I have always believed in the separation of church and state,”
“I think it is the job of government and of the State to enact out laws and to ensure that those laws apply to everybody, whether they belong to a church or not.
"But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority."

ok that is fine for Eamon Gilmore to say, but if we apply the logic of Eamon Gilmore, are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know about the horrific effects of communism on people? How millions of people died under these regimes, how men, women and children were abused under these regimes?

Surely Eamon Gilmore should resign if we are to judge people on what they did in the past given the knowledge they have.
Did Eamon Gilmore not know that communism is responsible for horrific abuse?
Surely he wouldn't be inviting over his best friends from China who still force women to have abortions and are involved in a lot of human rights abuses.
We have seen in the past week how a blind Chinese human rights activist escaped from house arrest. He was being held under house arrest for supporting women who were forced to have abortions by the Chinese regime.

For Eamon Gilmore, it all depends on whose abuse is acceptable when it comes to him saying "But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority"

walshb · 03-05-2012 12:07pm

Are you Chinese?

seamus · 03-05-2012 12:08pm

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Cardinal Brady had a legal and moral obligation to bring his knowledge of child abuse to the appropriate state authorities. His position in the church or the church's own beliefs do not override the state's law. In fact, the opposite is true.

What crimes does Eamonn Gilmore know about that he is not reporting to the appropriate authorities?

K-9 · 03-05-2012 12:16pm

I'm confused. The Catholic Church is similar to China and the Stalin regime. Well, I never!

Gilmore can only be held responsible for actions within the state that he was aware of. Using your logic, Cardinal Brady is responsible for abuse in the US or Canada.

walshb · 03-05-2012 12:26pm

Maybe I am wrong but to me the OP is saying that Gilmore has a responsibility to apply his morals and codes when assessing or engaging with other countries affairs, laws, cultures, rules etc And, if their way of life differs from his way, then he should act.

Min · 03-05-2012 12:27pm

So is it ok to turn a blind eye to abuse by the Chinese?
Is it ok to tell someone to resign on how they acted back in the 1970's?

If we are to judge Eamon Gilmore by what he supported in the 1970's he was strongly in favour of regimes from North Korea to the Soviet Union to China. He was part of a party that was involved with the North Koreans when it came to illegal $100 dollar bills.
It is hard to believe that Eamon Gilmore didn't know what his party of the time were supporting or involved in.

He only stopped supporting communism when the Soviet Union and it's satellite states collapsed.

This is a man who told the Irish people we would not be voting on the Lisbon treaty again while telling the Americans we would be voting on it again.

His involvement with the official IRA while it was robbing and involved in criminality, all this has been shoved under the carpet and instead we have a man preaching to us about the wrongs of others and telling them to resign while not applying how unsuitable he is for the deputy prime minister role in this country, if we are to judge him on his past actions.

Min · 03-05-2012 12:34pm

K-9 wrote: »

I'm confused. The Catholic Church is similar to China and the Stalin regime. Well, I never!

Gilmore can only be held responsible for actions within the state that he was aware of. Using your logic, Cardinal Brady is responsible for abuse in the US or Canada.

I am saying Eamon Gilmore is saying that Cardinal Brady should resign because of what he knew back in 1975.
This is the same person who back then to the very late 1980's was supporting communist regimes and are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know the horrific abuses these regimes were involved in?

If Gilmore believes the cardinal should resign, then surely Gilmore should also resign for the abuses he knew about but continued to support.
He can't claim he was ignorant of the abuses done by communist regimes, just as Cardinal Brady cannot claim he was ignorant of the abuses caused by Brendan Smyth.

Why did Eamon Gilmore continue to support the abusive communists, until the Soviet Union collapsed?

I am just against double standards by our politicians and Gilmore is one of the biggest hypocrites in this country and that is some doing.

K-9 · 03-05-2012 1:20pm

Min wrote: »

I am saying Eamon Gilmore is saying that Cardinal Brady should resign because of what he knew back in 1975.
This is the same person who back then to the very late 1980's was supporting communist regimes and are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know the horrific abuses these regimes were involved in?

If Gilmore believes the cardinal should resign, then surely Gilmore should also resign for the abuses he knew about but continued to support.
He can't claim he was ignorant of the abuses done by communist regimes, just as Cardinal Brady cannot claim he was ignorant of the abuses caused by Brendan Smyth.

Why did Eamon Gilmore continue to support the abusive communists, until the Soviet Union collapsed?

I am just against double standards by our politicians and Gilmore is one of the biggest hypocrites in this country and that is some doing.

I do see your point, it depends on his knowledge and what power he had to do anything.. I'd be surprised if he hasn't condemned China at some stage. There is a difference between backing an ideology and supporting China or the Soviet Union.

As for being a hypocrite, well that's subjective, his political beliefs have changed over the years, there must be a lot of hypocrites about! Labour and Gilmore do come in for consistent attack from certain members of the Catholic Church, due to his atheism and policies on abortion.

Min · 03-05-2012 1:57pm

seamus wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Cardinal Brady had a legal and moral obligation to bring his knowledge of child abuse to the appropriate state authorities. His position in the church or the church's own beliefs do not override the state's law. In fact, the opposite is true.

What crimes does Eamonn Gilmore know about that he is not reporting to the appropriate authorities?

Official IRA involvement in criminality???

CiaranMT · 03-05-2012 4:31pm

That's some axe you're grinding there, Min.

seamus · 03-05-2012 4:38pm

If you have evidence that Eamonn Gilmore is withholding evidence in relation IRA activities, then by all means present it Min. I'm sure the media and FF would be delighted to hear from you.

As a curiosity, aside from the the fact that you think Gilmore is hypocritical in his comments, do you think he's wrong? His being hypocritical is immaterial in regards to whether or not his comments are correct.

After all, a murderer can still condem murder.

Gurgle · 03-05-2012 4:45pm

Min wrote: »

are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know about the horrific effects of communism on people? How millions of people died under these regimes, how men, women and children were abused under these regimes?

I know of a fair few countries which have been run by totalitarian dictatorships while their PR people claimed they were 'doing communism', but to the best of my knowledge actual communism has never actually been tried.

KarmaBaby · 03-05-2012 4:50pm

Min wrote: »

I am saying Eamon Gilmore is saying that Cardinal Brady should resign because of what he knew back in 1975.
This is the same person who back then to the very late 1980's was supporting communist regimes and are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know the horrific abuses these regimes were involved in?

If Gilmore believes the cardinal should resign, then surely Gilmore should also resign for the abuses he knew about but continued to support.
He can't claim he was ignorant of the abuses done by communist regimes, just as Cardinal Brady cannot claim he was ignorant of the abuses caused by Brendan Smyth.

Why did Eamon Gilmore continue to support the abusive communists, until the Soviet Union collapsed?

I am just against double standards by our politicians and Gilmore is one of the biggest hypocrites in this country and that is some doing.

Could you remind me exactly what any of this has to do with Communism?

What you're criticising is his support for certain regimes, not a specific political ideology. It's all about how governments use their power.

Using the same argument we could criticise him over his support for Israel the U.S. and other capitalist/colonial regimes while turning a blind eye to the atrocities they've also committed.

Triangla · 03-05-2012 4:53pm

Brady was in the middle of a process where he could have stood oustide the local church with leaflets warning of the abuses being ignored. IF he had the decency, balls or conscience to do it.

How any human being could have ignored what he ignored is beyond my comprehension.

Gilmore is an Irish polictician with no weight or bearing on foreign regimes and what they do. I'm not sure what impact he could have had on the regimes listed.

Nodin · 03-05-2012 4:54pm

Min wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore in the Dáil today:
"As far as your question about the Government's position in relation to Cardinal Brady is concerned, let me say this, I have always believed in the separation of church and state,”
“I think it is the job of government and of the State to enact out laws and to ensure that those laws apply to everybody, whether they belong to a church or not.
"But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority."

ok that is fine for Eamon Gilmore to say, but if we apply the logic of Eamon Gilmore, are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know about the horrific effects of communism on people? How millions of people died under these regimes, how men, women and children were abused under these regimes?

Surely Eamon Gilmore should resign if we are to judge people on what they did in the past given the knowledge they have.
Did Eamon Gilmore not know that communism is responsible for horrific abuse?
Surely he wouldn't be inviting over his best friends from China who still force women to have abortions and are involved in a lot of human rights abuses.
We have seen in the past week how a blind Chinese human rights activist escaped from house arrest. He was being held under house arrest for supporting women who were forced to have abortions by the Chinese regime.

For Eamon Gilmore, it all depends on whose abuse is acceptable when it comes to him saying "But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority"

So you think its right that Brady should go but that Gilmore is a hypocrite for calling for it?

Chuck Stone · 03-05-2012 5:03pm

Gurgle wrote: »

I know of a fair few countries which have been run by totalitarian dictatorships while their PR people claimed they were 'doing communism', but to the best of my knowledge actual communism has never actually been tried.

There's something to be said for this.

There was very little socialism (worker control of the means of production/factories/community) going on in the USSR. There was an autocratic, dictatorial elite running the shop.

In fact there wasn't a hell of a lot of socialism going on in the USSR and there wasn't very much capitalism in the west - not true free market capitalism at least.

Min · 03-05-2012 5:22pm

Nodin wrote: »

So you think its right that Brady should go but that Gilmore is a hypocrite for calling for it?

Eamon Gilmore is judging someone by what they were involved in back in 1975 when Fr John Brady took notes and didn't inform the parents of the abused children. It is upto Cardinal Sean Brady to make what decision he feels is appropriate, politicians who say they are for a complete separation of church and state shouldn't be making personal comments in the Dáil. Eamon Gilmore we hope is not a Jekyll and Hyde character that he can make out there is a difference between Eamon Gilmore, tanaiste and politician and Eamon Gilmore, the person. He very much brought church and state together in the Dáil by calling for the leader of the irish Catholic church to resign based on what they knew back in 1975.

What makes Eamon Gilmore a hypocrite is his career path has also some very dark moments also back in 1975, this is from Indymedia:
Eamon Gilmore joined the University College Galway Republican Club, affiliated to ‘Official Sinn Féin’ (later the Workers’ Party), around 1975. 1975 was the year that the Officials started a feud in Belfast by executing the unarmed Hugh Ferguson in Ballymurphy because he broke away from the organisation and supported the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Two years later, the Officials shot dead Seamus Costello in Dublin. Gilmore remained a member of the “Sticks” throughout this whole period of Official IRA activity and just to emphasise the point, Gilmore’s university branch in Galway sold the party’s newspaper at that time, which carried lists of Official IRA prisoners, north and south.

Eamon Gilmore remained a member of the Official Republican party right up to the point when most of its TDs (including himself) broke away in 1992 to set up a new party - Democratic Left. Democratic Left then merged with the Labour Party in 1999 and its, allegedly, brightest acolytes then took prominent positions in what we might call New Labour. Now Gilmore leads Labour. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99053

One has questions over their involvement in cases of sexual abuse.
The other has questions about why they continued to give support to a group of people who were not adverse to murder and other crime. interestingly the BBC in the past features Eamon Gilmore and his links to the official IRA and it's involvement in robberies and other criminal activities.

It is as bad as SF looking for people to resign over what happened in the past as if their own history is not blighted by wrongdoing.

Eamon Gilmore has gotten a free ride to the position of Tanaiste in this country, one could say Cardinal Brady got a free ride to his position in the church.

I think Proinsias de Rossa was very lucky to win his libel case against Eamon Dunphy, de Rossa was Gilmore's sidekick and a man who also got a free ride in politics while supporting some extreme views and extreme regimes.

Nodin · 03-05-2012 5:30pm

Min wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore is judging someone by what they were involved in back in 1975 when Fr John Brady took notes and didn't inform the parents of the abused children. It is upto ............ libel case against Eamon Dunphy, de Rossa was Gilmore's sidekick and a man who also got a free ride in politics while supporting some extreme views and extreme regimes.

But if the case against Gilmore is to be taken as you say it is, then why not the case against Brady? You've outlined a case against Gilmore that parallels that against Brady, so why aren't you calling for Brady to go?

Min · 03-05-2012 5:45pm

Nodin wrote: »

But if the case against Gilmore is to be taken as you say it is, then why not the case against Brady? You've outlined a case against Gilmore that parallels that against Brady, so why aren't you calling for Brady to go?

I think Cardinal Brady should go if Eamon Gilmore goes.

You can't have one person telling someone else to resign when their own history back at the same time has serious questions which Gilmore has never addressed in a proper accountable manner.
He has never apologised for supporting the official IRA who murdered people and were involved in other areas of criminality.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

It is this holier than thou approach from Eamon Gilmore that sickens me, he only lies to the people and has never dealt with his own shady past, while telling others to resign over what happened in the past.

Nodin · 03-05-2012 5:55pm

Min wrote: »

I think Cardinal Brady should go if Eamon Gilmore goes.

You can't have one person telling someone else to resign when their own history back at the same time has serious questions which Gilmore has never addressed in a proper accountable manner.
He has never apologised for supporting the official IRA who murdered people and were involved in other areas of criminality.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

It is this holier than thou approach from Eamon Gilmore that sickens me, he only lies to the people and has never dealt with his own shady past, while telling others to resign over what happened in the past.

So - just to clarify - you think that Cardinal Brady has done wrong and should resign?

Min · 03-05-2012 6:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

So - just to clarify - you think that Cardinal Brady has done wrong and should resign?

I don't know if he should resign as I don't see what difference it makes - heard victims of abuse say he should and a victim of abuse say he shouldn't as it was not his responsibility at that time. I am just making the point that Eamon Gilmore should apply his own logic to himself, I am sick of this man preaching to us, wikileaks showed he is a liar and he continued to support the official IRA after they murdered people.
I just question who is he to ask anyone to resign over their past?

Nodin · 03-05-2012 6:20pm

Min wrote: »

I don't know if he should resign as I don't see what difference it makes - heard victims of abuse say he should and a victim of abuse say he shouldn't as it was not his responsibility at that time.
I am just making the point that Eamon Gilmore should apply his own logic to himself, I am sick of this man preaching to us, wikileaks showed he is a liar and he continued to support the official IRA after they murdered people.
I just question who is he to ask anyone to resign over their past?

....it seems odd to me that you state that Gilmore should go because of his past, yet its "don't know" when it comes to Brady.

Are all "sinners" denied the ability to call on others to cease their sinning?

Shea O'Meara · 03-05-2012 7:08pm

Min wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore in the Dáil today:
"As far as your question about the Government's position in relation to Cardinal Brady is concerned, let me say this, I have always believed in the separation of church and state,”
“I think it is the job of government and of the State to enact out laws and to ensure that those laws apply to everybody, whether they belong to a church or not.
"But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority."

ok that is fine for Eamon Gilmore to say, but if we apply the logic of Eamon Gilmore, are we to believe that Gilmore didn't know about the horrific effects of communism on people? How millions of people died under these regimes, how men, women and children were abused under these regimes?

Surely Eamon Gilmore should resign if we are to judge people on what they did in the past given the knowledge they have.
Did Eamon Gilmore not know that communism is responsible for horrific abuse?
Surely he wouldn't be inviting over his best friends from China who still force women to have abortions and are involved in a lot of human rights abuses.
We have seen in the past week how a blind Chinese human rights activist escaped from house arrest. He was being held under house arrest for supporting women who were forced to have abortions by the Chinese regime.

For Eamon Gilmore, it all depends on whose abuse is acceptable when it comes to him saying "But it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse that we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority"

Do I smell the christian conservative fear of the red menace? :rolleyes:

For the record, I'm no Gilmore fan. Labour should have stayed in opposition.

Right, so much to say, I'll try keep it straightforward.
Gilmore is a lefty. Gilmore use to be hardcore left, now not so much.
Blaming Gilmore for the action of Stalin and his chums is like blaming any church goer for child abuse and burning Joan of Arc at the stake.
In both cases you can argue they automatically condone the actions of the body they support, but that's very broadly speaking and wouldn't stand up in a court.
Now everybody and his dog will get into bed with China if, as P. Flynn would say, "there's a shillin' in it". This doesn't excuse people/parties, but if we're talking association is guilt, pretty much every government is doing business with them and therefore condoning their actions.

Now here are the logical, factual reasons that Gilmore and Brady differ....
Gilmore had hardcore leftist tendencies but was not the leader of the Soviet Union or Peoples Republic of China.
Brady was leader over the Irish branch of a very shady right wing organisation were abuse not only was rampant, but when he found out about it did **** all about it, may the Lord our God Harry Potter bless his little cotton socks.

So the main difference is Brady was/is in a position to do something about abuse but chose not to. A criminal in my view.

Gilmore use to support some shady far left organisations and my have red friends under your bed, but Brady's pals are probably in your bed, as long as you're a minor of course

Bishop_Donal · 03-05-2012 10:44pm

It's kinda ironic that in recent times Gilmore and Quinn have left the people that they represent down a hell of a lot more than Brady has though!!

In fact the vast majority of people who Brady 'represents' (which of course is theologically incorrect) are not calling for his resignation at all!!!! The majority of people who are disgusted with him are people who have no faith whatsoever - hence he means nothing to them in the first instance (so why they want him gone is very questionable). Maybe it's, well if I have no religion I sure as hell don't want anybody else to have one either.

All that said, I have only heard RTE reports on this matter so far, and of course they have no axe to grind with the church anyway (with the exception of the Kevin Reynolds legacy). I didn't see the original BBC report as frankly I had had enough of listening to who didn't meet reporting standards as adjudged through a 2012 prism during the 1970's.

Nodin · 03-05-2012 10:50pm

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

It's kinda ironic that in recent times Gilmore and Quinn have left the people that they represent down a hell of a lot more than Brady has though!!

In fact the vast majority of people who Brady 'represents' (which of course is theologically incorrect) are not calling for his resignation at all!!!! The majority of people who are disgusted with him are people who have no faith whatsoever - hence he means nothing to them in the first instance (so why they want him gone is very questionable). Maybe it's, well if I have no religion I sure as hell don't want anybody else to have one either.

.........

Maybe its because he's the highest ranked catholic in Ireland, of an organisation that is in charge of the vast majority of primary schools, the majority of secondary, and is still sticking its oar in with regards to schools its supposed to have no control over.

K-9 · 04-05-2012 12:09am

I hadn't really read much about the latest scandal. I watched the Nolan show tonight and the interview with one of the victims, who was 14 at that time. It was appalling to see and hear. In my mind, not alone was that boy physically abused, he was mentally abused by that investigation of which Daly was an integral part.

The interview with Paddy Agnew of the Times, the Vatican correspondent was telling. The Vatican still doesn't get it.

I've had enough of pointing at others in this. Pointing the fingers at others is standard practice in politics, Gilmore does it as a politician. The Catholic Church isn't supposed to point fingers at others as excuses. Far too many politicians wanting to save their own arse in the Vatican and the higher levels of the Church in Ireland.

What Gilmore did or didn't do is irrelevant. Sort your own house out first. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

DeVore · 04-05-2012 1:12am

I've never been 100% sure that Communism was right/wrong.

I've never been in doubt about child abuse.

</thread>

Gurgle · 04-05-2012 9:44am

DeVore wrote: »

Subverter of the state.

Ah bless

Min · 04-05-2012 12:01pm

DeVore wrote: »

I've never been 100% sure that Communism was right/wrong.

I've never been in doubt about child abuse.

</thread>

Well look at Eamon Gilmore's best friends in China and what they are doing, policy from the communist party of China.
Forced abortion is not child abuse - pictures and I could post them but won't - show the remains of a 9 month old foetus/baby that was induced and who was given an injection into the brain so the child would die. The mother says she was taken off the street, and taken to the place where she was forced to have the abortion, she said her baby was born alive and cried before it died.
Is this not child abuse?

China should be a pariah state, it is a state involved in systematic child abuse, abuse of women, abuse of men, it is an inhumane government which governments across the world choose to do business with and who ignore the child abuse as performed in the one child policy, the abuse of women who are basically kidnapped and forced to have an abortion and abortions upto 9 months into the pregnancy.

It seems some child abuse is acceptable to the very people who think they stand on the high moral ground involving the issue.

creedp · 04-05-2012 1:54pm

Triangla wrote: »

Brady was in the middle of a process where he could have stood oustide the local church with leaflets warning of the abuses being ignored. IF he had the decency, balls or conscience to do it.

How any human being could have ignored what he ignored is beyond my comprehension.

Unfortunately the reality is that society in general is not blameless for what went on in the past in relation to child sexual abuse and many other forms of abuse as well. Just as Cardinal Brady should have reported abuse so should society in general. It is inconceivable that people were not aware of instances of abuse and chose not to report. Talking to people of previous generations about this issue it is clear that society knew much more about what went on that is now being portrayed in the media. Society is very good about blanking the truth and then focusing on apportioning blame when an issue arises. Unfortunately we are applying today's societal standards to yesterday's society. I have heard of an e.g. of a case where a family did not want cases of sexual abuse of their children reported because it would bring shame on the family. By coincidence it was a priest who wanted to report this case and was told how dare he try blacken the family name. Obviously, this is a single e.g. but it does serve to highlight that there is a lot of handwringing going on at present by society in general around what is a most horrific issue while conveniently ignoring how society treated this issue at that time.

comeback_kid · 04-05-2012 1:56pm

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

It's kinda ironic that in recent times Gilmore and Quinn have left the people that they represent down a hell of a lot more than Brady has though!!

In fact the vast majority of people who Brady 'represents' (which of course is theologically incorrect) are not calling for his resignation at all!!!! The majority of people who are disgusted with him are people who have no faith whatsoever - hence he means nothing to them in the first instance (so why they want him gone is very questionable). Maybe it's, well if I have no religion I sure as hell don't want anybody else to have one either.

All that said, I have only heard RTE reports on this matter so far, and of course they have no axe to grind with the church anyway (with the exception of the Kevin Reynolds legacy). I didn't see the original BBC report as frankly I had had enough of listening to who didn't meet reporting standards as adjudged through a 2012 prism during the 1970's.

that devout church goers are not calling for brady to resign , do you see this as a good thing , i think it only further proves that most people knew what was going on a few decades ago in this country but were happy to look the other way

Will Eamon Gilmore apply his own logic to himself?

Comments