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

profitius

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?

The answer is simple. They want to get rid of the church so what better way of doing it.


Its as crazy as saying sports coaching is responsible for a few child abusing underage sports coaches.

Rev. BlueJeans

There are many other issues to hammer Adams on than this, and while I admire his achievements, I have no time for him or his party.

What's often forgotten is that he played a key role in the peace process, and is an erudite politician.

On this particular matter he has my utmost sympathy.

me_right_one

Deepblue, your take on all this is bewildering. Going by your logic, if the queen of england is really Gerry Adams' boss, why didnt she resign?

me_right_one

Situation A:

Student x is going to school. Father McPriest rapes him. And he rapes 1000's of others. This is definate, and provable. Father McPriests boss, Bishop McColluder, finds out, but purposely does everything he can to hide Father McPriests crimes, protects him by lying, by physically moving him away from furious parents, hinders garda investigations, denies any wrongdoing and is just as guilty of commiting the crime himself, by enabling it to happen. Justice for the victims never enters his mind. He uses the job as a cover, and helps the child rapist escape.


Situation B:

Aine Adams is going about her business. Liam Adams rapes her. This is not discovered revealed until December 2009. Gerry Adams, who is just another ordinary Joe, not Liam Adams' personal rape enabler, hears rumours about his brother. He immediately uses whatever influence he has to bring about justice, and publicly announces that Liam should hand himself over to police.


See the difference?

me_right_one

Anyway, what do you think Gerry Adams should resign from? The bishops resigned from their JOBS because they used their JOBS to hide rapists, whether knowingly (which hasn't been proven yet), or unknowingly through complete and utter incompetance. Resignation is the logical punishment. I'd add jail to that, but I'm not the law.

Gerry didnt hide anything. He did the opposite. Do you think he should resign from leading Sinn Fein? From Stormont? From trying to free Ireland? From being alive? From what exactly?

Terrontress

me_right_one wrote: »

Situation A:

Student x is going to school. Father McPriest rapes him. And he rapes 1000's of others. This is definate, and provable. Father McPriests boss, Bishop McColluder, finds out, but purposely does everything he can to hide Father McPriests crimes, protects him by lying, by physically moving him away from furious parents, hinders garda investigations, denies any wrongdoing and is just as guilty of commiting the crime himself, by enabling it to happen. Justice for the victims never enters his mind. He uses the job as a cover, and helps the child rapist escape.


Situation B:

Aine Adams is going about her business. Liam Adams rapes her. This is not discovered revealed until December 2009. Gerry Adams, who is just another ordinary Joe, not Liam Adams' personal rape enabler, hears rumours about his brother. He immediately uses whatever influence he has to bring about justice, and publicly announces that Liam should hand himself over to police.


See the difference?

Situation B is not what happened though. The allegations were known to Gerry Adams long before this month. What has happened is that Liam Adams is being processed by the justice system and his victim has the right to confidentiality. Liam Adams failed to attend court so she waived her right to that confidentiality.

Gerry Adams was aware of the allegations against his brother for decades and must have believed them because he moved to reduce his influence in Sinn Fein because of them.

However, in the same period, his brother has held two positions working with children and Gerry Adams has taken no steps to address that.

As for what he should resign from, it's his leadership of Sinn Fein.

DeepBlue

me_right_one wrote: »

Situation B:

Aine Adams is going about her business. Liam Adams rapes her. This is not discovered revealed until December 2009. Gerry Adams, who is just another ordinary Joe, not Liam Adams' personal rape enabler, hears rumours about his brother. He immediately uses whatever influence he has to bring about justice, and publicly announces that Liam should hand himself over to police.


See the difference?

Your summation of Situation B is factually incorrect. Gerry Adams is not an "ordinary Joe" and he knew about the alleged abuse in 1987 not December 2009.

Actually I linked to the incorrect article in my opening post. I meant to link to this story -> Adams' family values strip him of all moral authority .
Since most people probably won't follow the link I'll add some excerpts below.

Gerry Adams' position as Sinn Féin president has been made untenable by revelations of the lies he has told about the way his alleged paedophile brother was protected for 22 years.
It's a horrific story of alleged child abuse, lies, inaction that potentially placed countless Irish children at risk for over two decades, and a cover-up which is still continuing. Sinn Féin member and suspected paedophile Liam Adams was moved around Ireland in the same way that abusing Catholic priests went from parish to parish.

He knew Liam was working with children in various youth projects. Yet despite his public claims, he has as yet produced no evidence to prove that he took action to have Liam removed by his employers.

This seems very similar to the manner in which bishops moved suspected paedophile priests around from parish to parish which resulted in more and more children being abused and put at risk.

Gerry Adams' disturbingly inadequate response to his brother's suspected abuse makes him politically toxic. He is stripped of all credibility and moral authority. His position as a public figure is untenable. Were he the leader of any other party, he would have resigned by now. Would Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny, Peter Robinson or Mark Durkan survive such damning revelations? Not a chance.

I'd actually disagree with the conclusion. Enda Kenny and Mark Durkan would not survive. I'm sure many apologists would come forth to excuse Brian Cowen and Peter Robinson.

Liam Adams was strongly drawn to jobs that provided access to young people. He constantly sought and, with incredible success, secured them in west Belfast and Dundalk. Questions must be asked as to who provided references for him and who sat on the interview panels.

Gerry Adams said that when he became aware of some of the jobs Liam held, he took action to inform the relevant authorities. He has so far produced no written record of this. Nor has he disclosed the names of those he spoke to in the projects Liam worked for, or of those he spoke to in social services.

None of Liam Adams' four employers has said they were contacted by Gerry Adams. Indeed Brendan Dineen of Clonard Youth Centre said it had reviewed all its documentation "and there is no record whatsoever regarding concerns about Liam Adams during his time of employment at Clonard".

This is where Adams has serious questions to answer. Why do Liam Adam's employers have no record of warnings from Gerry Adams when he says he took action to inform them of the risk posed by his brother?

walrusgumble

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

Fair comment, I would agree but have difficulty in doing so, in light of having an idea of what type of climate Ireland was in when dealing with domestic abuse etc and the walls of silence.

As we are debating, I simply would ask all to be fully balanced and have regard to the environment that we lived in during these events.

It was not ideal that the victim had to suffer in silence for all these years. Whilst it does not justify or defend anyone, we must recongnise that it is only the past 5-10 years that we as an nation or island (depending on political attitude) have or are really beginning to come to terms with the truth of what our society was really like all these years ago.

I ask you all this, how would people like Colm O'Gorman or other victims of clerical abuse or victims of Madeline Laudries and other Institutional abuse or women vctims of domestic abuse have being treated if they had the courage to come public with their problems at the turn of the 1990's or at the time the horrible and evil events occurred? I am sure whilst there would be sympathy, there was also be anger fulled attacks against their integrity from many circulars. Whilst a case like the X case might not be a fine example compared to the ones mention, we all can at least glance through the internet and read the events of that day and attitudes of what was said. Didn't one of the High Court/Supreme Court judges have the insensitivity to question whether X was in real danger of suicide/health? (I will find the source)

One needs to remember Mr Adam's position at this time. Whilst he had influence and control of the Republican movement, according to history of the movement, during this period, he most certainly did not enjoy complete support through out the movement. His parents and uncles, both of whom, came from strong republican belfast backgrounds, their commitment to the republican cause unquestionable and to as much as muddy their reputations would cause huge problems for those responsible.

What do ye think would have occurred if the niece did in fact go public? Do you think she would have been protected and that her reputation would be fully intact? What would it have achieved?

Some of us are not in possession of the full facts of this case. I am not defending nor do I wish to be defending Mr Adams. I simply call for full and balanced debate with regard for all circumstances surrounding the matter.

I would be concerned about his recent comments he has made, whether is or not simply trying to cover up, and the lack of evidence of what he has said. if he is lying about his efforts, instead of coming out to admit that he wrongly did nothing to help, then his honesty goes down the gutter.

Erin Go Brath

If Adams has covered up for his brother Liam and allowed Liam to work with youth knowing his brother was a paedo who abused his own daughter then Gerry has to go as leader of SF. Aine of course couldn't have gone to the RUC about this as she would be regarded a tout and traitor, and probably killed as a result.

However Gerry should have insisted Liam leave the party and worse still should have stopped him from working with children. On the surface Gerry does have a lot to answer for here but we'll have to wait until more comes out before condemning the man.

My sympathies lie totally with the poor daughter who was abused, then couldn't get her justice because of a complex political situation.

Nodin

me_right_one wrote: »

Gerry didnt hide anything. He did the opposite. Do you think he should resign from leading Sinn Fein? From Stormont? From trying to free Ireland? From being alive? From what exactly?

I doubt anything would satisfy the Shinner bashing crowd.

KeithAFC

Why he is allowed to run a party is bad enough. Basically a terrorist who no doubt played a part in people losing their lives.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

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).

DeV.

All the information points towards he believing the victim and being willing to support her. She decided not to follow up on the matter, she decided to keep it private. It wasn't Gerry Adams places to go against her wishes. Bad enough to be raped by your father, but to then have you needs and desires disregarded after the fact is inexcusable.

What exactly was he to do? If the victim wont cooperate there's no point going to the police as the man is innocent until proven guilty. You could slander him in the local community but that's illegal and very close to vigilantism. So what do you do? Seriously if you know what way to handle a situation like that legally drop me a PM with the details because I think there's a lot of us for whom the information would be useful.

As much as I dislike Sinn Fein, I have to respect what Gerry Adams did here, he's supported his niece the entire way through and taken actions in her best interest, not his own or his brother. Politically speaking the best thing he could have done was have his brothers body found somewhere.

nesf wrote: »

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.

Pretty much.

DeepBlue

Boston wrote: »

As much as I dislike Sinn Fein, I have to respect what Gerry Adams did here, he's supported his niece the entire way through and taken actions in her best interest, not his own or his brother.

You have, like others who have posted, chosen to ignore the fact the he allowed his brother to work in conjunction with young, potential victims, without doing anything about it. We don't know if his brother attacked anyone else while working in these jobs but paedophiles are not known to remain celibate.
Although Adams claims to have informed the relevant people they claim he didn't.
He can't hide behind saying he was respecting his niece's privacy. He had a duty to act and didn't.

I don't see how that deserves respect. Understanding maybe, given his position, but definitely not respect.

Boston

DeepBlue wrote: »

You have, like others who have posted, chosen to ignore the fact the he allowed his brother to work in conjunction with young, potential victims, without doing anything about it. We don't know if his brother attacked anyone else while working in these jobs but paedophiles are not known to remain celibate.
Although Adams claims to have informed the relevant people they claim he didn't.
He can't hide behind saying he was respecting his niece's privacy. He had a duty to act and didn't.

I don't see how that deserves respect. Understanding maybe, given his position, but definitely not respect.

You've chosen to ignore the part of my post where I asked what exactly he could of done short of slander.

DeepBlue

Boston wrote: »

You've chosen to ignore the part of my post where I asked what exactly he could of done short of slander.

I have 10 posts in this thread. See if you can work it out.

You seem very concerned about slander yet advocate his brother's body being found somewhere as the best political solution.
Strange set of priorities you have there.

Boston

DeepBlue wrote: »

I have 10 posts in this thread. See if you can work it out.

You seem very concerned about slander yet advocate his brother's body being found somewhere as the best political solution.
Strange set of priorities you have there.

You've repeatedly said he should have acted, you imply he should have had his brother removed from his job. You've not once come out and said how he should have done so. I'd hazard a guess that the reason you've not stated methods is because those methods are illegal. A phone call to his boss claiming that he was a child abuser is both defamation and harassment.

Given that you've just accused me of advocating murder, you seem to have no issue with Libel. I didn't advocate it, I said that politically it would have been in Gerry adams best interest if his brother turned up dead/murdered. The people who vote sinn fein like that kind of thing. I didn't assert that this would be right.

blinding

Gerry Adams is becoming very complicated to be a politician or the leader of a political party.

Voipjunkie

blinding wrote: »

Gerry Adams is becoming very complicated to be a politician or the leader of a political party.

Have been reading the thread on this over on politics.ie and I note with some amusement that the Shinners are studiously avoiding the issue of why the brits never used this over 22 years to blacken the Adams name and why Adams allowed his brother to continue in any roll in Sinn Fein given that he was an obvious target for MI5 to turn him as an informer.

Given Donaldson and Scap it looks like MI5 had another highly placed informer in the shape of one or both of the Adams brothers. As otherwise it is hard to fathom why the securicrats as Martin calls them chose to keep this a secret.

Difficult one to take for the Shinners facing up to the fact that their leader is a British agent or allowed someone who was a British agent to operate within Sinn Fein.

Terrontress

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Have been reading the thread on this over on politics.ie and I note with some amusement that the Shinners are studiously avoiding the issue of why the brits never used this over 22 years to blacken the Adams name and why Adams allowed his brother to continue in any roll in Sinn Fein given that he was an obvious target for MI5 to turn him as an informer.

Given Donaldson and Scap it looks like MI5 had another highly placed informer in the shape of one or both of the Adams brothers. As otherwise it is hard to fathom why the securicrats as Martin calls them chose to keep this a secret.

Difficult one to take for the Shinners facing up to the fact that their leader is a British agent or allowed someone who was a British agent to operate within Sinn Fein.

Maybe that is why Gerry Adams moved to limit his brother's influence in Sinn Fein rather than any concerns over child welfare.

oncevotedff

DeepBlue wrote: »

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?

Because calling for the resignation of a Bishop won't result in a punishment beating.