Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Double Standards my pet peeve

Now I have already stated my views about the Frank Connelly Affair. Here. The people who disagree with what was done do so mainly on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Which I can totally respect. But only if it is consistent. However some people are not consistent and that bugs me. Take for example the well produced and maintainedIrish Corruption. Who are against the Connelly affair. I can only suppose they believe in the innocent until proven Guilty argument as they say.
Ah, come on, I hear you say, that’s a bit over the top. The State is not going to target innocent citizens in order to protect itself against possible revelations of corruption. Really? Ask Frank Connolly.
Then they say
"The most corrupt politician in Irish history, Charlie Haughey"
Yet Haughey has never been convicted of anything so why are they not being consistent about the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Is it because Haughey is Haughey or McDowell is McDowell. I accept that Irish Corruption is solely about Corruption and is wee bit partial to the odd bit of sensationalism. ( "AIB, the most corrupt bank in Ireland" I mean how does one know that for sure. Its like saying Roy Keane the Greatest Irish Player there ever will be.). But double standards are in my eyes one of the worst things in the world whether it is in media or life.


Anonymous said...

I dont think the Frank Connoly affair is just about the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". The fact that a Minister for Justice, who is supposed to uphold Ireland's laws and the proper channels for those laws leaked the affair to a newspaper is shocking. Regardless of what one's opinions are on how Frank Connoly should be dealt with, it undermines the minister's role to behave in such an underhand way. It makes a very serious allegation come across as a petty personal vendetta. Good point about Charles Haughey not being convicted of anything - but at least he was brought before a tribunal.

Eamonn said...

He didn't leak the affair to the newspaper. The independent first published the story back in 2002. McDowell was subsequently asked for a non-confidential document by a member of the press and he obliged. When asked he was open and readily admitted that he had provided the information.

As for using 'proper channel', the minister was well within his powers as minister for justice in doing what he did. If he wasn't he would have had to step aside.

And what is underhand about acting within ones powers in premptively tackling a potentially serious threat to Irish democracy and being open and honest about it when asked? I agree that the media has spun this into "Mullah" McDowell and his vendetta against poor old Frank Connolly. The only mistake McDowell made was in underestimating the lack of moral character in the Irish media when it comes to Sinn Fein/IRA.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

Good point about Charles Haughey not being convicted of anything - but at least he was brought before a tribunal.

Connolly was actually convicted of for rioting in 1982, after trying to storm the British Embassy in Dublin during a H-Block march. Given a 2 year suspended sentence.

He was also arrested over the shooting of a british layland exec in Trinity collage in 1981. But later released

Haughey was only arrested over the arms trial I think.