“There can be no nuance around a criminal attack on a building or on a property,” Tanaiste Micheál Martin said in response to comments from his party councillors following a blaze at Ross Lake House on Saturday.
The Tanaiste said comments from Galway County Councillors Noel Thomas and Séamus Walsh following the fire contained a certain ‘implied’ meaning.
“He did make reference to the fact that the attack was the result of government policy,” Mr Martin said.
But how does a politician row in with such a comment when the closest we have to the facts of this fire is that Gardai are treating it as arson? Is it not hypocritical of the Tanaiste to state there can be no nuance around an issue when the very issue itself - the fire - is still under investigation - and as such, nuanced?
Cllr Noel Thomas’s response on RTE’s Morning Ireland shortly after 7am this morning is worth listening to. Presenter Gavin Jennings put it to him that the Tanaiste described his comments connecting the fire to government policy as ‘absolutely unacceptable.’ The Councillor’s first utterance was a rueful laugh acknowledging the party leader’s ‘right to his opinion.’
Cllr Thomas went on to stand his ground quite firmly, calling for ‘proper and humane accommodation’ for new arrivals seeking asylum. He then stated that all politicians have a legal obligation to serve their own country before others.
“It is my opinion that if you are going to have leaders in this country, it is their legal obligation to look after our country first, that’s what their legal obligation should be. And they should step up to the plate and they should stop what is happening, because it is inhumane,” Cllr Thomas said.
Rewind to November 14, 2022, when then Taoiseach Micheál Martin offered this comment to the state broadcaster following an influx of new arrivals into Breaffy, Co Mayo.
“Government will be communicating... Government is communicating and government will continue to communicate with communities the length and breadth of the country.”
Martin was responding to questions from RTE Presenter Claire Byrne, following a public meeting in Castlebar, Co Mayo, over the influx of 700 people into the village of Breaffy, 4km outside the town.
“This is about democracy. Putin does not like a democracy on his doorstep,” Mr Martin said. “This is what Putin wants, that populations across Europe will start reacting negatively to their governments, creating political issues and so on like that,” Mr Martin said.
A somewhat bizarre commentary, given Ireland’s proximity to Russia and even more curious today, given the war in Ukraine continues, but appears no longer relevant.
It’s worth revisiting this public meeting in Castlebar, the first of its kind in the country following the outbreak of war in Ukraine. It was significant, given that public meetings are a perfectly normal part of the democratic process, specifically around planning issues that see communities grow and change. Public meetings provide a forum for debate, a platform for the public to engage with their political representatives. Was it crucial therefore, to not allow them to happen?
Stephen Kerr, who runs the Irish Inquiry media platform, organised and hosted the public meeting at his own expense. Noting the significance of the event, this Substack attended and reported.
In the run up to the meeting, Kerr was subjected to a campaign of abuse and threats. Gardaí were informed of the possibility of trouble. The hotel that hosted the meeting endured a similar campaign of calls and emails urging cancellation, resulting in the implementation of a private security firm on the night.
Curious then, that a full 12 months after Micheál Martin’s comments on the importance of communication and democracy, the people of his own home county encountered similar issues, according to a report by Liz Dunphy published in today’s Irish Examiner.
The last line of Dunphy’s report states:
“No buildings or businesses would accept the group for an indoor meeting in Fermoy, forcing the gathering onto the street, the crowd was told.”
Locals in Fermoy gathered under umbrellas in the rain to attend the protest at Abbeyville House on Monday night. FF Cllr William O’Leary told those assembled that people who buy buildings and rent them as refugee accommodation ‘are the biggest traitors out of everyone.’ In response, Cllr O’Leary, much like his FF party colleague in Galway, received a not-too-friendly call from An Tanaiste.
Is it any wonder then, having completely ignored their mandate to govern on behalf of the Irish people, that political leaders now find themselves in the heat of a self ignited blaze?
*Thanks to those reading + supporting this work. Option to ‘buy a coffee’ here
Below is an excerpt of the full article on the Breaffy public meeting published on this Substack, Nov 14 2022:
Congolese native Eddie Kimpwene, who arrived in Castlebar 25 years ago and set up a recruitment agency, made sure to clarify to delegates attending Friday night’s meeting that he is in fact not racist.
“I came to this country 25 years ago, I work hard. I am not racist. I got a warm welcome in Castlebar. The way things are going in Castlebar, we have to talk about it. As long as we don’t speak as one voice in this town, we are sinking.
“We see that now. The council cannot explain to us how many refugees are coming. When you go to ask the questions, there is no explanation.
“When I came in this country 25 years ago, the Irish got good information that we were coming.
“How come now they are hiding? That means there is something dodgy going on.
“Because if they cannot explain what is going on in our community at this time, that means there is something going on. I am just asking questions. Normally the council is supposed to be here answering questions. Where are they?”
Is this symptomatic of "New Normal" era of democracy where the government and its stakeholders seek to impose public groupthink on contentious global issues such as immigration, climate action, Covid, gender ideology, etc? Meaningful engagement at a grassroots level is avoided as much as possible, while the best we can expect are pre-chosen "Civil Society" groups whose only real function is to agree to whatever pre-determined policies are set out before them.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/12/investigative-reports/the-new-normal-the-civil-society-deception/
'Representative democracy is quietly being phased out to be replaced with a “new normal.” This “new normal” is a nascent form of governance being referred to as “civil society.” It is founded upon the principles of communitarianism and it is being offered to us as an illusory replacement for representative democracy.
The Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P), who set the worldwide policy agenda, have long-seen the manipulation of the concept of civil society as a means to achieve their ambitions. This is at odds with how many emergent “civil society” groups understand their allocated roll...
..In an attempt to add a veneer of democratic accountability to this Strategic Partnership Framework, as the world uniformly moves towards Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the UN strongly advocates collaboration with “civil society.” Indeed, SDG 17 specifically refers to this arrangement: “Goal 17 further seek to encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships”
Civil society will be engaged by utilising the WEF concept of the “multistakeholder platform.” This is a core element of the WEF’s definition of stakeholder capitalism.
The communitarian model of civil society is based upon a triumvirate power sharing structure between state (public sector), market (private sector) and community (social or third sector.) However, the WEF’s interpretation of stakeholder capitalism assumes that the public-private partnership stakeholders (state-market) select the civil society communities (social or third sector) they wish to engage with...
...The necessity for the WEF model of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is assumed, as is the partnership with industry to achieve it. The problems are predetermined and the “solutions” have already been decided before civil society has the opportunity to “collaborate with government and business.”
The civil society stakeholders are chosen. Representatives from NGOs, religious communities, unions and philanthropic foundations are the selected stakeholders whose only role is to agree with the policies placed on the table by the public-private partnership. Their consent is deemed to be public consent.'
Thanks Louise , happy Christmas to you and family