Public Inquiry

The following are some excerpts from the speech delivered in Dail Eireann by the Minister for Justice in defence of his actions in the Frank Connolly case.

 ‘As Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform it falls to me…to safeguard the security of the State and to prevent the subversion of our democracy.”

‘Undoubtedly, the Centre for Public Inquiry…aspires to be an organ of public opinion, but equally it is one which has, in subversive hands, the capacity to gravely undermine the authority of the State.” Â

Pretty heavy stuff; the subversion of the State and undermining of State authority. Â If it was all true it is easy to see why strong, even illegal action, might be justified to protect the State against such a serious threat.

McDowell’s boss, Bertie Ahern, however, had a completely different take on the matter. Speaking on RTEs ‘This Week’ programme, he said

‘The issue in this case…is that a false passport application was used and that was the key issue in this and the minister was quite right to make that known.’

So, according to Bertie, it was a false passport application that threatened to bring down the State. Are these guys talking about the same events? Are they living on the same planet?

Ahern knows, of course, that neither he nor McDowell will ever have to actually account for their actions/statements. He knows he can spout any kind of waffle; all he has to do is say words.

He could, for example, have said the following:Â

 ‘The issue in this case…is that Turkish chickens, travelling under false passports, were found to have, secreted up their rectums, vials of the deadly Asian bird flu…”

No one would have noticed.

‘There will be no cost to the taxpayer, no threat to safety and minimal disruption.”

This is the assurance given by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), the State company responsible for LUAS after it was revealed that problems had arisen with the debonding material under the tracks.

We will wait and see…

The “Saint’ over at The Dossing Times has taken me to task on a number of points. I will deal with them individually.

First, the Frank Connolly/Michael McDowell case. In theory, our justice system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Frank Connolly is, as I write, an innocent citizen.

At some point, he was suspected of breaking the law and was investigated by the State. The outcome of that investigation was that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the case. In a real democracy, the matter would end there.

Frank Connolly would be seen and treated as an ordinary and totally innocent citizen. No matter what he works at, no matter what his political beliefs are, no matter how hypocritical he may seem to others, he is entitled to be presumed innocent until and if the State can produce sufficient evidence to charge him.

As we know, the matter did not rest there. The Minister for Justice, with the full knowledge and support of the Government, set out on a course of action that has done serious damage to the reputation and future prospects of Frank Connolly, a man who is still an innocent citizen.

We are told that these actions, which are unprecedented in the history of the State, were necessary to “prevent the subversion of democracy’, and “deal with “a threat to the State’s democracy and authority’. Yet no evidence whatsoever, apart from rumour and innuendo, has been produced to back up these very serious claims.

This so-called threat to the State did not become public until McDowell was forced to admit that he had secretly passed on a confidential police file, concerning a still innocent citizen, to a favoured journalist.

In my opinion, McDowell’s motives were twofold. Firstly, The Centre for Public Inquiry, headed by Frank Connolly is an independent organisation dedicated to investigating and exposing corruption in Irish public life. It therefore represents a serious threat to a state which is itself a corrupt entity.

Secondly, it is obvious that this government, with the implicit support of the main opposition parties, is determined to undermine the growing political support enjoyed by Sinn Fein and anyone connected to this legitimate political party. This has led to some idiotic and hypocritical statements by politicians. (See “Political Joke’ below).

However, McDowell’s actions are no joke. In pursuit of what I believe is a political agenda he has set a very dangerous precedent. It is now generally accepted by the body politic, sections of the media and apparently a good percentage of the public that a Minister for Justice can legitimately decide, without producing any evidence, that a particular person/organisation is a threat to the security of the state.

He can then proceed to take any action he deems necessary, in total secrecy if he wishes, to destroy that perceived threat.

I wonder where that leaves bloggers, especially those who are critical of politicians and the State.