Public Meeting on the 1981 Hunger Strikes

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 17:33

Peter, your language and attitude is very insulting, why is that? Is it an attempt to belittle?

"We" being the audience reading Indymedia. Perhaps presumptuous on my part to assume that others reading Indymedia are intelligent? I would rather err on the side of caution than run off at the mouth treating those that read the site as stupid, myself.

Being that I do not know what is in the libel case, I cannot answer your point about the libel laws authoritatively. I do think your definition of such is slippery, however. Beyond that I am not in a position to argue legalistically over the finer points of how libel law is applied. I will not be taking your word on it, btw.

I do believe that the case revolves around more than Morrison calling O'Rawe a fool, though, as that was in today's papers, and it was me who made the point about Morrison's petulance not being considered 'debate'. He will have to do better than that, and than selling us the same cow twice (the stunt with the public comms).

The best part of your post is what you call 'pathetic' and 'a crock of nonsense'. Sinn Fein is the richest party in Ireland, and indeed in Western Europe, and you are going to claim they aren't a big machine? HA!! HA!!!!! HAHAHA!!!

If you lie about that, what else are you lying about?

If Richard O'Rawe is correct he is 100% right to be asking questions over the deaths of the hunger strikers.

If he is wrong the truth will out. So far, though, he has put forth a strong case. That he is willing to bring it to the courts to defend himself is an act of confidence.

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 16:54

And "we" are..............? You forgot to answer that one.

You also forgot to answer on the libel laws and Richard O'Rawe's very precious sense of himself, in which being called a "fool" is elevated in importance over accusing others of causing the deaths of hunger strikers.

As for "the big machine ........the Sinn Fein machine", what a crock of nonsense? Pathetic. Is this for real?

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 16:02

Carlin makes a good point re the British courts however that has not stopped members of SF in the past from pursuing cases and likely won't in the future. For these cases it is the recourse available.

Carlin also makes a good point regarding Morrison's article - the statements of the PRO in his capacity as PRO are hardly convincing.

O'Rawe is confident in his position and he is standing up to the big machine with what is available to him.

There's not many that have the courage to stand up to the Sinn Fein machine.

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 15:54

Who exactly is this 'we"?

Libel and defamation have little to do with the truth - a person can win a libel case because a truth uttered can be defined as having a negative effect on their so-called 'reputation'. Read what Davy Carlin has to say on the other thread and get some sense.

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 15:46

The threatened resort to the courts is par for the course for someone with no argument left.

You'd hardly go to court without an argument to win, now would you? How stupid do you think we are, Peter?

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 15:39

That last comment indicates the lop-sided nonsense of O'Rawe's position. He accuses the republican leadership of conspiring in the needless death of six hunger strikers. When this is refuted by ex prisoners, and Danny Morrison calls O'Rawe a “fool”, this is somehow an attack on O'Rawe's 'character'.

How very precious.

Previously O'Rawe compared himself to a Jew in Nazi Germany because someone daubed a slogan on a wall near a house.

Like I said, how very precious.

The threatened resort to the courts is par for the course for someone with no argument left.

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 15:03

How is he preventing debate? His suit doesn't appear to have stopped today's Daily Ireland and Andersonstown News from carrying Morrison's commentary regarding the subject. Try pulling the other one.

O'Rawe writes book. Claims an offer accepted by the prisoners was rejected by the outside leadership.

Morrison attempts to refute O'Rawe's position by calling him names and smearing his character.

O'Rawe sues for libel.

Morrison calls O'Rawe a fool and a disgrace.

Morrison then claims that O'Rawe is preventing debate.

Danny if you want to call Ricky names then stick to writing graffiti on his wall.

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 14:55

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76494?&condense_comment...53394

Check it out - Daily Ireland today - see link above. NO ONE is stopping O'Rawe putting his point of view. O’Rawe is preventing debate by threatening to sue - even a child can see this – and trying to extract money ‘damages’ on the basis of criticism he objects to.

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 14:51

O'Rawe isn't running away from the debate, he's telling Morrison to put his money where his mouth is! It's one thing to slabber in the pages of Daily Ireland (not impressed) but quite another to stand up in open court and defend your position.

Good on him for standing up to the bullyboys

by btdt Mon Jun 12, 2006 14:46

Mod, fair play to you but you must be joking, the Shinners do not debate with anyone who disagrees with them or has an alternative viewpoint, they just use their propaganda machines to spin, spin, spin.

This court case could be interesting if the Daily Ireland and Morrison have the stones to contest it in open court. It's a safe bet they won't. O'Rawe is standing up for himself and taking them on.

PS Hey Danny, calling people a disgrace and a fool is not 'debate'!!

by Mod Mon Jun 12, 2006 14:17

Peter,
I will type slowly so you can understand my point. Forget about the spinning for a minute, will anybody in SF debate this issue with O'Rawe on a public platform? On a public platform in a public place in front of the public. Is that any clearer? If anybody in SF is willing to debate O'Rawe I'm suggesting that somebody like McIntyre could arrange it.

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 02:37

Danny Morrison IS debating with him!

Former republican prisoner Jim Gibney, 73-day hunger striker Laurence McKeown, and former Prisoners' leader Bik McFarlane have all debated this with O'Rawe and have all disagreed with his view. All reproduced here on Indymedia.

Have you a difficulty interpreting perfectly straightforward information?

Has O’Rawe run off in a huff to his lawyer because few ex-prisoners (or their families) think his eccentric opinion as earth shatteringly important as he does? Is that what you are implying?

by Mod Mon Jun 12, 2006 01:35

Peter,
O'Rawe has already called for a public debate with Morrision or any of the others attacking him, read his interview on McIntyre's Blanket website. Wiil anyone from SF debate with him? I'm sure McIntyre would only be too happy to organise it.
Or is your post the usual SF bullshit?

by Peter Mon Jun 12, 2006 01:17

That meeting was not billed as a debate with O'Rawe, who was a last minute addition to the list. O'Rawe is debating Danny Morrison, or rather not debating him now. He is hiding behind his lawyer.

by Mod Mon Jun 12, 2006 01:00

Funny, when SF had a chance to debate O'Rawe at the Dublin meeting in the ATGWU hall they didn't have the balls and pulled their agreed speaker.

by Malachy Murphy Sun Jun 11, 2006 23:30

Don't be stupid. This is a political argument. Whatever credibility O’Rawe thought he had in republican areas, it is now zero.

by let the truth be told Sun Jun 11, 2006 20:38

Are you suggestin Danny is afraid to defend his position under oath?

by Ephraim Sue - Sue, Grabbit & Runne Solicitors Sun Jun 11, 2006 15:56

I don't think Richard O'Rawe is too much interested in Debate if his threat to sue Danny Morrison, who has challenged O'Rawe's account in Daily Ireland and the Irish News, is anything to go by.

How to stifle public debate - threaten to sue

by Historical researcher Sun Jun 11, 2006 13:44

He is of course very welcome. There have been some recent revelations of inconsistencies between what he said in 1981 and what he is saying now, so it would be great if he came along and shed some light on them.

You'd think he would be interested in rebutting the research which shows his communications from prison at the the time, completely contradict what he has written in his book, and said several times since in interviews.

Let's hope he comes along.

by Wondering Sun Jun 11, 2006 07:01

Why no invite for Richard O'Rawe to speak as well? Surely he has some expierence to share.