McGrory faced unfair criticism
Posted By: May 18, 2017
Distributed by Irish National Caucus
“… there is no doubt that [McGrory] as the first Catholic holder of this office he was subjected to a level of deeply unfair and highly personal pressure …”
“The Irish News, below —like any informed and knowledgeable commentator— recognizes that sadly Anti-Catholicism is still a virulent pathology in Northern Ireland. And how could it not be because Anti-Catholicism has always been (since the Reformation) a main weapon (along with racism and other forms of ‘social closure’) of England’s policy in Ireland. Of course, before the Reformation, Catholic England used other means of oppressing Catholic Ireland. Religion, like color or racism/sectarianism, were simply tools in England’s tool box of oppression and colonialism throughout its Empire. Remarkably, a few uninformed and eccentric voices would try to dismiss the reality of historic Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland as being a case of ‘Catholics versus the world… and counter productive to progress…’ A bit like trying to dismiss African-Americans’ opposition to Anti-Black bigotry as being counter-productive to progress. God save from such progress—and from such egregious misunderstanding!”—Fr. Sean Mc Manus
McGrory faced unfair criticism
Irish News Editorial. Belfast. Thursday, May 18, 2017
Barra McGrory has insisted that his decision to step down as Director of Public Prosecutions after five years in the role is not due to the continuing controversy over legacy cases.
However, there is no doubt that as the first Catholic holder of this office he was subjected to a level of deeply unfair and highly personal pressure which was absent in respect of his predecessors and indeed other senior legal officials in the north.
It is to his credit that he was determined to main the independence, impartiality and integrity of his office and not be derailed by the unwarranted criticism that surrounded the decision to prosecute a small number of security-force personnel – criticism that bore little relation to the facts.
This focus on the DPP in terms of legacy cases tended to ignore the other key players in the justice system, including police.
Mr. McGrory said he regrets that legacy had become the story of his tenure and clearly wished that this issue had been resolved by the architects of the peace process.
That is surely a view that will be shared by other senior figures, including the chief constable and the lord chief justice, who have expressed frustration at various stages in regard to this matter.
Chiefly, of course, it is the victims most of all who want the legacy of the past dealt with and this is something the current political leadership needs to address.
While there is obvious attention on Troubles cases, it should be recognized that Mr. McGrory’s role went much wider and included implementing institutional reform, which is never an easy task.
He also adopted an open approach and was much more accessible than his predecessors, being prepared to explain PPS decisions and answer questions on actions taken.
That is absolutely as it should be in senior public roles but does not happen nearly often enough.
Attention will now turn to Mr. McGrory’s successor and we can but hope that person will carry on the role in an equally independent, rigorous and transparent manner.
