I haven't read the full thread but I think there can be a bit of a double standard in how media and politicians react to this.
Ken O'Flynn actually posted about it this week in a series of tweets reacting to the difference between the reaction by Ruth Coppinger between the murder of Jamey Carney by a suspect from Jordan and the murder of Makenzie Michalski by an Irish man, Lorcan Murphy ,in Hungary.
"On the murder of Jamey Carney in Killarney: Coppinger told the Dail that media reporting the asylum seeker suspect's status "irresponsibly stoked up the flames of racism." She said the case had nothing to do with "strangers, asylum seekers, or whatever."
"On Lorcan Murphy: Coppinger said his crime is "an outcome of the proliferation of violent pornography" and claimed "there has to be other women" he has assaulted."
She has yet to provide evidence for this claim.
On RTE this evening the suspect in the Jamey Carney case was described as a Jordanian man who had entered the UK on a tourist visa and then entered Ireland through the common travel area.
There was no mention of the fact that he then claimed asylum in Ireland and was in an IPAS centre. There was no mention of the fact that he had lied, saying he was Palestinian when he was actually an economic migrant from Jordan. There was no mention of the fact that he claimed he had no documentation when he entered the country despite entering the country via the UK on a tourist visa where a passport was essential.
There was no mention of the fact that asylum had been refused but, 2 years after arriving,he remained in the country to appeal his case but fled back to Jordan using the 'missing' passport in the hours after Jamey's death.
Do we blanket ban men from these countries?
Obviously not. That would be racist.
But I think attitudes towards women should be a consideration before asylum or citizenship is granted.
In the case of the suspect in Carney's murder, he was following accounts that show some disturbing attitudes towards women. I honestly believe that such attitudes should be considered as part of granting asylum in Ireland.
In the case of the Iranian woman murdered by her estranged husband in Galway, she had applied for a protection order against him.
This was taken seriously enough by the court to be granted and for Ali Sohrabi to be moved to a different location.
In the weeks leading up to her death, she directly contacted the Gardai to report active domestic abuse and harassment. Locals and support networks noted she was openly terrified that he would attack her, and the Gardai were fully aware of the escalating issues.
Despite this, his right to remain in the country to claim asylum was unaffected and he went on to murder her and orphan her children.
In the case of Ashling Murphy the killer was a Slovakian who lived in Ireland for 10 years. Neither he nor his wife ever worked for the entire time they lived in Ireland. They contributed nothing but claimed social welfare and were provided with a 4 bedroom house and free medical care. Under EU law the Irish government have the right to deport EU citizens who are considered an unreasonable burden on the state. Yet when Ashings boyfriend questioned why he was allowed to remain it was seen as far right and he was heavily criticised for pointing out the obvious.
In the case of Pushkas wife who covered up his crime the judge partially suspended the wifes sentences after accepting a psychologist's report stating that within their Roma culture, the women held subservient roles and "did what they were told" by the men in the household.
Why is such 'culture' tolerated in Ireland? Why are men with these attitudes allowed to reside in Ireland?
We have enough problems with VAWG in Ireland. If the government is really serious about tackling it then maybe tackling cultural attitudes towards women must be part of the solution. Yes, we also need to tackle our own homegrown misogyny but to deny the bleeding obvious in order to be seen as tolerant is doing an injustice to those women who have already paid the ultimate price.