Nick the Prick

Oh, the hilarity. The frappuccino-drinking classes have whipped themselves up into a froth over the appearance of a fool on the BBC’s Question Time programme – Jason Walsh

It was great to see Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, appear on Question Time a few evenings back. I rarely watch the show, usually having drifted off to sleep by the time its slot is filled. What prompted me to stay up in front of the TV on this particular evening, albeit having drifted off earlier on the settee during the long losing battle against heavy eye lids, was the publicity given to Griffin’s appearance by mobs of censors trying to stop him speaking. Had they not highlighted his upcoming appearance I, presumably like thousands of others, would not have known about it. In Belfast the thought police had gathered at the BBC’s Ormeau Avenue HQ pitted against a much smaller group of racist backers of the BNP. In different times I had found myself outside the same building, probably with some of the same people from the larger of the two contingents, protesting against freedom of expression being suppressed. So it was with some bemusement that I observed a crowd gather to demand the immediate introduction of censorship.

Other images which served as a money-couldn’t-buy promotion for the Griffin appearance were broadcast from the West London station which was hosting the Question Time panel discussion. A bespectacled woman being dragged across the floor, realising the cameras were on her, found the composure to scream ‘shame’ at the BBC. She certainly does not do irony. Spurred on by her own authoritarian disposition she awarded herself the right to decide for the rest of us what views we will or will not listen to while incongruously screaming ‘fascist’ at everybody else.

That the censors marched against the public’s right to hear, view and make up their own minds was not entirely self-defeating. True, there was little in the way of strategic intellect employed or objectives fulfilled. They sought the BNP leader censored; they failed but by their antics ultimately ensured Griffin got a much larger audience than he would have sans the promotional protests. But in guaranteeing the former Cambridge boxing blue such a large audience the actions of the censorship lobby, despite their best efforts, inadvertently exposed Griffin as a clown to a much wider section of the British electorate.

Which provides justification for the BBC having let Nick Griffin have his say and the public to make their response without being told how to think by some dictator of the proletariat. Stung by criticism that the corporation handled the matter badly it is justification the BBC wants. It did not seek a debate but a mauling match in which the sharpest teeth belonged to the Question Time panel chair. However Griffin performed, good or bad, the BBC was justified in letting him on. It did not have to seek validation in his miserable outing, a timorous, populist and unprincipled way of approaching the matter. Validation lies in opting not to muzzle a significant number of people who make up the British electorate. That he performed so badly should be neither here nor there to the BBC.

According to Nick Griffin his participation was to have been a ‘milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country.’ He was certainly not referring to saving the country from comedy. His performance was a joke. His delivery was uninspiring; a pathetic man representing a pathetic cause. He wasn’t even an empty suit, just a thug in a suit. The tide of censorship went out and without it as cover Nick Griffin was shown to be stark naked. A BNP supporter most certainly understated the case when he said, ‘it was quite a bad performance by Griffin in comparison to his other TV appearances ... he did seem overawed by the occasion and was not, for the most part, at his best.’

Britain's first black British woman MP, Diane Abbott, long presumably on Griffin’s repatriation list, objected to his appearance on the grounds that it was ‘wrong and offensive ... what it does is it sanitises them, that's what it does, that's why it's wrong.’ But it did anything but sanitise them. It made the party appear dirty and uncouth, its leader odious and oleaginous. The projection of the Griffin persona onto the vision panel of the viewing public produced a character worthy of a BNP punch cartoon; a knuckle walker who would not appear out of place grooming and picking nits from the head of Mark Collett. No longer do we need political cartoonists to caricature the BNP. Nick Griffin did it all on his own.

The veils of censorship that long allowed a mystique to envelop both he and his party have been stripped away and now his banality is there for all to see. And as Hannah Arendt reminded us with her great phrase 'the banality of evil', the banal side of his character makes him no less malevolent. He grinned a lot and tried to come over as a ‘hail fellow well met’ type of guy, opting for a bit of unreciprocated backslapping with Bonnie Greer. But his virulence is both matched and negated by his vacuity. His grinning made him look like the human equivalent of a laughing hyena or a leering jackal ever ready to pounce and scavenge on human despair and prejudice. Overall, despite his laughing, he was more laughed at.

Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was a double victory; against the censors who sought to vanish him, and over the BNP whose claim to even a modicum of intellectual gravitas was shown to be fictitious by its leader’s inept performance.

Hatred of War

Recent armed attacks by physical force republicans have demonstrated the capacity of physical force republicans to mount armed attacks. That’s as far as it goes. Hardly justification for carrying out armed actions, unless the ability to mount them is justification in itself. The corollary of that is that anything done by anybody is justified. It is just a matter of doing.

An ‘up ‘n under’ was the term used by armed republicans to describe a booby trap bomb placed beneath a car. The bomber would crouch down beside the car, place the device up ‘n under the driver’s side of the vehicle and hope for the worst in terms of what could happen to the occupant once the car started to move. In the recent attention grabbing East Belfast attack where a device was placed somewhere in the car of a woman driver had the bomb done what it was supposed to what would it have achieved? One dead woman; no political cause advanced by the tiniest fraction; withdrawal by the British state from Ireland not brought forward by one minute.

A member of the PSNI was said to have been the intended target. Even had he been killed, rather than his unfortunate girlfriend being injured, same result; no advance on anything.

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes made by physical force republicans was to have believed Gerry Adams when he pronounced the legitimacy of placing bombs in cars by declaring that while there is a British presence in Ireland, armed struggle is a necessary and morally correct form of resistance. The legacy of that statement is being played out today in East Belfast and in Forkhill where a 600 pound car bomb was discovered last month. The effects of the legacy can trace its lineage back through terrible events like Omagh and Enniskillen. Yet here are republicans willing to risk all that again.

Adams’ critics hardly believe him on anything else so why bother believing him on the issue of when it is necessary and morally correct to kill people? His party colleague Martin McGuinness described those who planted the bomb as living in cloud cuckoo land. Having lived in it for decades himself he is eminently qualified to know about these things. These people led us through a war that proved as futile as it was prolonged. That is an important lesson that physical force republicans could learn from their own history.

War is such a horrifying phenomenon that it is easier to imagine that a sense of patriotism would seek to avoid its horrendous consequences being inflicted on fellow citizens of the nation. The Pearsean notion that ‘bloodshed is a cleansing and sanctifying thing ... the old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield’ should be greeted with horror not enthusiasm.

The lesson of the war waged in Ireland is that it produced little other than a divisive hatred. If hatred is to continue to have a presence in the country it could do much worse than existing as a hatred of war.

Limited

Last weekend Denis Bradley spoke at the annual PUP conference. These days the former Derry cleric focuses his energy on how to deal with the divisive subject of truth that has become camouflaged in the myths feeding off the North’s bitter conflict. The PUP’s long standing relationship to the UVF is considered pretty much the same as Sinn Fein’s association with the IRA. There are many in the PUP who hug previous lives well steeped in armed activity and they might not be eager to have truth extraction processes tried out on them. Nevertheless, according to the blogger Alan in Belfast, Denis Bradley ‘got a warm welcome, attentive listening, and no oohing and aahing or heckling.’

As if we needed to be reminded, Bradley outlined how prickly a nettle truth is.

The word ‘truth’ itself becomes divisive within our context. To some within the unionist family, it is a Trojan horse to trap them and expose their sins. To republicans it is the beacon that shines light into the darkest areas of our conflict and also lights up the path into the future.

Like the parson’s egg this observation is only good in parts. Likewise only true in parts, it hardly augers well for any truth recovery process. It is an accurate assessment of the unionist perspective which wants to untruthfully protect the past but loses steam when applied to republicans of the Sinn Fein type. The Catholic party has angrily covered much ground with stomping feet demanding the truth about some things. But it is clear that the party as currently constituted has more to lose than gain by a box office success called ‘The Truth’ being filmed in the debris of the conflict.

The party lacks the cuteness of the Brits who don’t make demands for truth, instead trying to roll with any punches thrown their way from the truth seekers; which allows them to avoid a lot of the charges of hypocritical cant and ensures they will not be left hoist on their own petard when awkward truths do emerge. And what happened, unlike Sinn Fein, did not take place on the watch of those currently in charge.

Commenting on Sinn Fein’s formal response to the Eames-Bradley report, Denis Bradley told the PUP gathering:

The big divide was on the legacy commission which we have proposed. Sinn Fein said they would no co-operate with because it would not be independent and would not be international. Sinn Fein proposes a truth commission set up under the auspices of the United Nations … If Sinn Fein continues to set their face so dogmatically against a legacy commission which can deliver a fair amount of truth and a fair analysis of the causes of conflict, they are in danger of depriving a lot of victims of what they need and what they deserve.

But it is not truth Sinn Fein wants but rather the power to define what should or should not constitute truth. Seriously, what international commission under the UN could arrive at the conclusion that Gerry Adams was not a senior member of the IRA - a Sinn Fein article of faith - and emerge with the necessary credibility to speak authoritatively on anything else? The recent hunger strike controversy demonstrates a Sinn Fein need to suppress alternative narratives. The treatment allegedly meted out to former IRA volunteer Gerry Bradley for having the temerity to write an unashamedly pro-IRA book on his life in the party's armed wing is another example.

Ironically, for this reason Sinn Fein will draw some consolation from the likely response of the Tories of all people towards truth recovery if they assume power in the next British general election. Denis Bradley described what he anticipated from Cameron's outfit:

If what I am hearing is correct then the Conservatives will bin the report on the past. In its place they will suggest a memorial hospital or something of that ilk, and a moving on, leaving the past behind. It won't be as crude as that but it will amount to leaving the past to be dealt with by the passage of time and the death of those who feel most affected by the troubles.

After that truth will come piecemeal and uncoordinated. Much of it will probably arrive via the memoirs of those involved; people like Gerry Bradley and George Clarke. It will be curbed and harried by the powerful, eager to drive it back into tenebrous vaults to which they alone hold the key. Where it survives it will neither have nor be dependent on the official imprimatur. There will be no reason for anybody to accept it in terms of it being a binding verdict but it will come to shape how people perceive the conflict.

Limited but as good as its likely to get.

New book - 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists

Maryam Namazie alerts us to a new book - 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists

50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists
from Maryam Namazie's blog

Recent religious and philosophical debate from self-proclaimed “atheists” has
challenged the ethical, scientific, and political implications behind belief and
non-belief, and the potential damage that can be done in the crusade to promote a certain brand of faith. A handful of spokespeople have appeared on the mount in defense of their non-belief, including authors Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great), and television host Bill Maher with his film Religulous.

The authors of this collection of original essays 50 VOICES OF DISBELIEF: Why We
Are Atheists (Wiley-Blackwell, October 2009) come together from varied professions and perspectives to broaden the debate even further and present carefully considered statements on the nuances of personal belief. At this intersection is the overall consensus that religion cannot explain all, or offer a solution to all people, and that science and personal responsibility must play a central role in this discovery

The contributors do not simply defensively react to the bullying tactics from the religious camp with dogmatic and similar conversion-based tactics, but plainly state their case, revealing an essentially humanist philosophy. They effectively defend their right to proudly practice outside the sphere of organised faith and continue to question the authority presented by these long-standing faith-based institutions.

The internationally-based contributors work in the fields of science, academia,
literature, media, and politics and include Julian Baggini (Atheist, Obviously), Susan Blackmore (Giving Up Ghosts and Gods), A.C. Grayling (Why I Am Not a Believer), Joe Haldeman (Atheist Out of the Foxhole), Maryam Namazie (When the Hezbollah came to my school), Peter Tatchell (My Nonreligious Life: A Journey from Superstition to Rationalism), and Peter Singer (Why Morality Doesn’t Need Religion).

50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists can be purchased here.


• October 2009 [UK] • November 2009 [U.S.] • Philosophy of Religion • Hardcover: 1-4051-9045-9, $89.95; £55 • Paperback: 1-4051-9046-6, $29.95; £16.99 • 360 pp.

Theology for Losers.

Religion – for those too fearful to live and too terrified to die. No pleasure in life, no release in death. An existence of trepidation and timidity cowering in fear of the sky daddy’s wrath and endlessly apprehensive about what lies in store at the other side of death. If there is a reason for not wanting to believe in god just read Frank Sheed. Totally delusional.

Not that it is a new work. Sheed died as far back as 1981 and had penned Theology for Beginners twenty three years earlier. He was writing at a time when I was incapable of reading. Despite his longings he still has not made it to heaven. He’ll get there the same time as I do. One of the more prominent street preachers of his day Sheed was a man of considerable intellect. Why he should have devoted it to a pretty useless theology was best known to himself. While never his intention Sheed confirmed his status as theologian of bunkum.

The religious life seems so desolate and stripped of those things that characterise humanness; a life unable to sustain itself on the beauty of the natural and which needs to plug into the supernatural is in itself life-denying. This is not to argue that all religious people are unhappy. Many derive solace from religion. But there are those who can only get by on trying to drain the contentment out from the lives of their fellow human beings. Look no further than the Scottish clowns who recently protested at a ferry service being run on a Sunday or the Sephardic idiots who blocked Saturday motorists because they objected to a car park operating on their Sabbath. Whether the god of Sunday or the god of Saturday it is all man-made. One of man’s least useful manufactures to boot.

I like books and am not deterred by the age of one. It is always useful to see what people were writing years ago and use it as a gauge of how far thinking has moved on. In this book Frank Sheed related an account of an exchange with a street ‘heckler’ while he was busy preaching from his soapbox. Sheed was labouring to explain the spirit but only managed to prompt the challenge of ‘that’s the best definition of nothing I ever heard.’ The book is memorable for that alone.

Another question from the street that Sheed tried to deal with was ‘who made god?’ The answer has become no easier or convincing with the passage of time. The modern atheists have popularised scientific belief so successfully that faith head attempts to overcome the logic of the question with the illogic of theology have made heavy weather of it all. The contradictory assumptions at the very heart of the god concept are laid all the barer.

Sheed frequently provides the very evidence in support of his claims that an atheist would find affirmation in. For example when it is stated that god is utterly changeless Sheed goes on to tell his readers that some would view this as stagnation. Why wouldn’t they? Nothing persuasive emerges. The contorted reasoning reminded me so much of the born again bible thumping types I would occasionally have the misfortune to meet in the North’s jails.

Sheed asks a question that still does the rounds today – for what were people made? The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins answers this much better than theology does. Evolution is not teleological; there is no goal. It just happens in the struggle to survive. To his credit Sheed never sought to foist the creationist myth on his readers. He regarded as rubbish the idea that the world was a mere 6000 years old and pointed to the work of Augustine 1400 years before Darwin as evidence of a Christian thinker who believed in evolution. Catholics are ‘allowed to believe in an evolutionary process by which the first human body comes from the earth by way of other animal bodies.’

Even where reason prevailed the ridiculous was never far away. Lucifer figured in Sheed’s world of theology. Hell is described as ‘all hate; hate of god; hate of one another …’ Yet, hell is nothing more than a figment of human imagination. It is not a place where man hates god but one where man hates man and much of the hating is done by religions. Is there really a more hateful concept that that of original sin? In order to nourish it readers were subjected to the nonsense of Adam and the fall. Is there anyone who attended the birth of their children able to deign so low as to denigrate that momentous event and dehumanise the child by thinking that it comes along with a voucher for original sin? And the heaven of the loving god is closed off to those children for evermore if they do not go through some ritual of baptism.

All sounds pretty strange stuff these days. Yet there are people who believe in this type of thing. Some of them serve as ministers in the Stormont Executive. That people like that can make decisions for the rest of us is truly frightening. My idea of hell.

Sheed wondered how other Christian religions could function without the canonisation of Saints. It just meant that he needed a bit more make-believe in his brand. Others could get by on less. Sheed also defended the ludicrous concept of papal infallibility. Yet if there ever was something that could be regarded as papal bull it is this. Society hardly needed Hans Kung to explain that much although it was welcome when he did. So on and on it goes with Sheed wrestling with such theological niceties as the Son being older than the Father and the Son who could choose his mother.

One thing that did strike me was his definition of justice as meaning ‘a really profound concern that others should have their rights, driving us to do something about it.’ It is so unfortunate that the rights of children were not considered a just cause worthy of something being done about it by the legions of god lovers in the Catholic Church. For them doing was covering – up.

At the end of it all Frank Sheed dismissed those who didn’t believe what he did as not living in the real world – of saints, angels, miracles and demons.

FJ Sheed, Theology For Beginners: Sheed and Ward Stagbooks, 1958

Death in Custody

When an Irish republican dies in British police custody it is certain to give rise to an atmosphere of suspicion and recrimination. Over the past four decades republicans have undergone no small measure of abuse and deprivation while in the hands of their police custodians. There are still enough republicans around who remember the death by hanging of Brian Maguire in Castlereagh Interrogation centre in 1978 at the height of an RUC torture onslaught. When they learn that a republican is found hanging in a police cell they suspect the worst.

In cases where the evidence is simply not there many will dismiss this as trivial and proceed as if the absence of it can be ignored. When Sean Bateson died in H7 in June 1990 from natural causes the Sinn Fein president blamed the negligence of the prison system and alleged medical neglect. Neither of these contributed to Sean Bateson’s death. Prison medical staff surrounded the collapsed IRA volunteer within a minute of him hitting the ground and worked strenuously to save his life. Unlike the death of James Moyne in the internment cages 15 years earlier prison medical service tardiness played no part in his death. But republicans have learned to think dirty when examining the circumstances behind a death in custody.

John Brady who died in Strand Road PSNI station at the weekend was a veteran republican prisoner. He was on weekend release from Maghaberry Prison where he had been detained for the past six years as a result of having his license revoked by British authorities although he had been convicted of nothing. Most of the last twenty years of his life had been spent in prison as a result of his involvement in republican activity. Arrested days ago following a domestic fracas he was discovered dead less than 24 hours later. Initial news reports said that he had taken his own life.

Sinn Fein politicians were quickly off the mark to speak publicly about the death of John Brady, one suspects, to prevent a head of steam building up. Aware of the bad publicity likely to accrue from republicans dying in British police custody, particularly as the party is calling for republicans like John Brady to be handed over to the police, Sinn Fein was keen to act as the honest broker. Yet Martina Anderson is hardly to be faulted for pointing out that no one should be dying in police custody. And as Pat Doherty put it ‘there are obviously serious issues of concern about how John Brady died during daylight hours whilst in police custody.’

Republicans are distressed and angry that John Brady came to his end in a facility they are deeply suspicious of. Today they staged a vigil outside the station where he died. But to blame the PSNI for actively killing John Brady would be seen by many as little other than a political point scoring exercise. It would also undermine attempts to flag up glaring inadequacies in the system that in all likelihood contributed to the death of the Strabane republican. Negligence would be a major but hardly a solitary factor here.

Regardless of what the PSNI members might think of John Brady as a result of his conviction for killing one of their RUC colleagues twenty years ago, the force had a duty of care to him while he was in its custody. What monitoring procedures were put in place for a man who might have felt he was facing the trauma of being returned to prison for a lengthy period after having served so much time in it already? Was any attempt made by the PSNI to establish John Brady’s medical records from prison staff in Maghaberry to assess if he was a prisoner at risk and to take appropriate measures to limit that risk? Was he simply banged up and left to his own devices? Willie Gallagher of the IRSP reported that the dead man’s solicitor had informed his family that he would be released shortly yet within an hour he was dead. What happened in that intervening hour which led him to take his life? Did the police tell him with malign intent that he was to have his licence revoked, thrusting him over the edge? Did they pressurise him in a bid to have him become an agent for them under threat of a return to prison? These and many more questions need raised in the days and weeks ahead if insight into this incident is to be forthcoming.

For those of us who knew John Brady or served time with him in British run prisons the idea that his fate can be glossed over as an unfortunate tragedy is not going to wash. Whether through neglect, negligence or nefariousness, the PSNI action or inaction in the lead up to the death of this republican is something that needs thorough explanation. Nothing less will suffice.

Speech. Not silence. Jerrycan.

Today The Pensive Quill carries an article by guest writer, Mark McGregor

Speech. Not silence. Jerrycan. by Mark McGregor

“People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”

‘Insider: Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA’ has started to get local media coverage and thereafter wall to wall coverage in North Belfast with graffiti threats to the author. Gerry’s crime is daring to document a life lived but without permission from those in a Provisional movement he no longer has any loyalty to.

As a result of having the audacity to write about his own experience claims of ‘touting’ have appeared on walls - claims that never adorned a wall when real touts like Donaldson and Scappaticci were exposed and supported by leading SF figures.

Gerry has had to leave Belfast due to reactions from former comrades and fears over how this hostility could develop. Unlike real touts, he hasn’t been supported by the SF leadership and then whisked out of the country to a life of luxury by his handlers.

His book appears to be unusual; those previously endorsed by republican figures have been pretty anodyne stuff - Cahill’s biography for example stands out, in a limited field, as a most unenlightening book being given over almost entirely to myth building and hagiography.

Most that leave the Provisional movement seem to carry with them a code of silence on speaking about what happened when they were members. For former IRA volunteers this may be due to an oath taken when they joined, for former SF members a mindset. This is seen in no matter how critical people that join dissenting groups are of current Provisional strategy and direction, they do not put in the public domain ‘smoking guns’ from when they were members. A code of omerta that lives on when they leave - silence. For some, like Martin McGuinness, speaking on your IRA past even to a British government body like the Saville Tribunal is permitted but this option is denied to others.

Bradley’s book doesn’t appear to have put much or anything out there that could damage the Sinn Féin project but he still has to endure attacks for documenting his life. He is labelled a tout and abused for opening to discussion the life of an IRA member in public discourse.

This desire to control the speech of former members is usually unneeded as they silence themselves.

Hopefully Gerry’s willingness to tell his story will demonstrate to others that your history and life isn’t something to be controlled by a defunct ‘movement’ and silence due to loyalty is just silence. Hopefully people will stand with him as he takes the lash for telling his truths.

No

One good reason for opposing Lisbon is that it has affected my daily routine. I didn’t really want to venture back out of the house having just arrived home from work but the desire to record my vote had a stronger pull than the tiredness that was beckoning me to the couch in front of the TV. So along with my wife we made the short journey to the polling station.

I didn’t get to vote last time round. I was not registered then. My vote would have gone to the ‘no’ camp as they made more sense than their critics. Tonight I did what I wanted to do last time and put my x beside a rejection of the Treaty. My wife values the privacy of the ballot box so I am not at liberty to divulge how she cast her vote. I fancied a pint on the way back but lost out to her and her taco chip. Whatever way she cast her ballot she voted no to my pint.

I doubt if the ‘no’ campaign will be successful this time. People might be fearful that with the recession the luxury of protesting is not something they can afford. For a time I sensed that the ‘no’ campaign was flagging. The Left led by Joe Higgins was making the running but did not seem to be getting much help from elsewhere. Declan Ganley entered the fray late in the day and Sinn Fein did not seem as robust in their opposition as they did last time out. Mary Lou McDonald was doing alright up until Gerry Adams accompanied her on one of her outings. With an unparalleled ability to make you instantly disbelieve what he says I immediately felt the air go out of the tyres on the ‘no’ bandwagon. Eoin O Broin later put in a solid performance and managed to inflate things quite a bit but none of it scaled the heights of the previous effort.

In this campaign the ‘yes’ people got their act together a lot better than before. Their backs are against the wall and they know they have to do it or bust. Pat Cox may be a lot less persuasive than Joe Higgins but there is a passion about the yes team that sits in stark contrast to the last referendum where they seemed to take our vote for granted.

What secured my vote against this time were not the arguments of those opposed to Lisbon but an instinctive distrust of the government. They have shafted the poor and deprived while baling out the bankers. They are financing the so called economic recovery by taking money from areas where real wealth does not exist. It has to come from somewhere so those hit are the people least able to resist the government’s claws. The woeful mismanagement of the state’s economic resources by politicians so incompetent means it is impossible to listen to their advice on anything, certainly not something as crucial to our future as Lisbon.

I am not some little Irelander who values economic protectionism and fiscal autarky. It is not the way of the modern interdependent world. I relish the idea of a European identity preferring it over an Irish one. I just have no faith in the politicians. They need to learn the hard way that they must win people’s confidence before they can be trusted with serious decision making. And they will not do that over pink gin in the club of the rich.

Never trust a yes-man.