Tonight The Pensive Quill features an article by guest writer, Helen McClafferty, again highlighting the injustices being endured by Gerry McGeough
A political candidate stands as an Independent on issues of principle during
elections in Zimbabwe. Every political dirty trick and smear in the book is used
against him during the campaign.
At the end of the election count, he is arrested as he leaves the Poll Count
Center and taken for interrogation. The international community, with Britain
taking the lead, would be in uproar squealing over the injustice of it all.
Despite his high-profile during the election and before, the Zimbabwe police
state that they arrested him at the Center only because they had no idea of his
whereabouts prior to that date. The international media are disgusted at the
pathetic excuse.
A few days later, the candidate is charged with attacks against the former
Rhodesian military going back 35 years and thrown in jail. Only after a massive
legal struggle is he granted bail and freed under severe restrictions. Due to
these restrictions he is unable to pursue his teaching career, which has an
effect on his family as he is the main breadwinner.
While his political enemies continue to slander him on the Internet, he is
dragged before courts every month and the case is put back for no good reason
every time. Britain continues to highlight the injustice of his case and demands
that all politically motivated charges be dropped.
Two-and-a-half years after his arrest, the candidate remains in legal limbo. He
suffers a major heart attack. The British press and media are in uproar and
demand that Robert Mugabe put an end to this vindictive political persecution.
The candidate survives the heart-attack but his health is now a source of major
concern to his legal team. Regardless of this, the Zimbabwe authorities go ahead
with a trial against him, which begins exactly three years to the day after his
arrest.
In order to try him, a special non-jury court system is resurrected for the
event, even though this system has been repealed years earlier and is
notoriously corrupt. The British government is hysterical about this human
rights abuse.
The trial is stopped for an Abuse of Process application. This is refused
despite the excellent legal arguments in its favor.
The trial resumes six months after it first began. On the second day, the
candidate is rushed to hospital for emergency heart treatment. The local
national media censor all reporting on this major development. The British are
outraged.
Following a surgical procedure, the trial is resumed for a third time. The
charges against him involve membership of a Nationalist group and the wounding
of a Rhodesian soldier during the conflict 30 years earlier.
The evidence against the candidate includes one of his novels, a stated work of
fiction, which has been published and on sale for years. A chapter from this
novel is read out of context in court and entered as "evidence". The
international community is aghast at the idiocy of such a development, and
writers' guilds around the world protest at the injustice of such Philistine
behavior.
Next, it emerges that the candidate once sought political asylum in Sweden. The
Swedish government readily hand over his application papers to the Zimbabwean
authorities and dispatch one of their Immigration Officials to testify against
the candidate. This constitutes the prosecution's main evidence.
International Human Rights and Refugee Groups are beside themselves with fury
and the UN condemns the move. The British threaten a boycott against Zimbabwe
and lecture the Swedes on their treachery.
The trial ends and the candidate is told to brace himself for a twenty year
sentence.
The above story is hardly imaginable. A government provokes international anger
in order to pursue a vindictive, politically motivated trial against someone
just because he stood in an election and articulated views that were at odds
with the powers that be.
Guess what? All of this has happened, not in Zimbabwe but in the North of
Ireland against Gerry McGeough. The only difference is that the British
government far from speaking out against the injustice is actually responsible
for it. Also, the international community, human rights groups and writers'
guilds have been remarkably silent about it all. It's time we all spoke out.
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261 Newer› Newest»Fionnuala,
I don't buy into politically correct speech, nor gender correct, which I find often impoverishes our abillity to express our sentiments.
That said I never deliberately go out of my way to offend, or not often anyway.
I thought my original post was obviously intending the phrase as 'tongue in cheek', given that I changed 'Native American' to 'Red Indian' and then immediately complained at the use of 'Northern Ireland' and the 'Irish Republic' when referring to two parts of this Nation.
John,
I fail to see why using the term "Northern Ireland" is offensive. I mean, I think the state of Israel was illegitimately established, but it would be nonsensical to avoid using the word "Israel" because of that. The terms reflect geopolitical realities and we must live with them, even if we don't like them.
Alfie,
I have gone nearly half a century without using the offensive term 'Northern Ireland' and yes, I find it very offensive, but not as much as when the 'Free State' sends its 'Foreign Minister' to deal with it.
I avoid using the term 'Israel' too.
Maybe I am just getting over-sensitive, so please continue to use what term you wish.
Alfie,
How do you think the IRA should have retaliated to the seemingly endless spree of Catholic killings?
We had the Shankill butchers, the UVF, UDA and all the other dirt who thought all Catholics were better off dead.
The IRA were under intense pressure from within their own communities to hit back.
No-one, wanted to see ten Protestant people killed, absolutely no-one.
Even now the sadness attached to something like that is compelling.
However, if the IRA were going to continue to wage a war, they had to offer their own people an aura of protection and this was it.
John,
"What have Red Indians got to do with Irish freedom?"
Quite a lot actually. You invoked the existence of an "historic Irish nation" to justify a small minority continuing to fight British forces even when a large majority oppose such a fight. My point is that present-day Native Americans could make a very similar argument. Why don't they have a right to lands that were historically theirs and from which they were forcibly removed? Using your logic, if there were only a small number of Native Americans today who were willing to fight the US government to regain control of their historic lands, then they would be justified. So should Helen pack her bags?
PS. Are you also offended by the terms "United States of America" and "Commonwealth of Australia", given that the states that bear these names were also established by the dispossession of the indigenous peoples?
Mackers,
The last five posts after two hundred do not seem to be showing?
Maybe, the blog feels it has endured enough for one night.
Nuala,
"However, if the IRA were going to continue to wage a war, they had to offer their own people an aura of protection and this was it."
I admire your honesty. Perhaps if I had been a Catholic in the North at the time, I might have wanted the IRA to hit back after sectarian killings. I doubt that I would have had a problem with the IRA targeting loyalist paramilitaries as they were combatants committing war crimes, but to line up 11 civilians at the side of a road and shoot them dead in order to give nationalists "an aura of protection" is simply barbarous. When you do that, you are not much better than the Shankill butchers. Having a just cause does not mean you can do whatever the fuck you like.
Alfie,
‘You invoked the existence of an "historic Irish nation" to justify a small minority continuing to fight British forces even when a large majority oppose such a fight.’
As it says in the Proclamation:
“In the name of God and the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood…..We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can ever be extinguished except by the destruction or the Irish people……”
The phrase, ‘historic Irish nation’ was meant to express those sentiments.
'My point is that present-day Native Americans could make a very similar argument. Why don't they have a right to lands that were historically theirs and from which they were forcibly removed?'
I don’t know much about the indigenous peoples of America but from what I know, I don’t believe there was ever a nation in the sense of a united people as outlined in the quote from our Proclamation.
“So should Helen pack her bags?”
I have long hoped for the return of many or our Irish exiles, who have long since worked so hard for Irish freedom, to little thanks from many of the Irish people who take the help when it suits them and then tell them to keep out when it doesn’t.
‘PS. Are you also offended by the terms "United States of America"’
No.
‘and "Commonwealth of Australia"’
If the word Commonwealth reflects its link with Britain, then yes. I call it plain old Australia.
I am very surprised that you express surprise at someone expressing surprise at the term ‘Northern Ireland!’ I could count the number of Republicans I know who have ever used that phrase on one hand. Even John Hume didn’t use it, the current Stoop, leader, (whoever she is, I forget her name), is the first prominent ‘Nationalist’ ever to accept the term.
Just out of interest, do you regard the IRA campaign of the 1950’s as criminal, misguided or what?
Do you think that there has ever been popular support for an armed rising to obtain freedom in Ireland?
Alfie- You are absolutely right, a just cause doesn't give anybody carte blanche. If it did then anybody who believed they had a just cause would do whatever the hell they liked.
Kingsmills was completely wrong and the perpetrators knew it. That's why they used a nomme de guerre instead of IRA.
I wonder if those murders were analogous to the murders at Darkley. Apparently Darkly was carried out by INLA men who (according to "INLA Deadly Divisions") by Jack Holland & Henry McDonald were motivated by personal grudges and an insatiable thirst for revenge within an INLA which was fragmented and out of control. Because they were acting on their own behalf and because they acted without INLA authority they used the name "Catholic Reaction Force". Apparently the organiser was nominally under McGlinchey but acted without his knowledge or approval. MCGlinchey promptly condemned the actions in a newspaper interview. The gang who kidnapped and mutilated dentist John O'Grady not only used a cover name but split to form their own group.
Killing people on the basis of being them being part of a religious group they had little or no choice in belonging to is sickening and wrong.
Alfie,
'I think people in the Republic have as much right to criticize armed republican activities on this island as Irish-Americans have the right to egg them on'.
Have you ever spent time in the north of Ireland prior to the GFA?
As for Irish-Americans ‘egging armed republicans on’. They didn’t need egging on from us Alfie. The loyalists and Brits gave them enough reason on their own. However, they came to us for help and we provided it.
Alfie,
‘ Do Native Americans in the USA have a right to mount an armed campaign against the US government to take back the lands that were historically theirs? What if only one Native American was willing to fight the US state? Would he/she be entitled to do so?
One Native American Indian did…Leonard Peltier from the Pine Ridge Reservation.
Alfie
“So should Helen pack her bags?”
Not necessary. I have long been a supporter of Native American Indian rights. I joined Amnesty International’s campaign for the release of political prisoner Leonard Peltier. I lend support to the National American Rights Fund (NARF) since 1980 and I make periodic donations to St. Joseph’s Indian School in South Dakota. I am a firm believer we had no right to confiscate their land in the manner it was done, let alone relegate them to reservations.
Alfie
‘That's not entirely true; the British government did apologise last year for Bloody Sunday, for example;
As for PM Cameron’s apology for Blood Sunday, it only took 38 years to make it and those responsible have never been prosecuted. However, they don’t think twice about prosecuting two Irish republicans on alleged 38 year old troubles related charges? The Brits always maintained a double-standard when it came to the Irish and themselves.
Do you agree with the continuation of the diplock courts in the north Alfie?
Can you also tell me why Donegal, the northern most county, is considered part of the south? Do you recognize that the Brits set up an illegal border (I believe Simon stated it correctly ‘gerrymanded’) in order to ensure British control of the north?
You are a very articulate and bright young man who apparently is into constitutional nationalism. You argue your points well. However, the control of the north of Ireland was illegally gained. No matter how anyone wants to slice it, Ireland consists of 32 counties NOT 26. The British government has no legitimate claim to the north and never did. Derry is NOT Londonderry and Donegal is NOT a southern county, it is a northern county.
Simon, John McGirr, Antoin,
Excellent points made on 'partition' and why Ireland should be reunited regardless.
Nuala,
just go into the 'post a comment' section and it shows you the latest comment on the thread. After 200 it always starts a new page. This will be 212
"The seemingly endless spree of killing catholics",all part of the brits cunning plan to drag the prm into a grubby secterian war,where they then could claim that they were just honest brokers keeping the warring factions apart,and it worked,and before I get hit with what alternative did the prm have ,well lots actually, my favourite was to execute top business men in England to begin with,bring the war to the enemy on your terms not theirs,I said that.
Marty-
" the Provos should have killed top
business people in england "
If the Provos had of killed plenty
of alan suger's or richard bransons
they would have got a lot more support of the english but it would not have moved the war on,
What the Provos should have done was put 1000 pounds bombs in england and then the tonne bombs for good measure-
but wait- this is what they did do
this is what the units of Ireland
done- our terms not theirs.
Agreed Mickeyboy up to a point but the prm allowed itself to be dragged into the dirty war trap, set up by the brits to protray the struggle as a secterian conflict,it was always going to be difficult to avoid this trap given that most of the ruc and udr were from the protestant community,but a clear an unambiguous statement of intent followed by action would imo have forced the brits to rethink their dirty war tatics, because mo cara that is all it boiled down to peoples lives ,destroyed for a tatic.only once again the brits took the game set and match.
Helen,
'Can you also tell me why Donegal, the northern most county, is considered part of the south? Do you recognize that the Brits set up an illegal border (I believe Simon stated it correctly ‘gerrymanded’) in order to ensure British control of the north?'
I remember a good while back I think it was John Taylor who said he wished they had Donegal instead of South Armagh, less hassle for them. By the magic of the Internet I amazingly managed to find an old article I read years ago about the drawing up of the border and the commission who's remit seems only to have been to look after the unionists. Well worth the read (does anyone know how to create a hyperlink?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/it-all-began-with-a-line-on-the-map-of-all-the-divisions-that-polarise-ireland-none-is-more-perplexing-than-the-border-separating-north-and-south-politicians-talk-hopefully-of-a-better-future-but-the-problem-of-the-border-itself-remains-intractable-this-twopart-report-traces-the-history-of-europes-least-logical-frontier-and-overleaf-examines-life-in-its-shadow-1437681.html
Gerry has been given a date for the "verdict". He is to stand before the Diplock Court's English judge on Friday, February 18th.
The "verdict" will be delivered at 2.00pm in Court 12 at the Laganside High Court in Belfast.
The Pressure Group "Justice for the McGeough Family" are asking supporters to pack the building.
John,
[Part 1]
"I don’t know much about the indigenous peoples of America but from what I know, I don’t believe there was ever a nation in the sense of a united people as outlined in the quote from our Proclamation."
Obviously, all of the tribes in North America were not united under the modern concept of nationhood, but they had their own languages and cultures, and as much as the land belonged to anyone, it belonged to them. Indeed, both scholars and Native Americans themselves have long used the word "nation" to describe a distinct tribe. Five of the Iriquoian-speaking nations banded together some time before the Europeans arrived to form the Iriquois League. It still exist today. If the Irish are a nation, then the Iriquois are as well.
"Just out of interest, do you regard the IRA campaign of the 1950’s as criminal, misguided or what?"
Probably misguided and futile. I don't believe armed republicans are criminals, but I don't think they should ignore the will of the people either. However, I am not sure what exactly the implications are of having these two seemingly opposing beliefs. I'd be interested in Anthony's opinion on this.
John,
[Part 2]
”Do you think that there has ever been popular support for an armed rising to obtain freedom in Ireland?”
I don’t think a well-organised armed rising before the 1870s would have needed popular support in order to be a just war, given the degree of deprivation and the lack of democracy in the country. Between the 1870s and 1916, the circumstances of ordinary people greatly improved and democratic rights within the British system were greatly extended (though shamefully not to women). However, self-determination was denied three times over this period despite the desire of the vast majority of Irish people for independence. Regardless of what Eoghan Harris or Kevin Myers may tell you, this is what Home Rule meant for most nationalists – it was not for nothing that they sang “A Nation Once Again”. Furthermore, most nationalists were not opposed in principle to using military means to gain independence, for they celebrated the centenary of the 1798 rebellion, marched annually in memory of the Manchester martyrs and many were quite prepared to countenance a civil war against the Ulster Volunteers to ensure 32-county Home Rule. However, they did believe that violence was not likely to succeed against the might of the British Empire. Taking all this into consideration, I am inclined to think that the 1916 rising was justified, but only if those who staged it had a legitimate expectation that it could succeed.
A better case for war can be made after the 1918 general election, in which the electorate in Ireland endorsed Sinn Féin and their demand for a 32-county Irish republic. Again, some will say that Sinn Féin did not win an overall majority in that election, but this ignores the fact that Sinn Féin candidates were elected unopposed in 25 constituencies. It is a virtual certainty that the party would have had large majorities in these constituencies had they been contested and if we make the incredibly conservative assumption that the vote in these constituencies would have been about the average of the Sinn Féin vote in the contested constituencies, then the party’s share of the national vote would have been about 53%. However, given that in nine of the contested constituencies, Sinn Féin got over 80% of the vote and that its likely vote share in the uncontested seats would have been nearer that end of the scale, it seems pretty certain that Sinn Féin would have received in the order of 65% of the national vote. Of course, others will argue that Sinn Féin’s election victory was not a mandate for war. I am inclined to think that since Sinn Féin promised the electorate a 32-county republic and the removal of British rule by “any and every means available”, the Dáil had the authority to mount a military campaign if necessary to achieve these objectives. It is troubling that the beginning of this campaign was not sanctioned by the Dáil, but it seems that with the reconstitution of the Irish Volunteers as the IRA in August 1919, the Dáil was unofficially assuming responsibility of the volunteers’ activities (though it would not officially declare war on Britain for much later). Furthermore, key figures in the Dáil executive were IRA leaders. It is also worth noting that Sinn Féin won overwhelming majorities in urban and rural councils in 1920 despite being the party associated with the IRA. I think most historians concede that a guerrilla war on the scale of the War of Independence could not have been successfully waged without popular support. So for all these reasons, I think the campaign was justified.
John,
[Part 3]
I am not opposed in principle to armed campaigns; however, I do believe that in the absence of severe repression, such campaigns should be in some way endorsed by the people they intend to liberate. That is why the undemocratic nature of the Easter Rising is problematic. I think, though, that this must be balanced by the British government's refusal to grant 32-county Home Rule during the previous 30 years. It also must be said that there was a big difference between what Home Rule meant in reality and what it meant in the minds of Irish Parliamentary Party supporters. A peaceful resolution was not just around the corner. So, overall, I think the Rising was probably legitimate and I would not disown it.
Helen we will be there ,I want to see the look on those fuckers faces when Gerry walks free ,hope he is buying!
Simon,
[Part 1]
"Just because a majority in Northern Ireland agree that the gerrymandered border should stay doesn't make it right. In fact that is why it is wrong."
I agree that the North was illegitimately established. However, this must be balanced against three key facts: firstly, the state has existed for over 90 years; secondly, a large majority - probably about 65-70% - support its remaining part of the UK; and thirdly, the Republic of Ireland recognises the state, as does the international community. A million people on this island want to be British and they have their own state. I don't think this state should ever have been established because when it was, a large majority (about 65%) of people on this island wanted a 32-county republic; the ideas of Ireland as a country and the Irish as a people were well-established; and there was no credible border between nationalists and unionists. Like you say, if unionists believe a handful of counties had the right to opt out of a 32-county state, then why doesn't West Belfast have the right to opt out of the North? Also, a British state on the island of Britain already existed for those who considered themselves British and didn't want to live in a self-governing Ireland. Alas, however, to use a horrible Fianna Fail soundbite, we are where we are. Most people on this island are happy with the status quo; even more are against using violence to change things. So while I object to the state of Northern Ireland, I also object to ignoring the will of the people and I am unwilling to support armed resistance to partition.
Alfie,
You raised the question of Native Americans, and compared them to the Irish nation. As I mentioned already I don’t know much about them so I just want to make a couple of general observations, that I believe will hold, in spite of my lack of knowledge on the particulars.
Firstly, if a Nation has a right to its own freedom then that right is not to be denied because others may not have invoked their own rights and may have allowed themselves to be subjugated.
Secondly, I believe the key to the distinction between Native Americans and Ireland is primarily to be found in ‘pacification’. This is something that England singularly failed to do with regard to Ireland. It may be that they, and others, were more successful in regard to the indigenous people of America.
I am supposing that they came at them so hard and so fast that they managed, often in a criminal way, to pacify the bulk of those peoples in a way they never succeeded in doing in Ireland. For whatever reason, the resistance in America was never sustained, until they were overcome by sheer numbers. In Ireland there was always enough resistance to discourage would-be settlers and it left Irish society top-dominated by outsiders but largely intact.
A usurping power that annexes a country can acquire a legitimate claim to a country with the passage of time and the lack of resistance to its rule. It seems to me that this is the case in the USA, much as I might regret it, but it is certainly not the case in Ireland that has continued in almost every generation to offer resistance.
That is why the flame of Irish patriotism must never be allowed to be extinguished, it might only burn as a pilot light, but once it is extinguished, the Irish Nation will be no more. At that point it will be pacified, and have forfeited all rights to freedom.
I was interested to read what Helen wrote about Leonard Peltier. Although I knew his name, I am ashamed to say that I knew nothing about him. That is one of the plusses of the Pensive Quill, to constantly throw up topics for further study.
Helen,
'The "verdict" will be delivered at 2.00pm in Court 12 at the Laganside High Court in Belfast.'
Best of luck to Gerry and Vincent.
Marty
'Helen we will be there ,I want to see the look on those fuckers faces when Gerry walks free ,hope he is buying!'
I hope you are right, but I fear it isn't looking good.
Alfie- Partition was a great undemocratic act and to counter it and defeat the fait accompli in which we now find ourselves there needs to be maybe not an undemocratic act but something to redress the balance.
The Good Friday Agreement states that "a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland."
We need an extra-ordinary act to redress this entrenched paradox, a solution to the seemingly impossible task of meeting the legitimate wish of the majority of people of Ireland: to be united.
I agree that violence isn't the way forward. As for the solution I have no idea. I believe it has to be peaceful nonetheless. I think the frustration of the majority's wishes due to a lapse in time and an arbitrary border inexcusable.
Also, I'd be interested in what you mean by the term "International Community". Do you mean 'NATO' or 'the UN' or 'all the countries in the world' or 'most of the countries in the world'?
Simon,
"As for British repression it didn't suddenly start with the War for Independence. There was repression for centuries."
Of course, but conditions had greatly improved by 1916 and most men (though not women) had voting rights within the British system. So, though self-determination was being denied, repression did not become a significant factor again until the IRA's guerrilla war was under way. That was my point.
I agree that true democracy was being denied and I believe that the result of the 1918 general election was probably a mandate to do something about that, but I don't believe that mandate exists forever. People have the right to accept partition; republicans have the right to try to convince them otherwise, but I don't think we have the right to take up arms when it is obvious that most people north and south of the border object.
Simon,
I suppose that, by the term "international community", I was referring to the EU and more generally to the UN, though I am not sure the latter organisation passed any resolutions pertaining to the conflict in Ireland.
John,
Armed Native American resistance was widespread until the 1890s, but Leonard Peltier's case and the stand-off at Wounded Knee show that it has not been completely extinguished. Also, Native Americans have been involved in non-violent protests since at least the 1960s. So, my question is, if a nation of Native Americans decided to mount an armed campaign against the US government for the return of their nation's lands, would they be right? Would you support them?
John oh ye of little faith!its not that I have any faith in brit justice,I dont mo cara but rather I look at this from the brits political point.the guilty verdict here could cause to much trouble for the tamed poodles up in Stormont,otherrwise they,d gladly lock Gerry up and chuck away the key,justice hasnt got anything to do with this case.
Alfie, I suppose my point was that the term "International Community" is so vague and means different things to different people that it is worthless trying to suggest that it has a policy on anything. First time I heard of the EU being described as such.
Helen,
"Have you ever spent time in the north of Ireland prior to the GFA?"
Apart from short visits, no. Does that invalidate my opinion?
"One Native American Indian did…Leonard Peltier from the Pine Ridge Reservation."
Do you think he was right? Would other Native Americans be right to mount an armed campaign against your government to get their lands back?
"I am a firm believer we had no right to confiscate their land in the manner it was done, let alone relegate them to reservations."
In what manner should their lands have been colonized by Europeans? Do Native Americans today have the right to ask US citizens to leave?
"Do you agree with the continuation of the diplock courts in the north Alfie?"
No.
"Can you also tell me why Donegal, the northern most county, is considered part of the south? Do you recognize that the Brits set up an illegal border (I believe Simon stated it correctly ‘gerrymanded’) in order to ensure British control of the north?"
Look, I know the border was wrong to begin with, but the Irish people have the right to accept it, just as Native Americans have the right to accept the presence of the US government on their lands. Whether we like it or not, the passage of time and the will of the people provide a significant degree of legitimacy.
Or maybe Alfie you have to short a memory!
Or possibly is it from the I,m all right Jack point of view
Simon,
You have a point. I should have said that the settlement of the conflict in the North as embodied by the GFA seems to be widely recognised around the world. I'm not sure that any government has come out against it. On the other hand, I have not really researched the matter; I would be suprised if many countries had opposed it though.
Marty,
"my favourite was to execute top business men in England to begin with,bring the war to the enemy on your terms not theirs,I said that."
It is troubling that you seem to relish the killing of a certain category of civilians. If republicans deliberately kill civilians - however wealthy and powerful - then they cannot complain when British soldiers or loyalists kill Catholic civilians in the North. If you have the right to fight dirty, then so do your enemies.
"Or maybe Alfie you have to short a memory! ... Or possibly is it from the I,m all right Jack point of view."
Perhaps I'd feel differently if I were born a Catholic in the North. But most northern Catholics did not seem to support the PIRA's campaign since most voted for the SDLP instead of Sinn Fein until the latter renounced violence. It also seems that a sizeable minority of northern Catholics - perhaps 30% - would not vote for unification. Since they endured 30 years of conflict too, I don't think the Catholics in the North who opposed the PIRA's campaign can be dismissed as having an "I'm all right, Jack" point of view. If you don't even command majority support in the community you claim to represent, then you're at nothing.
Alfie,
In the words of the martyr, Terence MacSwiney:
"We fight for freedom—… If only a few are faithful found they must be the more steadfast for being but a few. They stand for an individual right that is inalienable. A majority has no right to annul it, and no power to destroy it. ….One man alone may vindicate it, and because that one man has never failed it has never died. Not, indeed, that Ireland has ever been reduced to a single loyal son. She never will be. We have not survived the centuries to be conquered now. … He is called to a grave charge who is called to resist the majority. But he will resist, knowing his victory will lead them to a dearer dream than they had ever known. …. And should these few sink in the struggle the greatness of the ideal is proven in the last hour; as they fall their country awakens to their dream, and he who inspired and sustained them is justified; justified against the whole race, he who once stood alone against them. In the hour he falls he is the saviour of his race."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13132/13132-h/13132-h.htm
Alfie- to tell you the truth I think the St. Andrew's Agreement changed too much of the GFA. The triple lock veto allows either the DUP or Sinn Fein or whoever holds 50% plus one of the unionist/nationalist vote to veto any decision. Since Sinn Fein want change they are less likely to veto any progressive legislation than the DUP who want to maintain the status quo.
However I support devolution as a concept as it allows a shift in sovereignty albeit small from Westminster to this part of Ireland. Local people making local decisions, accountable to the rest of the people.
I am unsure if devolution will entrench partition or will allow further change. On the one hand all Ireland cooperation is less in the news and there seems to be less talk of a united Ireland from Sinn Fein. I don't mean they ignore the issue I just wish they were more pro-active.
I don't think there is a barrier to supporting the GFA as it was and wanting something else to happen if you had the choice. I think most people would change some aspect of the agreement if they had the chance. I am aware it was a compromise but changes to it happen all the time, without referendums. As for countries who support it I am unsure who does, who doesn't and who doesn't care.
Also the GFA recognises the right to peacefully campaign and work for re-unification. So even if most people want to maintain partition and all that goes with it, anybody who wants to can work to persuade them otherwise.
Alfie- The main reason Garrett Fitzgerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement was because his government was afraid Sinn Fein would outstrip the SDLP in terms of votes. It was looking that way. That's why I have to laugh when people say the SDLP brought Sinn Fein in from the cold. The ceasefires helped Sinn Fein internationally but the Anglo-Irish Agreement did what Fitzgerald planned- bolstered the SDLP.
marty,
Much as I don't want to, I must be realistic. The judge at that trial will not find Gerry 'not-guilty.'
'Guilty' was always a foregone conclusion with that English masonic judge.
Please God that I am wrong, but I don't think so.
Alfie you need to turn your statement around mo cara when the british army and their agents deliberately kill civilians,which was part and parcel of Kitsons plan, then its well within the rights of the PIRA/INLA to target the people who would be in a position to infulence their goverment and that my friend is always the powerfull and the wealthy!
MartyDownUnder:
Thank you so much for sharing that article in The Independent with me. Very informative. However, according to the author he states that 'expert opinion suggests that catholics will not overtake the Protestants for three decades or more?" Since the article was written in 1994 does that means there wouldn't be another all 32 county vote for a re-united Ireland until 2024? Not cool!
marty,
'when the british army and their agents deliberately kill civilians,which was part and parcel of Kitsons plan, then its well within the rights of the PIRA/INLA to target the people who would be in a position to infulence their goverment and that my friend is always the powerfull and the wealthy'
If my memory serves me correctly marty, it wasn't until the Ra took the war to the 'mainland' that the Brits sat up and took notice and decided it was time to 'talk to political SF again'. My take on that was as long British citizens outside of the north of Ireland were not bothered by the troubles who really cared? Once it disrupted their lives on the mainland...it was another story wasn't it?
Simon,
"Also the GFA recognises the right to peacefully campaign and work for re-unification. So even if most people want to maintain partition and all that goes with it, anybody who wants to can work to persuade them otherwise."
I think you might have misunderstood my position. I consider myself a republican; I am against partition; I oppose the state of Northern Ireland and the PSNI. However, I also believe that, unless the circumstances are exceptional, republicans should not go to war without some sort of mandate. Given my family connections to the Old IRA and the Provos, I am uneasy about opposing armed republicanism, but without mass support and any chance of success, I don't see any other option.
marty, John McGirr,
Gerry thanks everyone for their support. As for Gerry buying, marty, I'm not sure that will happen LOL! However, I'll be happy to send over a few American dollars to buy you all a pint if he goes free!
Marty,
"when the british army and their agents deliberately kill civilians,which was part and parcel of Kitsons plan, then its well within the rights of the PIRA/INLA to target the people who would be in a position to infulence their goverment"
It is true that loyalists and British soldiers killed civilians first, but that doesn't make it right; that doesn't give republicans carte blanche. We cannot target noncombatants lest we are prepared for noncombatants in our own community to be targets also. Similarly, the IRA cannot torture suspected informers unless it is prepared to countenance the torture of its own volunteers by British forces. I have no experience of war, but I'd like to think that certain basic principles apply.
Helen,
Think the author of that article is well wide of the mark (even though it's well over ten years old), I can't see the two community levels coming even anywhere near level for the forseeable future it just doesn't take in the mass emigration of young nationalists, which of course will have a knock on effect on future birth rates and to be blunt the fenians aren't having as many weeans as they once did.
I think that this is what this whole 'peace process' amounts to, keeping a lid on it until the numbers in the sectarian headcount are right. What happens if and when they ever do remains to be seen. At the minute I'd say the unionists would feel the union is well and truly safe
Alfie to quote Tombstone Hartley in war there can only be one principal and that is to win,Churchill was prepared to use every and any means to destroy Hitler and that included the use of posion gas which was banned by the Geneva convention, war mo cara is not a gentlemans game,and as we all know the rulebook gets torn up,the british goverment could have stoped the war in the north east of Ireland many many years earlier if they wanted ,their agents were in control of all the warring factions including pira,they through Tony bLIAR admitted that they pursued a dirty war here and when those who make the rules,break the rules ,then there is no rules, or as we used to sing OH Britinia britinia waves the rules!Helen before our Mickeyboy rares up at you mo cara dont refer to prefidious Albion or the land of the dummy tits as "the mainland" Ireland is a nation on her own, mind you we are well stuffed with dummy tits, I have a big clock on the wall here showing the back of an armed brit heading home the legends say SLÁN ABHAILE ....TIME TO GO..
Alfie,
'I consider myself a republican; I am against partition; I oppose the state of Northern Ireland and the PSNI. However, I also believe that, unless the circumstances are exceptional, republicans should not go to war without some sort of mandate. Given my family connections to the Old IRA and the Provos, I am uneasy about opposing armed republicanism, but without mass support and any chance of success, I don't see any other option'.
Thanks for your honesty here Alfie. I know I may sound like a broken record with regard to the McGeough case, but his attempt to work through the political process failed him. He was arrested for running as an Independent candidate on an anti-psni platform and almost four years later he’s still waiting for the verdict of his diplock court trial that could find him in prison for 20 years on alleged 38 year old troubles related charges? So to me it's a Catch 22. You're damned if you do and your damned if you don't. That tells me the Brits have it well tied up in their favor, ever since the GFA and the amendment to articles 2 and 3.
There appears to be very little support for armed struggle anymore, and yet there doesn't appear to be much support for a republican candidate who challenges PSF? So what is the answer?
I got the feeling in some of your posts, Alfie, you think I'm just another 'yank' who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and I just want to 'egg on armed struggle.’ Not so. I've been involved a long time with civil and human rights issues around the world, and I lived illegally for 3 years in Derry in the early 80's when Derry was a partially bombed out city. I wanted to find out first hand what the 'troubles' were really about, as I couldn't rely on the U.S. media to give an unbiased account of the situation over there.
After 3 years, I went back to the USA more committed to getting the truth out about the troubles, British injustice and the security forces collusion with loyalist paramilitary groups. After what I saw and experienced, while living in the north those 3 years, I made a promise to myself that I would continue to campaign for “Brits Out” and the reunification of Ireland, until I was no longer able to do so. If I feel that way, can you imagine how republicans living under British and Unionist repression their entire lives feel?
Helen,
"I got the feeling in some of your posts, Alfie, you think I'm just another 'yank' who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and I just want to 'egg on armed struggle.’"
I apologise for implying that. It was arrogant and presumptuous of me. Sometimes I write before I think.
Alfie,
Did you get a moment to read Terence MacSwiney's "Principles of Freedom"?
I would be interested to read what you ar anyone else think of them.
If you didn't see it, this is the link:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13132/13132-h/13132-h.htm
PS Am I the only one having trouble getting into this the PQ Site and posting messages?
John,
'Did you get a moment to read Terence MacSwiney's "Principles of Freedom"?'
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the whole thing at the moment; however, I did read the passage that you quoted and I'm not really convinced. MacSwiney seems to value the idea of an Irish nation more than the will of the people in Ireland. He also talks about inalienable rights, but he doesn't seem to respect the right of the Irish people to reject republicanism. If people don't have a choice, how is that genuine republicanism? To my mind, it is the exact opposite.
Alfie,
It is a simple work, that codifies the thinking of the men of 1916.This work gives the justification, for resistance unencumbered by surveys and and mendacious 'agreements', which seek to pacify Ireland while it remains unfree.
Why re-invent the wheel when the principles have already been established, which give us all the justification we need?
A nation that rejects this is a dead nation. History would indicate that Ireland will not be allowed to committ suicide by rejecting its freedom. I suppose it is a logical pssibllity though, that Ireland will reject these principles and die. If that happens it will be a tragedy of the highest order.
I believe with all our Irish martyrs that this will never happen.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13132/13132-h/13132-h.htm
Alfie,
'I apologise for implying that. It was arrogant and presumptuous of me. Sometimes I write before I think.'
It's okay Alfie. Been there, done that! It's a very sensitive issue we're debating here, so it's not surprising that some posts can get a bit 'heated' at times, especially when posters have so much passion about the subject matter.
Alfie
I agree armed republicans are not criminals. But that does not make them any more right in their actions than criminals, just different. People have a greater right to life than armed republicans have to kill them.
‘I am inclined to think that the 1916 rising was justified, but only if those who staged it had a legitimate expectation that it could succeed.’
Always a requirement for a just war theory.
As for the Rising I neither disown it nor claim it. In the end it really has no bearing on how I think. I guess I was about 16, in prison, reflecting on a summer’s evening, when the penny dropped that there were motivations at play other than the Rising.
Anthony,
"I agree armed republicans are not criminals. But that does not make them any more right in their actions than criminals, just different. People have a greater right to life than armed republicans have to kill them."
But that begs the question: what should be done about armed republicans? Should they be prosecuted?
All of this began in 1986 with the recognition of Leinster House.Adams has been able to divide his opponents,much like the English have always done.RSF has a pacifist president,the other groups are just as disorganized,the Provisionals did what the English could not do since 1916.Adams & McGuiness have earned their thirty pieces of silver.It is a shame.
John,
'RSF has a pacifist president'
Is this true?
Helen,
Your history is certainly interesting. You have certainly experienced the same challenges and frustrations that many others have.
Alfie
'Personally, I think that a majority in the Republic would vote for a united Ireland, but most people here would rather tolerate partition than have a war to end it.'
And as 'the people' alone, not elites should have the right to wage war, there is no republican outcome to the problem of partition.
John
We will always pick the question we want asked so that it will give us the answer we want to hear.
Someone could legitimately propose that the GFA referendum question could have been ‘do you accept partition’ if the only means of getting rid of it are violent ones? I think the result would have been a resounding yes. People knew what they were voting for in the referendum.
‘It is an illegal statelet, and it should be destroyed?’
Any more so than an “illegitimate” child?
It is a legal statelet. We might not like it. It might be unjust and everything else but many legal things are.
‘the island as a whole should have the right to determine its future.’
And what if the island as a whole decides it does not want to be united?
‘the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA continue to act as our conscience and remind us that freedom is there if we want it.’
But it is a conscience that holds it is fair enough to risk another Omagh and fly in the face of the wishes of the vast bulk of Irish people. So they don’t operate as my conscience because my conscience tells me something different.
Using the term Northern Ireland is not something I would get worked up over.
John
‘Sometimes it is good to be in a minority, hated or otherwise.’
Agreed. Doesn’t make you right however.
‘Is there ever much ‘appetite for war’?
Rarely amongst the rational. Who is to decide that it should be waged?
Alfie says: ‘But don't people have a right to accept partition if they choose?’
You say: ‘No, unless they are traitors to their country.’
Why should they be made to suffer obligatory nationalism anymore than obligatory religion? People should be free to hold whatever ideas they wish. In the context referred to by Alfie they are only traitors to your idea not their country.
“In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.”
In the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – that can never be a justification for war.
‘In the words of the martyr, Terence MacSwiney’
Mysticism to me. Does not persuade me in the slightest.
Alfie,
‘But that begs the question: what should be done about armed republicans? Should they be prosecuted?’
People like me never argue for that. It is a matter of conscientious objection given our history. But society will find a way of addressing the issue and it will of course involve prosecutions. And we cannot argue the case that society has no rights and that only those who subscribe to the physical force tradition have rights. That they who know better than every body else will determine what everybody else’s rights are. When the SDLP or Irish government call for republicans to be locked up I am and have long been, philosophical about it. I have lived with that all my days and expect it. When people who were part of it, ordered it for years, told all and sundry that the penalty for informing was death and then pretend they had little or no part in it – when they call for it I find it unpalatable. I was in jail cells from I was 16 years old. As much as I oppose what armed republicans do, that long experience leaves me seeing imprisoned republicans in a vastly different light from how others see them.
Post a Comment