Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1121
August 18, 2018
A Morning Thought @ 109
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
August 17, 2018
I Dolours
Christopher Owens reviews I, Dolours, which premiered at the Movie House Cinema, Dublin Road, in Belfast on 13/08/18.
It'll be a shame when this place is demolished.
Even though it's a standard...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
It'll be a shame when this place is demolished.
Even though it's a standard...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
A Morning Thought @ 108
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
A Morning Thought @108
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
A Morning Thought (108)
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
August 16, 2018
Monsters And Stars
Clifford Peeples shares his thoughts on the recent furore over the art work of Michael Stone.
The work was not of my taste, but many acquire a liking for the bright and vivid nature of Stone’s art work. Does his past have a bearing on this, perhaps? Doctors, newspaper editors, bankers, security figures, and working-class house wives own creations produced by the hands that the world watched toss RGD5 grenades. Despite this, his work crosses class, creed, and gender lines. Therefore, there must be value, whether it is of taste to some or not. It is art, some of it is reminiscent of Rothko, some of more garish pop art but it holds people and more importantly people buy it.
The controversy of ex or present prisoners being involved in the arts is not just a local one. The Krays, Charles Bronson, Caravaggio, Olive Wharry, Richard Dadd, and the American killer Wayne Lo, who sells his art to fund scholarships for poor children, have all been embroiled in the same sort of controversy. Despite this, the arts are, seen as, a valuable tool by most Western governments in rehabilitation.
This brings us back to the recent manufactured controversy about Stone. He has fulfilled all that the State requires of him. His part in a charity auction, no matter what your option the artist or his work, was an attempt at community engagement, with the beneficiary a local charity. The signalling out of and embarrassing of a local charity, many of which are cash strapped, in such away, in order to manufacture a story is totally wrong. Many local charities use former prisoners and those coming to the end of their incarceration as volunteers. This is a benefit to both. Will, they be the focus of such scrutiny too or was it just the individual and his art that was of interest to the BBC, not the principle?
The arts have been enriched by those who once engaged in the darkness of the past. I see names on paintings and at the bottom of proses that are like ghosts from the past. They mostly go unnoticed, as these ghosts are not portrayed in Stone. They are troubled as they write, compose, sculpt, and paint giving credence to Nietzsche observation “One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” Even if that star is a monster in the eyes of others.
➽ Clifford Peeples is a writer and former loyalist prisoner.
The work was not of my taste, but many acquire a liking for the bright and vivid nature of Stone’s art work. Does his past have a bearing on this, perhaps? Doctors, newspaper editors, bankers, security figures, and working-class house wives own creations produced by the hands that the world watched toss RGD5 grenades. Despite this, his work crosses class, creed, and gender lines. Therefore, there must be value, whether it is of taste to some or not. It is art, some of it is reminiscent of Rothko, some of more garish pop art but it holds people and more importantly people buy it.
The controversy of ex or present prisoners being involved in the arts is not just a local one. The Krays, Charles Bronson, Caravaggio, Olive Wharry, Richard Dadd, and the American killer Wayne Lo, who sells his art to fund scholarships for poor children, have all been embroiled in the same sort of controversy. Despite this, the arts are, seen as, a valuable tool by most Western governments in rehabilitation.
This brings us back to the recent manufactured controversy about Stone. He has fulfilled all that the State requires of him. His part in a charity auction, no matter what your option the artist or his work, was an attempt at community engagement, with the beneficiary a local charity. The signalling out of and embarrassing of a local charity, many of which are cash strapped, in such away, in order to manufacture a story is totally wrong. Many local charities use former prisoners and those coming to the end of their incarceration as volunteers. This is a benefit to both. Will, they be the focus of such scrutiny too or was it just the individual and his art that was of interest to the BBC, not the principle?
The arts have been enriched by those who once engaged in the darkness of the past. I see names on paintings and at the bottom of proses that are like ghosts from the past. They mostly go unnoticed, as these ghosts are not portrayed in Stone. They are troubled as they write, compose, sculpt, and paint giving credence to Nietzsche observation “One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” Even if that star is a monster in the eyes of others.
➽ Clifford Peeples is a writer and former loyalist prisoner.
August 15, 2018
Who The Hell Are We?
The Uri Avnery Column ruminates on the decision to declare Israel a Jewish state.
I told him: "I am first of all an Israeli. After that I am a Jew."
He responded heatedly: "I am first of all a Jew, and only after that an Israeli!"
That may look like an abstract debate. But in reality, this is the question that lies at the heart of all our basic problems. It is the core of the crisis which is now rending Israel apart.
The Immediate cause of this crisis is the law that was adopted in great haste last week by the rightist Knesset majority. It is entitled "Basic Law: Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People".
This is a constitutional law. When Israel was founded during the war of 1948, it did not adopt a constitution. There was a problem with the Orthodox religious community, which made an agreed formula impossible. Instead David Ben-Gurion read out a "Declaration of Independence", which announced that "we are founding the Jewish State, namely the State of Israel".
The declaration did not become law. The Supreme Court adopted its principles without a legal basis. The new document, however, is a binding law.
So what is new about the new law, which at a first glance looks like a copy of the declaration? It contains two important omissions: the declaration spoke of a "Jewish and Democratic" state, and promised full equality between all its citizens, without regard to religion, ethnicity or sex.
All this has disappeared. No democracy. No equality. A state of the Jews, for the Jews, by the Jews.
The First to cry out were the Druze.
The Druze are a small and close-knit minority. They send their sons to serve in the Israeli army and police and consider themselves "blood brothers". Suddenly they have been robbed of all their legal rights and sense of belonging.
Are they Arabs or not? Muslims or not? That depends on who is speaking, where and what for. They threaten to demonstrate, to leave the army and generally rebel. Binyamin Netanyahu tries to bribe them, but they are a proud community.
However, the Druze are not the main point. The new law completely ignores the 1.8 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens, including the Bedouin and Christians. (No one even thinks about the hundreds of thousands of European Christians, who immigrated with their Jewish spouses and other relatives, mainly from Russia.)
The Arabic language with all its splendor, which until now was one of the two official languages, was demoted to a mere "special status", whatever that means.
(All this applies to Israel proper, not to the 5 million or so Arabs in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who have no rights at all.)
Netanyahu is defending this law like a lion against mounting criticism from within. He has publicly declared that all the Jewish critics of the law are leftists and traitors (synonyms), "who have forgotten what it is to be Jewish".
And That is really the point.
Years ago, my friends and I asked the Supreme Court to change the "nationality" entry in our identity cards, from "Jewish" to “Israeli". The courts refused, stating that there is no Israeli nation. The official register recognizes almost a hundred nations, but not an Israeli one.
This curious situation started with the birth of Zionism in the late 19th century. It was a Jewish movement, designed to solve the Jewish Question. The settlers in Palestine were Jewish. The whole project was closely connected with Jewish tradition.
But once a second generation of settlers grew up, they felt uneasy about being just Jewish, like Jews in Brooklyn or Krakow. They felt that they were something new, different, special.
The most extreme were a small group of young poets and artists, who in 1941 formed an organization nicknamed "the Canaanites", who proclaimed that we were a new nation, a Hebrew one. In their enthusiasm they went to extremes, declaring that we have nothing to do with Jews abroad, and that there was no Arab nation – Arabs were just Hebrews who had adopted Islam.
Then there came the news of the Holocaust, the Canaanites were forgotten and everybody became remorseful super-Jews.
But not really. Without a conscious decision, the popular language of my generation adopted a clear distinction: Jewish Diaspora and Hebrew agriculture, Jewish history and Hebrew battalions, Jewish religion and Hebrew language.
When the British were here, I took part in dozens of demonstrations shouting "Free Immigration! Hebrew State!". I don't remember a single demonstration where anyone shouted "Jewish State!"
So why does the Declaration of Independence speak of a "Jewish State"? Simple: it was alluding to the UN resolution which decreed the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. The founders simply stated that we are now setting up this Jewish state.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the legendary forefather of the Likud, wrote an anthem declaring "A Hebrew is the son of a prince".
Actually This is a natural process. A nation is a territorial unit. It is conditioned by its landscape, climate, history, neighbors.
When the British settled in America, they felt after some time that they were different from the British they had left behind in their island. They became Americans. The British convicts sent to the Far East became Australians. In two World Wars, Australians rushed to the rescue of Britain, but they are not British. They are a proud new nation. So are Canadians, New Zealanders, and Argentinians. And so are we.
Or would have been, if official ideology had allowed it. What has happened?
First of all, there was the huge immigration from the Arab world and Eastern Europe in the early fifties – for every one Hebrew there were two, three, four new immigrants, who considered themselves Jews.
Then there was the need for money and political support from the Jews abroad, especially in the US. These, while considering themselves full and true Americans (try and say they are not, you bloody anti-Semite!) are proud to have a Jewish State somewhere.
And then there was (and is!) a rigorous government policy of Judaization of everything. The present government has reached new heights. Active – even frantic – government actions try to Judaize education, culture, even sports. Orthodox Jews, a small minority in Israel, exert immense influence. Their votes in the Knesset are essential to the Netanyahu government.
When The State of Israel was founded, the term Hebrew was exchanged for the term Israeli. Hebrew is now only a language.
So is there an Israeli nation? Of course there is. Is there a Jewish nation? Of course there isn't.
Jews are members of an ethnic-religious people, dispersed throughout the world and belonging to many nations, with a strong feeling of affinity with Israel. We, in this country, belong to the Israeli nation, whose Hebrew members are part of the Jewish people.
It is crucial that we recognize this. It decides our outlook. Quite literally. Are we looking towards Jewish centers like New York, London, Paris and Berlin, or are we looking towards our neighbors, Damascus, Beirut and Cairo? Are we part of a region inhabited by Arabs? Do we realize that making peace with these Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, is the main task of this generation?
We are not temporary tenants in this country, ready at any moment to go and join our brother and sister Jews around the globe. We belong to this country and are going to live here for many generations to come, and therefore we must become peaceful neighbors in this region, which I called, 75 years ago, "the Semitic Region".
The new Nation Law, by its clearly semi-fascist nature, shows us how urgent this debate is. We must decide who we are, what we want, where we belong. Otherwise we will be condemned to a permanent state of impermanence.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
I told him: "I am first of all an Israeli. After that I am a Jew."
He responded heatedly: "I am first of all a Jew, and only after that an Israeli!"
That may look like an abstract debate. But in reality, this is the question that lies at the heart of all our basic problems. It is the core of the crisis which is now rending Israel apart.
The Immediate cause of this crisis is the law that was adopted in great haste last week by the rightist Knesset majority. It is entitled "Basic Law: Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People".
This is a constitutional law. When Israel was founded during the war of 1948, it did not adopt a constitution. There was a problem with the Orthodox religious community, which made an agreed formula impossible. Instead David Ben-Gurion read out a "Declaration of Independence", which announced that "we are founding the Jewish State, namely the State of Israel".
The declaration did not become law. The Supreme Court adopted its principles without a legal basis. The new document, however, is a binding law.
So what is new about the new law, which at a first glance looks like a copy of the declaration? It contains two important omissions: the declaration spoke of a "Jewish and Democratic" state, and promised full equality between all its citizens, without regard to religion, ethnicity or sex.
All this has disappeared. No democracy. No equality. A state of the Jews, for the Jews, by the Jews.
The First to cry out were the Druze.
The Druze are a small and close-knit minority. They send their sons to serve in the Israeli army and police and consider themselves "blood brothers". Suddenly they have been robbed of all their legal rights and sense of belonging.
Are they Arabs or not? Muslims or not? That depends on who is speaking, where and what for. They threaten to demonstrate, to leave the army and generally rebel. Binyamin Netanyahu tries to bribe them, but they are a proud community.
However, the Druze are not the main point. The new law completely ignores the 1.8 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens, including the Bedouin and Christians. (No one even thinks about the hundreds of thousands of European Christians, who immigrated with their Jewish spouses and other relatives, mainly from Russia.)
The Arabic language with all its splendor, which until now was one of the two official languages, was demoted to a mere "special status", whatever that means.
(All this applies to Israel proper, not to the 5 million or so Arabs in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who have no rights at all.)
Netanyahu is defending this law like a lion against mounting criticism from within. He has publicly declared that all the Jewish critics of the law are leftists and traitors (synonyms), "who have forgotten what it is to be Jewish".
And That is really the point.
Years ago, my friends and I asked the Supreme Court to change the "nationality" entry in our identity cards, from "Jewish" to “Israeli". The courts refused, stating that there is no Israeli nation. The official register recognizes almost a hundred nations, but not an Israeli one.
This curious situation started with the birth of Zionism in the late 19th century. It was a Jewish movement, designed to solve the Jewish Question. The settlers in Palestine were Jewish. The whole project was closely connected with Jewish tradition.
But once a second generation of settlers grew up, they felt uneasy about being just Jewish, like Jews in Brooklyn or Krakow. They felt that they were something new, different, special.
The most extreme were a small group of young poets and artists, who in 1941 formed an organization nicknamed "the Canaanites", who proclaimed that we were a new nation, a Hebrew one. In their enthusiasm they went to extremes, declaring that we have nothing to do with Jews abroad, and that there was no Arab nation – Arabs were just Hebrews who had adopted Islam.
Then there came the news of the Holocaust, the Canaanites were forgotten and everybody became remorseful super-Jews.
But not really. Without a conscious decision, the popular language of my generation adopted a clear distinction: Jewish Diaspora and Hebrew agriculture, Jewish history and Hebrew battalions, Jewish religion and Hebrew language.
When the British were here, I took part in dozens of demonstrations shouting "Free Immigration! Hebrew State!". I don't remember a single demonstration where anyone shouted "Jewish State!"
So why does the Declaration of Independence speak of a "Jewish State"? Simple: it was alluding to the UN resolution which decreed the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. The founders simply stated that we are now setting up this Jewish state.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the legendary forefather of the Likud, wrote an anthem declaring "A Hebrew is the son of a prince".
Actually This is a natural process. A nation is a territorial unit. It is conditioned by its landscape, climate, history, neighbors.
When the British settled in America, they felt after some time that they were different from the British they had left behind in their island. They became Americans. The British convicts sent to the Far East became Australians. In two World Wars, Australians rushed to the rescue of Britain, but they are not British. They are a proud new nation. So are Canadians, New Zealanders, and Argentinians. And so are we.
Or would have been, if official ideology had allowed it. What has happened?
First of all, there was the huge immigration from the Arab world and Eastern Europe in the early fifties – for every one Hebrew there were two, three, four new immigrants, who considered themselves Jews.
Then there was the need for money and political support from the Jews abroad, especially in the US. These, while considering themselves full and true Americans (try and say they are not, you bloody anti-Semite!) are proud to have a Jewish State somewhere.
And then there was (and is!) a rigorous government policy of Judaization of everything. The present government has reached new heights. Active – even frantic – government actions try to Judaize education, culture, even sports. Orthodox Jews, a small minority in Israel, exert immense influence. Their votes in the Knesset are essential to the Netanyahu government.
When The State of Israel was founded, the term Hebrew was exchanged for the term Israeli. Hebrew is now only a language.
So is there an Israeli nation? Of course there is. Is there a Jewish nation? Of course there isn't.
Jews are members of an ethnic-religious people, dispersed throughout the world and belonging to many nations, with a strong feeling of affinity with Israel. We, in this country, belong to the Israeli nation, whose Hebrew members are part of the Jewish people.
It is crucial that we recognize this. It decides our outlook. Quite literally. Are we looking towards Jewish centers like New York, London, Paris and Berlin, or are we looking towards our neighbors, Damascus, Beirut and Cairo? Are we part of a region inhabited by Arabs? Do we realize that making peace with these Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, is the main task of this generation?
We are not temporary tenants in this country, ready at any moment to go and join our brother and sister Jews around the globe. We belong to this country and are going to live here for many generations to come, and therefore we must become peaceful neighbors in this region, which I called, 75 years ago, "the Semitic Region".
The new Nation Law, by its clearly semi-fascist nature, shows us how urgent this debate is. We must decide who we are, what we want, where we belong. Otherwise we will be condemned to a permanent state of impermanence.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
August 14, 2018
PSNI Journey Is Not Complete
Via The Transcripts Audrey Carville speaks to Sinn Féin’s Justice and Equality spokesperson, Cork South-Central TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, about the appointment of Drew Harris as the new Commissioner of An Garda Síochána.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire RTÉ Morning Ireland 27 June 2018Morning Ireland
RTÉ Radio 1
Time stamp begins ~ 5:02
Audrey: We can talk to Sinn Féin Justice spokesman, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, now. Good Morning!
Donnchadh: Good Morning.
Audrey: Are you happy to work with Drew Harris as the new Garda Commissioner?
[image error]Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire Source: Oireachtas.ieDonnchadh: Sinn Féin will work constructively with the new Commissioner; we have worked with him in the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland). We will hold him to account as we have previous commissioners and previous senior officers of the PSNI. We had a preference that this appointment would be made after the Commission on the Future of Policing reported – there’s a number of reasons for that – having said that, the process undertaken by the policing authority is now complete, there is no Garda Commissioner in place and we will work with him and we will hold him to account. We have very high standards for policing…
Audrey: …You heard very strong comments there though from Stephen Travers who described his appointment as: a hammer-blow to every victim of collusion by the British security services. And he said: the damage by this appointment that’s been done to the Irish government’s relationship to the Nationalist community in The North is catastrophic.
Donnchadh: Well the PSNI has been criticised by the courts in The North for its failure to comply with court judgments, demanding disclosure of information relevant to legacy inquests, civil proceedings or inquiries from the Ombudsman and that has left many families and victims’ groups frustrated and feeling very let down by the PSNI. And the failure to provide families the truth about the death of their loved ones has affected public confidence in the new policing arrangements. We will continue…
Audrey: …and Drew Harris is the second most senior police officer in The North…
Donnchadh: …we will continue to pursue the PSNI through every avenue possible to ensure that they cease blocking any information being given, such as legacy inquests, but we also want to see, central to ensuring that families and victims get truth and justice is that the legacy mechanisms agreed by both governments and the political parties in The North are delivered. They were agreed at Stormont House but we’ve seen no progress on that.
Audrey: What do you expect Drew Harris to do in relation to the biggest unsolved crime in this state, being the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974, and about which there have been very serious allegations of collusion between the bombers and the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) and the UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) and given that he had responsibility for all intelligence matters from 2008 onwards? What should he do about that now as Garda Commission?
Donnchadh: We would expect An Garda Síochána, including the Garda Commissioner, to pursue that as much as possible but we would also expect…
Audrey: …pursue that as far as possible – how?…
Donnchadh: …the biggest (crosstalk) the biggest – the biggest obstacle that has existed in relation to the Dublin-Monaghan bombing has been the failure of the British government to release files and we would expect that the Irish government – and we don’t believe that they have done enough on this over the years, we don’t believe that they have properly pursued the Dublin-Monaghan bombings – the most important thing is that they pursue the British government to try and ensure that the relevant files are obtained and…
Audrey: …But won’t Drew Harris be sitting in a very critical position with access or knowledge of, at least, some vital information?
Donnchadh: And it’s absolutely important that An Garda Síochána pursues this as much as possible and it’s important that it is not simply a matter of that it is simply one person’s responsibility – it needs to be the responsibility of All An Garda Síochána – but it also is important that we have strong accountability and oversight mechanisms here and that relates to issues of national security as well. And…
Audrey: …He said also in private evidence to the Smithwick Tribunal that there was intelligence to indicate that several Garda officers had colluded in the murders of RUC Officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan. Should he pursue that now?
Donnchadh: Well clearly, like I mean, that is a very serious statement. It’s been one that’s been, that was refuted, I believe, by the Gardaí’s counsel in the Smithwick Tribunal. The Smithwick Tribunal has come to a conclusion and has made its conclusions. I do believe that it is important that…
Audrey: …But if the Garda Commissioner believes that several Garda officers colluded in murdering two policemen – shouldn’t he pursue that as the Garda Commissioner?
Donnchadh: Collusion, North or South, is something that is very serious, something that we have been very keen to highlight. It was a matter that was, frankly it was dismissed not so terribly long ago, but I think more and more it has come to light – the extent of collusion that existed. If there is collusion then it needs to be pursued and…
Audrey: …Just finally: Just a few years ago Martin McGuinness talked about ‘dark forces’ in the PSNI – people wanting to settle old scores whatever the political cost. It was shortly after Gerry Adams had been arrested in connection with the murder of Jean McConville for which he was released without charge – and many people thought Martin McGuinness was talking about Drew Harris at the time. Have you changed your view on him?
Donnchadh: I don’t believe there’s any indication that he was speaking about him and like, I mean, it is our view that, like, the PSNI is currently – there has been – and we’ve made this the central point – we clearly had significant criticisms about the RUC – it was an unaccountable, unrepresentative and partial police force which was responsible for significant human rights abuses – that’s the reason that we made policing reform a central part of our negotiations and clearly now there is strict accountability in the controls in the PSNI but that journey is not completed and we need to complete that…
Audrey: …Okay. You opposed the Patten Report – let’s not forget. Thank you very much, indeed – Sinn Féin’s Justice spokesman, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire.
Time stamp ends ~10:30
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire RTÉ Morning Ireland 27 June 2018Morning Ireland
RTÉ Radio 1
Time stamp begins ~ 5:02
Audrey: We can talk to Sinn Féin Justice spokesman, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, now. Good Morning!
Donnchadh: Good Morning.
Audrey: Are you happy to work with Drew Harris as the new Garda Commissioner?
[image error]Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire Source: Oireachtas.ieDonnchadh: Sinn Féin will work constructively with the new Commissioner; we have worked with him in the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland). We will hold him to account as we have previous commissioners and previous senior officers of the PSNI. We had a preference that this appointment would be made after the Commission on the Future of Policing reported – there’s a number of reasons for that – having said that, the process undertaken by the policing authority is now complete, there is no Garda Commissioner in place and we will work with him and we will hold him to account. We have very high standards for policing…
Audrey: …You heard very strong comments there though from Stephen Travers who described his appointment as: a hammer-blow to every victim of collusion by the British security services. And he said: the damage by this appointment that’s been done to the Irish government’s relationship to the Nationalist community in The North is catastrophic.
Donnchadh: Well the PSNI has been criticised by the courts in The North for its failure to comply with court judgments, demanding disclosure of information relevant to legacy inquests, civil proceedings or inquiries from the Ombudsman and that has left many families and victims’ groups frustrated and feeling very let down by the PSNI. And the failure to provide families the truth about the death of their loved ones has affected public confidence in the new policing arrangements. We will continue…
Audrey: …and Drew Harris is the second most senior police officer in The North…
Donnchadh: …we will continue to pursue the PSNI through every avenue possible to ensure that they cease blocking any information being given, such as legacy inquests, but we also want to see, central to ensuring that families and victims get truth and justice is that the legacy mechanisms agreed by both governments and the political parties in The North are delivered. They were agreed at Stormont House but we’ve seen no progress on that.
Audrey: What do you expect Drew Harris to do in relation to the biggest unsolved crime in this state, being the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974, and about which there have been very serious allegations of collusion between the bombers and the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) and the UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) and given that he had responsibility for all intelligence matters from 2008 onwards? What should he do about that now as Garda Commission?
Donnchadh: We would expect An Garda Síochána, including the Garda Commissioner, to pursue that as much as possible but we would also expect…
Audrey: …pursue that as far as possible – how?…
Donnchadh: …the biggest (crosstalk) the biggest – the biggest obstacle that has existed in relation to the Dublin-Monaghan bombing has been the failure of the British government to release files and we would expect that the Irish government – and we don’t believe that they have done enough on this over the years, we don’t believe that they have properly pursued the Dublin-Monaghan bombings – the most important thing is that they pursue the British government to try and ensure that the relevant files are obtained and…
Audrey: …But won’t Drew Harris be sitting in a very critical position with access or knowledge of, at least, some vital information?
Donnchadh: And it’s absolutely important that An Garda Síochána pursues this as much as possible and it’s important that it is not simply a matter of that it is simply one person’s responsibility – it needs to be the responsibility of All An Garda Síochána – but it also is important that we have strong accountability and oversight mechanisms here and that relates to issues of national security as well. And…
Audrey: …He said also in private evidence to the Smithwick Tribunal that there was intelligence to indicate that several Garda officers had colluded in the murders of RUC Officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan. Should he pursue that now?
Donnchadh: Well clearly, like I mean, that is a very serious statement. It’s been one that’s been, that was refuted, I believe, by the Gardaí’s counsel in the Smithwick Tribunal. The Smithwick Tribunal has come to a conclusion and has made its conclusions. I do believe that it is important that…
Audrey: …But if the Garda Commissioner believes that several Garda officers colluded in murdering two policemen – shouldn’t he pursue that as the Garda Commissioner?
Donnchadh: Collusion, North or South, is something that is very serious, something that we have been very keen to highlight. It was a matter that was, frankly it was dismissed not so terribly long ago, but I think more and more it has come to light – the extent of collusion that existed. If there is collusion then it needs to be pursued and…
Audrey: …Just finally: Just a few years ago Martin McGuinness talked about ‘dark forces’ in the PSNI – people wanting to settle old scores whatever the political cost. It was shortly after Gerry Adams had been arrested in connection with the murder of Jean McConville for which he was released without charge – and many people thought Martin McGuinness was talking about Drew Harris at the time. Have you changed your view on him?
Donnchadh: I don’t believe there’s any indication that he was speaking about him and like, I mean, it is our view that, like, the PSNI is currently – there has been – and we’ve made this the central point – we clearly had significant criticisms about the RUC – it was an unaccountable, unrepresentative and partial police force which was responsible for significant human rights abuses – that’s the reason that we made policing reform a central part of our negotiations and clearly now there is strict accountability in the controls in the PSNI but that journey is not completed and we need to complete that…
Audrey: …Okay. You opposed the Patten Report – let’s not forget. Thank you very much, indeed – Sinn Féin’s Justice spokesman, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire.
Time stamp ends ~10:30
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
