Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1134
June 24, 2018
The Congress Of Victors – Sinn Féin Ard Fheis 2018
Matt Treacy finds echoes of Stalinism in the recent Sinn Fein ard fheis.
The 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1934 witnessed the decisive victory of the Stalinist faction. However, even the 100 or so negative ballots were enough to embark Stalin on a massive escalation of the Terror that was to claim millions of lives over the next 20 years. 98 of the 139 members elected to the Central Committee were subsequently murdered, as were over half of the more than thousand delegates.
So those of you who voted against coalition or abortion at last weekend’s Sinn Féin Ard Fheis might want to keep a packed suitcase handy. I jest of course. The gulags are all virtual these days.
Some of the manner in which the Ard Fheis was managed was indeed redolent of Stalinism. There is a clip on social media of Councillor Ide Cussen being shouted over and the Chairperson banging his microphone. Her profile was removed from the Sinn Féin list of local representatives before even the formality of possibly throwing her out has even begun.
For all the bluster, none of the prominent people who had been threatening blue murder over the acceptance of coalition, and even hinting they might resign, did anything unsheepish. Even a relatively innocuous motion from a Dublin cumann which accepted coalition as a minority party, but which sought to frame it in a way giving lip service to the pipe dream of a majority “left” government was “persuaded” to amend it.
And so there is every possibility that if the numbers stack up the next time, that Sinn Féin will be the junior partner in a coalition with Fine Gael. As part of the foreplay, the shinners withdrew a motion of no confidence in the Government on the housing issue.
That Sinn Féin is potentially on the verge of being in coalition with Fine Gael is an extraordinary development. Even more so than their ten year long coalition with the DUP in Stormont. SF enjoy spouting about “civil war politics,” Well, the ultimate resolution of “civil war politics” would be for the main successor of the pro-Treaty side to have the whip hand over the political descendants of the most intransigent faction of the republican anti-Treaty side. It can be yet another historical defeat sold as a victory.
Of course in the world of realpolitik, there is very little that separates Fine Gael and Sinn Féin. There is a significant cultural difference, probably the only thing that might scupper a deal, but they agree on all the main issues. They are both avid supporters of the EU, opposed to raising corporation tax, have same positions on abortion and immigration and so on.
All the rest is hot air about housing and whatever, but as Sinn Féin proved in Stormont they are not adverse to ignoring such matters once they are in “power.” In 2013, West Belfast had the second highest level of child poverty of 650 Westminster constituencies. This after decades of Sinn Féin dominance of West Belfast and of all the massive funding that is filtered into the Catholic part of the constituency. So, Fine Gael need not have to worry about communes being established in Clondalkin or Knocknaheeny.
The only significant opposition to the leadership at the Ard Fheis came from opponents of abortion on the issue of whether elected representatives be allowed a free vote on the legislation that will ensue after the Summer recess. You would imagine given the likely scale of the majority in support of extended limits for abortion that Sinn Féin might have been magnanimous and allow the two TDs opposed to vote as they wish. Oh no.
That is not how things work in the world of the Core Group. You either tow the line, humiliate yourself like some of the outspoken opponents of coalition, leave or get thrown out. Indeed there was a telling quote from one of the above who when asked what might happen to Peadar Toibin, Carol Nolan and others, basically said that they would be expected to eat humble pie, but there was a chance that their response might be to tell the commissars to “fuck off.” It is pretty obvious that they would prefer the latter, although Stalinists always enjoy seeing their enemies crawl before their inevitable despatching.
Matt Treacy’s book
A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish
Republican Army
is also available @ Amazon.
Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
The 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1934 witnessed the decisive victory of the Stalinist faction. However, even the 100 or so negative ballots were enough to embark Stalin on a massive escalation of the Terror that was to claim millions of lives over the next 20 years. 98 of the 139 members elected to the Central Committee were subsequently murdered, as were over half of the more than thousand delegates. So those of you who voted against coalition or abortion at last weekend’s Sinn Féin Ard Fheis might want to keep a packed suitcase handy. I jest of course. The gulags are all virtual these days.
Some of the manner in which the Ard Fheis was managed was indeed redolent of Stalinism. There is a clip on social media of Councillor Ide Cussen being shouted over and the Chairperson banging his microphone. Her profile was removed from the Sinn Féin list of local representatives before even the formality of possibly throwing her out has even begun.
For all the bluster, none of the prominent people who had been threatening blue murder over the acceptance of coalition, and even hinting they might resign, did anything unsheepish. Even a relatively innocuous motion from a Dublin cumann which accepted coalition as a minority party, but which sought to frame it in a way giving lip service to the pipe dream of a majority “left” government was “persuaded” to amend it.
And so there is every possibility that if the numbers stack up the next time, that Sinn Féin will be the junior partner in a coalition with Fine Gael. As part of the foreplay, the shinners withdrew a motion of no confidence in the Government on the housing issue.
That Sinn Féin is potentially on the verge of being in coalition with Fine Gael is an extraordinary development. Even more so than their ten year long coalition with the DUP in Stormont. SF enjoy spouting about “civil war politics,” Well, the ultimate resolution of “civil war politics” would be for the main successor of the pro-Treaty side to have the whip hand over the political descendants of the most intransigent faction of the republican anti-Treaty side. It can be yet another historical defeat sold as a victory.
Of course in the world of realpolitik, there is very little that separates Fine Gael and Sinn Féin. There is a significant cultural difference, probably the only thing that might scupper a deal, but they agree on all the main issues. They are both avid supporters of the EU, opposed to raising corporation tax, have same positions on abortion and immigration and so on.
All the rest is hot air about housing and whatever, but as Sinn Féin proved in Stormont they are not adverse to ignoring such matters once they are in “power.” In 2013, West Belfast had the second highest level of child poverty of 650 Westminster constituencies. This after decades of Sinn Féin dominance of West Belfast and of all the massive funding that is filtered into the Catholic part of the constituency. So, Fine Gael need not have to worry about communes being established in Clondalkin or Knocknaheeny.
The only significant opposition to the leadership at the Ard Fheis came from opponents of abortion on the issue of whether elected representatives be allowed a free vote on the legislation that will ensue after the Summer recess. You would imagine given the likely scale of the majority in support of extended limits for abortion that Sinn Féin might have been magnanimous and allow the two TDs opposed to vote as they wish. Oh no.
That is not how things work in the world of the Core Group. You either tow the line, humiliate yourself like some of the outspoken opponents of coalition, leave or get thrown out. Indeed there was a telling quote from one of the above who when asked what might happen to Peadar Toibin, Carol Nolan and others, basically said that they would be expected to eat humble pie, but there was a chance that their response might be to tell the commissars to “fuck off.” It is pretty obvious that they would prefer the latter, although Stalinists always enjoy seeing their enemies crawl before their inevitable despatching.
Matt Treacy’s book
A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish
Republican Army
is also available @ Amazon. Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
Not Terrorism. Religion
Dean Van Drasek writing in Atheist Republic explores the dangers associated with the idea of eternal life.
I was down in Jakarta when the 13 May 2018 church suicide bombings in Surabaya took place, followed by similar attacks the next day on police stations. These were cases of parents and children, young children, strapping explosives to themselves and attempting to kill as many people as possible. The perpetrators may have been returnees from the conflict in Syria or Iraq, and they may have been part of a local fundamentalist group. But all that, for me, is irrelevant.
For me, there is only a single question: what would it take for a parent to do that with their child?
I am a parent, with 2 kids who are both adults now. I can imagine, with a sense of horror, conditions that could exist where I would help them to take their own lives. In the case of painful, untreatable illness; if faced with the prospect of brutal death or torture; and I would offer it as an option if they were faced with being enslaved, but I can’t think of any others.
But these parents, whom I am sure dearly loved their children, felt that the best way to treat them was to ensure their place in an everlasting paradise. Where they would be guaranteed to never be sick, or hungry, or unhappy ever again. Just follow what is in the holy book, as interpreted by your religious leaders, and you are guaranteed a place in paradise.
The Hebrews didn’t have a concept of paradise in their original religion, except for YHWH’s heavenly court, for angels and such. So there is no description of it. Also, no one seemed to understand that Jesus was really YHWH too, otherwise I am sure someone would have asked him what it was like up there in heaven. If they had, or if the Hebrews had thought of it, I am sure they would have come up with a description not far removed from that which is in the Quran. Its of a garden with plenty of water (no mention of wifi, jet skis, or Thai cuisine, however) and is the sort of thing that a poor people in an arid setting would aspire to and think of as divine.
I remember years ago, I was with a poor family in the Philippines, whose son had been very ill. I had given him some books; he must have been about 9 years old. I told him he’d been very brave, and he answered me that he could go to heaven, but he didn’t want to go just yet. I asked him what heaven would be like. For him, it was fresh fruit every day, and as much rice as he wanted, and a TV that worked all the time (his family had no electricity). He also wanted to see his little sister, who had been killed two years before in a road accident. Many years later, I tried to find him, but local developers had claimed the area his village was in, and all the people had all been moved out years before.
So, heaven is what the author can imagine at the time he or she is composing their “vision”. For Muslims, Jannah (heaven), is a garden with many flowing rivers (Quran 2:25, 3:133, 9:72, and 13:25-26), you get a throne like a king with cups at hand, and carpets and pillows (Quran 36:56-57, 52:20, and 88:10-16), and as with any people who have faced times of hunger and starvation there will be plenty of the best food (Quran 69:24). I am skipping the parts about wealth, carnal pleasures, and wine, none of which would sound very good to a child. But being happy, safe, comfortable, and with plenty to eat of your favourite foods would have been heaven enough in those days, and even today for a large number of people.
And heaven in all Western religions is eternal. Hindus and Buddhists (those that have heavens and hells) and some Chinese religions view heaven more as a nice place to be rewarded while on the way to enlightenment – which is oblivion. You did a good job, so take a day off, and then in the next life continue the struggle for final enlightenment or union with the ineffable.
But an eternal heaven? Eternity is not the same as infinity, as you can have many eternities within an infinity. An eternity is a measure of time only, so conceivably there can be many different time cycles within an infinity of space/time. But let’s leave that issue for the physicists, mathematicians and jobless philosophers.
In any sense that we humans can appreciate, our life span when compared to eternity is nothing. It’s not a dust mote on the table top of existence. Parents are always concerned about their children’s future, so if their children will exist into the future for eternity, then forget worrying about college admission scores, all you need to be concerned about is the change for heaven, especially if there is the added disincentive of hell.
Most people really don’t believe in their religion at that level, however. Most children spend more time in classrooms than in churches, mosques or temples, and this is true in most places to a significant degree. It’s just like getting sick. People may believe in god and miracles, but they don’t just pray to get healed, they go to the doctor. The ones that don’t, well, just think of it as the magical hand of natural selection at work.
Religions know that this is a dangerous thing, as if everyone were to be able to go to heaven upon death, because of sincere beliefs, then the religion would be in danger of losing adherents (the people who pay for the temples and the head priests’ lifestyles). Thus, most religions have an admonition against suicide (although some, like Jainism, see self-denial leading to death as the ultimate step in religiosity – but very few follow that course, and when they do it’s usually later in life).
Religions want to keep their believers alive, so you are told to wait for heaven. That ensures that the religion will benefit from its believers’ life-long support and vassalage. But there is one case that is an exception, and it’s been indoctrinated into every major religion I know of, except Buddhism: the idea of the martyr.
In addition to making sacrifices and donations, building monuments, and following orders, religions also occasionally need people to die. And because the institution of monarchy1 is a facet of religion, many of the loyalties that are claimed by religion are also claimed by the State. This can be overt, as when the Roman Catholic Church used to promise paradise for soldiers who go on crusading campaign, or pernicious as when the rebel leaders in Masada convinced their followers to die rather than lose to the Romans (or they were killed by the zealots among them – there is of course no way to tell), or passive as when the holy Icons were carried before the Orthodox armies of Russia and Byzantium.
But the idea is always the same, however expressed. Do work for the god, and then you get to go to heaven when you die. And if heaven lasts for eternity, then you would be foolish not to take up such an amazing offer.
Imagine a similar offer here in our real world. A company says that if you work for them for one day, a single 8-hour shift with an hour for lunch, they will pay you every day for the rest of your life. And they will pay you far more than you make now, indeed it will be enough for you to enjoy whatever pleasures you like.2 Sounds like a good offer to me. But most people would say its too good to be true. I’ve always wondered why they don’t say the same thing about religions that promise an eternal heaven?
And it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, because heaven will always be better. I suppose that this works because some of the richest people I’ve ever met have also been the most greedy and venal. Promise them a way to get more, and if it doesn’t cost them much, they will be all for it.
So, if you are a good parent, and you love your kids, and someone told you that there is way to ensure that they get to paradise, and that they can go now, and not risk encountering some “sin” in the future which might make them ineligible for entry, then you would be a fool not to take that course of action for them.
I am sure that the parents who just murdered their children loved them as much as I love my kids. And they did what they believed would ensure the best “life” for them; namely, immediate entry to heaven. Which, for some religious groups, means killing other people. No Western religion is free of this stain. Judaism’s holy books revel in it unlike any other I’ve ever come across. It’s a positive duty to kill unbelievers, take their land and kill or enslave their people. That is why Richard Dawkins famously noted it as: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” If Hitler would have been Jewish, and been slaughtering Lutherans, there is no doubt he’d have been taken straight up to heaven by YHWH.3
So we have a case of religion, being believed as true, showing a course for a family to reach heaven together, and doing some good along the way. Were they terrorists? Were they trying to scare away the Christians, or to drive them into a conversion to Islam? I doubt it. They were trying to do the best for their kids and themselves, based on their understanding of the world. They did not develop this understanding because they were stupid, although they may have been ignorant of science and other philosophies and religions. Ignorance seems to often go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs, even when we are talking about intelligent, well educated people (Ted Cruz, a Senator in America comes to mind here – as there are few other people I’ve ever encountered who were so deserving of the epithet “ignoramus”).
Religion, by being the “answer” to all questions, admonishes its followers to eschew knowledge from unapproved sources (think of the Roman Catholic list of banned books, especially the ones on cosmology and science). Religions fear science, when they are trying to sell stories from thousands of years ago as being “real.” Any simple reading will show that all holy works are incompatible with our current scientific reality, but people either ignore the science, build a mental wall between science and religion, or just sit in the back row and hum quietly while trying not to think about it. Because believers really, really hope that there is a heaven where they can relax all day, drink beer, and not get fat. (And you won’t need Viagra anymore either.)
So when we talk about these people, who sacrificed themselves and their children on the altar of hope for a religious paradise, let’s not call them terrorists. They loved their kids. They wanted the best thing imaginable for them: an eternity of happiness. Until we recognize that this is the problem, it will never be solved. We will still have “just” wars, and executions with prayers being said before the killing is done, and politicians who open the day with a prayer and proceed to authorize funds for the murder of civilians in some far-off country that none of them have ever been to, etc. It’s all part of the same mindset. That any crime, when justified by religion, and validated and rewarded by paradise, is no crime at all. The families who killed themselves in Indonesia were merely at one end of the spectrum, in that they had strong beliefs, while most people still have some doubts – at least enough to prevent them from acting as if the whole heaven deal was real. Let’s hope that level of doubt continues to prevail for the vast majority of people.
I can’t be angry at the family. Only sad for the damage they did, and the loss of life all around. But if you really believe this religious nonsense, then they acted as good parents. Think of what they could have done with their lives and the lives of their children if they had been atheists instead.
1 http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasek/royalty-another-facet-religion-should-be-opposed
2 Except for Jello orgies with racoons; that is not included.
3 I just broke my own admonition. Bad Dean!
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasik/I-am-sick-hearing-about-hitler
I was down in Jakarta when the 13 May 2018 church suicide bombings in Surabaya took place, followed by similar attacks the next day on police stations. These were cases of parents and children, young children, strapping explosives to themselves and attempting to kill as many people as possible. The perpetrators may have been returnees from the conflict in Syria or Iraq, and they may have been part of a local fundamentalist group. But all that, for me, is irrelevant.
For me, there is only a single question: what would it take for a parent to do that with their child?
I am a parent, with 2 kids who are both adults now. I can imagine, with a sense of horror, conditions that could exist where I would help them to take their own lives. In the case of painful, untreatable illness; if faced with the prospect of brutal death or torture; and I would offer it as an option if they were faced with being enslaved, but I can’t think of any others.
But these parents, whom I am sure dearly loved their children, felt that the best way to treat them was to ensure their place in an everlasting paradise. Where they would be guaranteed to never be sick, or hungry, or unhappy ever again. Just follow what is in the holy book, as interpreted by your religious leaders, and you are guaranteed a place in paradise.
The Hebrews didn’t have a concept of paradise in their original religion, except for YHWH’s heavenly court, for angels and such. So there is no description of it. Also, no one seemed to understand that Jesus was really YHWH too, otherwise I am sure someone would have asked him what it was like up there in heaven. If they had, or if the Hebrews had thought of it, I am sure they would have come up with a description not far removed from that which is in the Quran. Its of a garden with plenty of water (no mention of wifi, jet skis, or Thai cuisine, however) and is the sort of thing that a poor people in an arid setting would aspire to and think of as divine.
I remember years ago, I was with a poor family in the Philippines, whose son had been very ill. I had given him some books; he must have been about 9 years old. I told him he’d been very brave, and he answered me that he could go to heaven, but he didn’t want to go just yet. I asked him what heaven would be like. For him, it was fresh fruit every day, and as much rice as he wanted, and a TV that worked all the time (his family had no electricity). He also wanted to see his little sister, who had been killed two years before in a road accident. Many years later, I tried to find him, but local developers had claimed the area his village was in, and all the people had all been moved out years before.
So, heaven is what the author can imagine at the time he or she is composing their “vision”. For Muslims, Jannah (heaven), is a garden with many flowing rivers (Quran 2:25, 3:133, 9:72, and 13:25-26), you get a throne like a king with cups at hand, and carpets and pillows (Quran 36:56-57, 52:20, and 88:10-16), and as with any people who have faced times of hunger and starvation there will be plenty of the best food (Quran 69:24). I am skipping the parts about wealth, carnal pleasures, and wine, none of which would sound very good to a child. But being happy, safe, comfortable, and with plenty to eat of your favourite foods would have been heaven enough in those days, and even today for a large number of people.
And heaven in all Western religions is eternal. Hindus and Buddhists (those that have heavens and hells) and some Chinese religions view heaven more as a nice place to be rewarded while on the way to enlightenment – which is oblivion. You did a good job, so take a day off, and then in the next life continue the struggle for final enlightenment or union with the ineffable.
But an eternal heaven? Eternity is not the same as infinity, as you can have many eternities within an infinity. An eternity is a measure of time only, so conceivably there can be many different time cycles within an infinity of space/time. But let’s leave that issue for the physicists, mathematicians and jobless philosophers.
In any sense that we humans can appreciate, our life span when compared to eternity is nothing. It’s not a dust mote on the table top of existence. Parents are always concerned about their children’s future, so if their children will exist into the future for eternity, then forget worrying about college admission scores, all you need to be concerned about is the change for heaven, especially if there is the added disincentive of hell.
Most people really don’t believe in their religion at that level, however. Most children spend more time in classrooms than in churches, mosques or temples, and this is true in most places to a significant degree. It’s just like getting sick. People may believe in god and miracles, but they don’t just pray to get healed, they go to the doctor. The ones that don’t, well, just think of it as the magical hand of natural selection at work.
Religions know that this is a dangerous thing, as if everyone were to be able to go to heaven upon death, because of sincere beliefs, then the religion would be in danger of losing adherents (the people who pay for the temples and the head priests’ lifestyles). Thus, most religions have an admonition against suicide (although some, like Jainism, see self-denial leading to death as the ultimate step in religiosity – but very few follow that course, and when they do it’s usually later in life).
Religions want to keep their believers alive, so you are told to wait for heaven. That ensures that the religion will benefit from its believers’ life-long support and vassalage. But there is one case that is an exception, and it’s been indoctrinated into every major religion I know of, except Buddhism: the idea of the martyr.
In addition to making sacrifices and donations, building monuments, and following orders, religions also occasionally need people to die. And because the institution of monarchy1 is a facet of religion, many of the loyalties that are claimed by religion are also claimed by the State. This can be overt, as when the Roman Catholic Church used to promise paradise for soldiers who go on crusading campaign, or pernicious as when the rebel leaders in Masada convinced their followers to die rather than lose to the Romans (or they were killed by the zealots among them – there is of course no way to tell), or passive as when the holy Icons were carried before the Orthodox armies of Russia and Byzantium.
But the idea is always the same, however expressed. Do work for the god, and then you get to go to heaven when you die. And if heaven lasts for eternity, then you would be foolish not to take up such an amazing offer.
Imagine a similar offer here in our real world. A company says that if you work for them for one day, a single 8-hour shift with an hour for lunch, they will pay you every day for the rest of your life. And they will pay you far more than you make now, indeed it will be enough for you to enjoy whatever pleasures you like.2 Sounds like a good offer to me. But most people would say its too good to be true. I’ve always wondered why they don’t say the same thing about religions that promise an eternal heaven?
And it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, because heaven will always be better. I suppose that this works because some of the richest people I’ve ever met have also been the most greedy and venal. Promise them a way to get more, and if it doesn’t cost them much, they will be all for it.
So, if you are a good parent, and you love your kids, and someone told you that there is way to ensure that they get to paradise, and that they can go now, and not risk encountering some “sin” in the future which might make them ineligible for entry, then you would be a fool not to take that course of action for them.
I am sure that the parents who just murdered their children loved them as much as I love my kids. And they did what they believed would ensure the best “life” for them; namely, immediate entry to heaven. Which, for some religious groups, means killing other people. No Western religion is free of this stain. Judaism’s holy books revel in it unlike any other I’ve ever come across. It’s a positive duty to kill unbelievers, take their land and kill or enslave their people. That is why Richard Dawkins famously noted it as: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” If Hitler would have been Jewish, and been slaughtering Lutherans, there is no doubt he’d have been taken straight up to heaven by YHWH.3
So we have a case of religion, being believed as true, showing a course for a family to reach heaven together, and doing some good along the way. Were they terrorists? Were they trying to scare away the Christians, or to drive them into a conversion to Islam? I doubt it. They were trying to do the best for their kids and themselves, based on their understanding of the world. They did not develop this understanding because they were stupid, although they may have been ignorant of science and other philosophies and religions. Ignorance seems to often go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs, even when we are talking about intelligent, well educated people (Ted Cruz, a Senator in America comes to mind here – as there are few other people I’ve ever encountered who were so deserving of the epithet “ignoramus”).
Religion, by being the “answer” to all questions, admonishes its followers to eschew knowledge from unapproved sources (think of the Roman Catholic list of banned books, especially the ones on cosmology and science). Religions fear science, when they are trying to sell stories from thousands of years ago as being “real.” Any simple reading will show that all holy works are incompatible with our current scientific reality, but people either ignore the science, build a mental wall between science and religion, or just sit in the back row and hum quietly while trying not to think about it. Because believers really, really hope that there is a heaven where they can relax all day, drink beer, and not get fat. (And you won’t need Viagra anymore either.)
So when we talk about these people, who sacrificed themselves and their children on the altar of hope for a religious paradise, let’s not call them terrorists. They loved their kids. They wanted the best thing imaginable for them: an eternity of happiness. Until we recognize that this is the problem, it will never be solved. We will still have “just” wars, and executions with prayers being said before the killing is done, and politicians who open the day with a prayer and proceed to authorize funds for the murder of civilians in some far-off country that none of them have ever been to, etc. It’s all part of the same mindset. That any crime, when justified by religion, and validated and rewarded by paradise, is no crime at all. The families who killed themselves in Indonesia were merely at one end of the spectrum, in that they had strong beliefs, while most people still have some doubts – at least enough to prevent them from acting as if the whole heaven deal was real. Let’s hope that level of doubt continues to prevail for the vast majority of people.
I can’t be angry at the family. Only sad for the damage they did, and the loss of life all around. But if you really believe this religious nonsense, then they acted as good parents. Think of what they could have done with their lives and the lives of their children if they had been atheists instead.
1 http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasek/royalty-another-facet-religion-should-be-opposed
2 Except for Jello orgies with racoons; that is not included.
3 I just broke my own admonition. Bad Dean!
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/deandrasik/I-am-sick-hearing-about-hitler
June 23, 2018
Seven Days Of Torture
Via The Transcripts Miriam O’Callaghan is in studio with Francie McGuigan who discusses the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the ‘Hooded Men’ case.
Sunday With Miriam
RTÉ Radio One
Miriam: Well my next guest this morning, he’s driven from Belfast to be here, is Francis McGuigan, known as Francie, one of the so-called ‘hooded men’. Arrested in 1971 by the British Army when he was just twenty-three when the Army interned hundreds of Catholics without trial. He suffered brutal interrogation techniques to such an extent that at one stage things got so bad he actually thought he was going to die. This week Francie was among fourteen men who had their cases rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The men and the Irish government were seeking the court to find that the men had suffered tortured and not just inhuman and degrading treatment. Good Morning, Francie! And thank you for being here.
Francie: Good Morning! My pleasure.
Miriam: Listen, do you mind if we go right back just for my listeners when this all began when you were twenty-three – tell me if you don’t mind, what happened?
Francie: I was arrested at three-thirty in the morning in August 1971, dragged off to Girdwood Army Barracks, spent forty-eight hours there and then hooded, handcuffed and taken out in a helicopter along with three other lads and flown to what now turns out to be Ballykelly although at the time we had not got a clue what was going on.
Francie McGuigan Photo: Irish News
We arrived in Ballykelly and when the helicopter started to slow down they took me just towards the door, the air compression doors opened and I was thrown out. I didn’t know where, how high I was or what but I was actually caught, brought it, the hood was removed and I was standing in front of a man with a white coat and a stethoscope, who I assumed to be a doctor. He gave me a thirty second medical examination and just nodded. At which place the hood was placed back on and my clothing was removed and I was placed into the boiler suit. And I’m just going to go over basically what my life consisted of for the next seven days. As I said, I was hooded. Just think about that: Seven days – the only time that hood was off was while I was being interrogated. Wall standing: Standing up against a wall in the stress position; fingertips on the wall, feet back out, wide apart, small of the back pushed in. The only way that I could come off the wall was to fall into a ball. The next method they had was food deprivation. I don’t think we got anything to eat or drink for first three days were we there. We also had sleep deprivation. We were denied sleep. We were physically exhausted.
The noise. The white noise. This is the noise that I describe as coming in through my hair, down through my body, out through my toes and touched every nerve and sinew in my body as it was doing that. Now everybody talks about these ‘five techniques’ that they used on us. I would like to tell everyone now there was a sixth technique – and that was sheer brutality, brute force, beating. When I came back after those seven days I had three fractured ribs, I had no skin on either wrist where I had been handcuffed and that’s how I spent those next seven days. And I’m talking about, I spoke about the boiler suit. Just think about this for a second: For seven days that boiler suit was my day clothes, my night clothes and, unfortunately, was also my toilet for seven days. We were denied the use of toilets.
I was placed against a wall. I refused to stand, rolled up and into a ball. I was beaten, dragged, kicked – back up against the wall and that went on for four or five times, I just refused to stand, ’til eventually I discovered if I stood against the wall the kicking and beating stopped while I was standing there. But while this was going on this white noise was constantly there in my brain- the white noise took over the brain. You kept wondering: What’s going on? What are they doing? What’s this? What’s this? Because nobody has spoken to me. Nobody has told me why I’m there or anything else. And you would collapse out of sheer exhaustion against the wall in which case you were taken, beaten, battered, back up against the wall and this white noise going on continuously as I said that occupied the brain. I passed out. The next thing I recall is coming to, being dragged along a corridor, two soldiers had me in below the arms, I was barefooted and my feet scraping along the floor. When I did eventually get into Crumlin Road Prison they noticed the insteps of my feet – the skin was off them as it was off my wrists. I was then taken into this room, sat down in a chair, my hands were taken and handcuffed behind my back, the hood was removed and there in front of men were two men sitting facing me, one standing behind me and these bright lights shining in my eyes and this was the Interrogation Room – and this was like the Cagney stuff out of the movies – the bright lights in my face. The fella went up and down behind, these boys would ask questions. They start off every question session with: Name and Address. The boy behind me would walk up and down as these boys were asking questions. If they didn’t get the answers he’d come along, he’d slap me in the two ears or he’d swing on the handcuffs and this went on, these interrogations lasted one, two, three, four hours. I remember one particular interrogator who has this peculiar habit – he’d stick his, reach across the table and put his forehead to my forehead and scream and shout at me down to the point where I could feel his spittle hitting me in the face. I couldn’t…
Miriam: …What kind of questions were they asking you at the time, Francie?
Francie: Who’s in the IRA? Are you in the IRA? Is your father in the IRA? Who shot such-and-such? Who planted such-and-such a bomb? I hadn’t knowledge of all these things at all. And this went on – they say that they spent a total of, in some of the documents, where they spent a total of twenty-eight hours interrogating me over that seven day period. I don’t remember – I remember another time going in for interrogation…
Miriam: …Can I just ask something, Francie – You weren’t arrested on your own – weren’t there six in total of your family arrested at that time?
Francie: No, at that particular morning I was the only one arrested. They tried to arrest my father, who was over sixty at the time, but my father just laid – while there was three soldiers – took me and placed me in the lorry they left one soldier to take my father.
Miriam: Why did they take you?
Francie: Um, I’ll tell you straightaway why they possibly took me and you can find the answer yourself. Brian Faulkner was the Minister for Home Affairs at the time and one of the lads that was actually a ‘hooded men’ was going across on the Strangford ferry one day and there was Brian Faulkner. So he approached Brian Faulkner and said: Mr. Faulkner, you had me arrested in 1971 for internment. Could you tell me why? Mr. Faulkner, rather amazed, looked at him and said: I interned three types of people: the terrorist, those that supported them and those that protest against internment. Fit yourself into whichever category suits. Good Day, Sir! And walked on so…which category?
Miriam: Which category did you fit into?
Francie: Pardon?
Miriam: Which one did you fit into?
Francie: Brian Faulkner would tell you I fitted into all three!
Miriam: But you were involved in the civil rights, weren’t you?
Francie: I was involved. I was elected onto the first Belfast civil rights committee…
Miriam: …Yeah, exactly! So you were…
Francie: …myself and a young lad called Adams! I also took part in housing action committees within Belfast.
Anti-Internment League London
Circa 1971 Source: CAIN
We done surveys on houses in Belfast. They had just completed Divis Flats at the time and they were lying dormant and people living in rat infested homes and I thought, we thought, it’d be a great idea to re-house these people in these home. Little did we know that we were putting people into sectarian ghettos that have since, thank God, been knocked down but we were naïve at the time. But as I say, go back to this torture thing that happened with the fourteen of us: As I said at another interrogation they started off: Name. Address. Spell your name. And I spelt ‘Francie’ all right – could not spell ‘McGuigan’ – kept making a mistake in spelling my own name and started to panic at this stage – what’s happening? I can’t! They thought this was very humorous so they decided this time: Take him away and let them think about this. So this time they brought me back to the room where they handcuffed me to the cast iron pipes and I had a mattress this time, as opposed to the other times where they put me on the concrete floor, and the guard there – for the first time only the guard spoke says: You’re not to sleep. You’re to think about all of this. Of course, I passed out. And immediately, I imagine immediately, the doors opened – You were told not to sleep! Dragged up, back to the ‘Music Room’ as they call it. So for seven days I was either standing against this wall or else lying on a concrete floor handcuffed to a cast iron pipe or I was in for interrogation.
Miriam: And at the time, Francie – because I know you’re recalling it now as a much older man – how terrified were you? And I know at one stage you thought you were going to die.
Francie: At one stage I wanted to die. At one stage we all, and you can ask any of the boys this, we all believed that at that stage they are never going to release us alive to tell the world what happened. I’ve just, in two or three minutes, tried to describe what happened in seven days. Fear, panic, despair, try to resist, try to stand up, go collapse again but we kept fighting and oppose it. I can listen to the other lads talking and I know exactly what they’re trying to say – I can’t find the words to describe the words to describe the emotions I went through at that stage but when I hear some of the other boys talking I understand exactly.
Miriam: Tell my listeners about the helicopter because, in other words, we know now it was hovering low but tell the terror of that when they were threatening to throw you out of that.
Francie: It’s just – I can’t describe terror in that aspect – you’re just there. You believe that you’re going to be thrown to your death. You have five, ten, fifteen seconds to imagine your death. Think about it yourself. How do you imagine your emotions should react? You know, and as I said, that during this we did not believe we’d be let free from this place to tell the world what they done to us. We thought we were going to be killed at the end of it or done away with or whatever decided thing they wanted to do to us and you actually came to the point: Well I hope it’s sooner rather than later. I can’t stand much more of this.
Miriam: And I know as a result of this – in the end, of course, you were charged with nothing because you should not have been charged with anything – you were there interned without trial…
Francie: …No, none of us had been!…
Miriam: …but you suffered mentally for years after, didn’t you, Francie? And is it right that you couldn’t live in Belfast for thirty years – just the sheer trauma?
Francie: Well I managed somehow to escape out of Long Kesh and I was then – they wanted to arrest me to put me back in Long Kesh again or charge me for escaping from lawful custody – I dispute the ‘lawful custody’ – so I ended up living in Dundalk for a few years and then in Dublin for twenty years. And it’s only recent years I’ve returned to Belfast – the past ten years.
Miriam: What impact did that have on your life, Francie?
Francie: I initially thought it had none. You know. I’m one of these big, strong lads – nothing bothers me. I’m grand – but I had discovered as years passed I found a need for counseling. I’ve been receiving counseling on and off for the past thirty years. One other thing I’d like to point out: The British have said there’d be no after-effects of this. They seemed to have forgotten that they released four of the fourteen men – they released them from the prison into psychiatric hospitals. Another man, after he was released (a few months later), spent three months in a psychiatric hospital. Another man spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital. And it’s only in recent years, with speaking to each other, that we actually even admit to each other that yes, this causes me sleepless nights, I’m waking up in the middle of the night – the bed is absolutely saturated with sweat. I have nightmares. I’m afraid to go back to sleep and it does come back – you relive this whole process over and over again and that’s why I think there’s a few points I’d like to bring up here just about the result in Europe….
Miriam: …of the European Court. Just explain to my listeners: I think partly also, to give credit to Rita O’Reilly, she made the documentary called The Torture Files for RTÉ Investigates, and they brought up new evidence because Europe did find that the British were guilty of inhuman and degrading treatment but you and the Irish government believe it was torture…
Francie: …I know it was torture!…
Miriam: …Yeah. And that investigation showed that. So this week’s judgment, which found against that, first of all: How disappointing was that for you, Francie?
Francie: Very dismayed in disappointment. Not only for the fourteen of us but in 1976 the European Commission came up with the verdict that it was torture. That was appealed to the European Court who ruled ‘degrading and inhumane treatment’. And I remember saying at the time, and it’s copied in the Irish Times if somebody cares to look it up , I said it was a political decision. It now gave permission for governments to arrest citizens, drag them from the streets and torture them and say it wasn’t torture. And I think the intervening years have proved it – we have Guantánamo, we had Abu Ghraib, we had the ‘black sites’ – so I think what I said in 1978 was true. Now this ruling this week has now given double indemnity to these governments that want to go ahead and do this poor bugger who, wherever part of the world he’s in today, is going to be arrested by his government – he will be tortured but he’ll be told it’s not torture it’s degrading and inhumane treatment. I think Europe had a massive chance to help eliminate torture throughout the world and they failed So I think there’s a big onus on the Irish government today to appeal this case in the strongest possible terms. Torture must be eliminated throughout the world. I don’t know whether it’ll be eliminated but I think that governments will have to be wary of the fact that if they are convicted of torture the stigma of torture will stick with their nation. When I say ‘political decision’ I think they didn’t want Britain, who was one of the founders of the Human Rights Court, I don’t think they wanted them branded with the stigma of torture.
Miriam: And I know this happened, Francie, when you were a twenty-three year old man – as I said you were never charged with anything. You were a young carpenter and joiner at the time – did cast a shadow over your entire life?
Francie: Oh, it has, yes. It has. I, for years, had been in denial. It’s only in recent years I’ll admit that it changed me in many ways and I’m not actually sure what they were. I’m at times watching a television programme or watching the news I have to get up and leave the room because there’s something coming on that brings it all back to me. And it’s just very hard to explain how it still affects me today. There’s night’s I’m afraid to go to bed because I know I’m going to have a bad night – I’m not going to sleep. I’ve seen me at times locking the door, refusing to answer the phone, refusing to open the door, not opening the blinds, spending four or five days not getting dressed, not eating, not washing, shaving, showering and can’t explain to you or to anybody else why I’ve done that. You know? But during that whole time this whole thing is going through my mind – I’m going through this – living it again. Sometimes I believe I’m actually back in the place. Other times I know I’m not back there but I have the same feelings and same emotions.
Miriam: And Francie lots are saying – Cormac says: Thanks for interviewing Francis. Impossible to understand how any sane person could say this is not torture. When you – you were twenty-three then, Francie, it’s decades later – why is so important for you now, at this stage of your life, that it is held up to be torture, what happened to you, why does it matter after all this time. I understand it but just explain to me why it matters?
Francie: Because, as I said, it gives governments, the ‘degrading and inhumane treatment’, gives governments the permission. George Bush said it wasn’t torture in Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo – he said it was the same as Britain in Ireland it was degrading and inhumane treatment not torture. Israel has used it. Brazil used it. Argentina used it. There’s other countries that have used it. And I think where a country can be found guilty of torture and that stigma attached to that country – it’ll make an awful difference. One other thing: The RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) men, Special Branch, that were trained to do this, they started this in March of ’71 – they brought over a squad and they built the Special Interrogation Centre in Ballykelly Camp and they trained twelve RUC officers to do this interrogation. They refused to do it until they were granted immunity. They were granted immunity! And it wasn’t a Desk Sergeant that granted them immunity. It came from much higher up the scale and I would say as far as the British Parliament because they were well aware of what was going on.
Miriam: And for you personally? I can see the bigger picture of how it will, hopefully, stop states torturing others but for you personally, Francie McGuigan, as we close, why would it matter to you, for you and your life, if it is declared to be torture? Do you think it would ease your pain that you’re going through still?
Francie: I would like to think so but I’m not sure on that because I know I was tortured. My family now know I was tortured. My friends know I was tortured and I think anybody that listens to our case or reads our book knows what happened – that we were tortured. But I think at the moment I’m fighting about what I believe to be, and the lads are all on board with this, it’s not just for the fourteen of us – it’s for every victim anywhere in the world that was tortured by his own government or by foreign governments. Torture is wrong, it’s illegal, it’s bad and it must be stamped out and Europe must take responsibility for what’s happening.
Denis Faul & Raymond Murray Available in paperback
Miriam: Well, Francie McGuigan, you came down from Belfast this morning – we appreciate that. And you gave me, actually, a book – thank you very much! – The Hooded Men, written by the greats, Denis Faul and Raymond Murray, about your time. Thank you!
(ends time stamp ~20:12)
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
Sunday With Miriam
RTÉ Radio One
Miriam: Well my next guest this morning, he’s driven from Belfast to be here, is Francis McGuigan, known as Francie, one of the so-called ‘hooded men’. Arrested in 1971 by the British Army when he was just twenty-three when the Army interned hundreds of Catholics without trial. He suffered brutal interrogation techniques to such an extent that at one stage things got so bad he actually thought he was going to die. This week Francie was among fourteen men who had their cases rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The men and the Irish government were seeking the court to find that the men had suffered tortured and not just inhuman and degrading treatment. Good Morning, Francie! And thank you for being here.
Francie: Good Morning! My pleasure.
Miriam: Listen, do you mind if we go right back just for my listeners when this all began when you were twenty-three – tell me if you don’t mind, what happened?
Francie: I was arrested at three-thirty in the morning in August 1971, dragged off to Girdwood Army Barracks, spent forty-eight hours there and then hooded, handcuffed and taken out in a helicopter along with three other lads and flown to what now turns out to be Ballykelly although at the time we had not got a clue what was going on.
Francie McGuigan Photo: Irish News We arrived in Ballykelly and when the helicopter started to slow down they took me just towards the door, the air compression doors opened and I was thrown out. I didn’t know where, how high I was or what but I was actually caught, brought it, the hood was removed and I was standing in front of a man with a white coat and a stethoscope, who I assumed to be a doctor. He gave me a thirty second medical examination and just nodded. At which place the hood was placed back on and my clothing was removed and I was placed into the boiler suit. And I’m just going to go over basically what my life consisted of for the next seven days. As I said, I was hooded. Just think about that: Seven days – the only time that hood was off was while I was being interrogated. Wall standing: Standing up against a wall in the stress position; fingertips on the wall, feet back out, wide apart, small of the back pushed in. The only way that I could come off the wall was to fall into a ball. The next method they had was food deprivation. I don’t think we got anything to eat or drink for first three days were we there. We also had sleep deprivation. We were denied sleep. We were physically exhausted.
The noise. The white noise. This is the noise that I describe as coming in through my hair, down through my body, out through my toes and touched every nerve and sinew in my body as it was doing that. Now everybody talks about these ‘five techniques’ that they used on us. I would like to tell everyone now there was a sixth technique – and that was sheer brutality, brute force, beating. When I came back after those seven days I had three fractured ribs, I had no skin on either wrist where I had been handcuffed and that’s how I spent those next seven days. And I’m talking about, I spoke about the boiler suit. Just think about this for a second: For seven days that boiler suit was my day clothes, my night clothes and, unfortunately, was also my toilet for seven days. We were denied the use of toilets.
I was placed against a wall. I refused to stand, rolled up and into a ball. I was beaten, dragged, kicked – back up against the wall and that went on for four or five times, I just refused to stand, ’til eventually I discovered if I stood against the wall the kicking and beating stopped while I was standing there. But while this was going on this white noise was constantly there in my brain- the white noise took over the brain. You kept wondering: What’s going on? What are they doing? What’s this? What’s this? Because nobody has spoken to me. Nobody has told me why I’m there or anything else. And you would collapse out of sheer exhaustion against the wall in which case you were taken, beaten, battered, back up against the wall and this white noise going on continuously as I said that occupied the brain. I passed out. The next thing I recall is coming to, being dragged along a corridor, two soldiers had me in below the arms, I was barefooted and my feet scraping along the floor. When I did eventually get into Crumlin Road Prison they noticed the insteps of my feet – the skin was off them as it was off my wrists. I was then taken into this room, sat down in a chair, my hands were taken and handcuffed behind my back, the hood was removed and there in front of men were two men sitting facing me, one standing behind me and these bright lights shining in my eyes and this was the Interrogation Room – and this was like the Cagney stuff out of the movies – the bright lights in my face. The fella went up and down behind, these boys would ask questions. They start off every question session with: Name and Address. The boy behind me would walk up and down as these boys were asking questions. If they didn’t get the answers he’d come along, he’d slap me in the two ears or he’d swing on the handcuffs and this went on, these interrogations lasted one, two, three, four hours. I remember one particular interrogator who has this peculiar habit – he’d stick his, reach across the table and put his forehead to my forehead and scream and shout at me down to the point where I could feel his spittle hitting me in the face. I couldn’t…
Miriam: …What kind of questions were they asking you at the time, Francie?
Francie: Who’s in the IRA? Are you in the IRA? Is your father in the IRA? Who shot such-and-such? Who planted such-and-such a bomb? I hadn’t knowledge of all these things at all. And this went on – they say that they spent a total of, in some of the documents, where they spent a total of twenty-eight hours interrogating me over that seven day period. I don’t remember – I remember another time going in for interrogation…
Miriam: …Can I just ask something, Francie – You weren’t arrested on your own – weren’t there six in total of your family arrested at that time?
Francie: No, at that particular morning I was the only one arrested. They tried to arrest my father, who was over sixty at the time, but my father just laid – while there was three soldiers – took me and placed me in the lorry they left one soldier to take my father.
Miriam: Why did they take you?
Francie: Um, I’ll tell you straightaway why they possibly took me and you can find the answer yourself. Brian Faulkner was the Minister for Home Affairs at the time and one of the lads that was actually a ‘hooded men’ was going across on the Strangford ferry one day and there was Brian Faulkner. So he approached Brian Faulkner and said: Mr. Faulkner, you had me arrested in 1971 for internment. Could you tell me why? Mr. Faulkner, rather amazed, looked at him and said: I interned three types of people: the terrorist, those that supported them and those that protest against internment. Fit yourself into whichever category suits. Good Day, Sir! And walked on so…which category?
Miriam: Which category did you fit into?
Francie: Pardon?
Miriam: Which one did you fit into?
Francie: Brian Faulkner would tell you I fitted into all three!
Miriam: But you were involved in the civil rights, weren’t you?
Francie: I was involved. I was elected onto the first Belfast civil rights committee…
Miriam: …Yeah, exactly! So you were…
Francie: …myself and a young lad called Adams! I also took part in housing action committees within Belfast.
Anti-Internment League LondonCirca 1971 Source: CAIN
We done surveys on houses in Belfast. They had just completed Divis Flats at the time and they were lying dormant and people living in rat infested homes and I thought, we thought, it’d be a great idea to re-house these people in these home. Little did we know that we were putting people into sectarian ghettos that have since, thank God, been knocked down but we were naïve at the time. But as I say, go back to this torture thing that happened with the fourteen of us: As I said at another interrogation they started off: Name. Address. Spell your name. And I spelt ‘Francie’ all right – could not spell ‘McGuigan’ – kept making a mistake in spelling my own name and started to panic at this stage – what’s happening? I can’t! They thought this was very humorous so they decided this time: Take him away and let them think about this. So this time they brought me back to the room where they handcuffed me to the cast iron pipes and I had a mattress this time, as opposed to the other times where they put me on the concrete floor, and the guard there – for the first time only the guard spoke says: You’re not to sleep. You’re to think about all of this. Of course, I passed out. And immediately, I imagine immediately, the doors opened – You were told not to sleep! Dragged up, back to the ‘Music Room’ as they call it. So for seven days I was either standing against this wall or else lying on a concrete floor handcuffed to a cast iron pipe or I was in for interrogation.
Miriam: And at the time, Francie – because I know you’re recalling it now as a much older man – how terrified were you? And I know at one stage you thought you were going to die.
Francie: At one stage I wanted to die. At one stage we all, and you can ask any of the boys this, we all believed that at that stage they are never going to release us alive to tell the world what happened. I’ve just, in two or three minutes, tried to describe what happened in seven days. Fear, panic, despair, try to resist, try to stand up, go collapse again but we kept fighting and oppose it. I can listen to the other lads talking and I know exactly what they’re trying to say – I can’t find the words to describe the words to describe the emotions I went through at that stage but when I hear some of the other boys talking I understand exactly.
Miriam: Tell my listeners about the helicopter because, in other words, we know now it was hovering low but tell the terror of that when they were threatening to throw you out of that.
Francie: It’s just – I can’t describe terror in that aspect – you’re just there. You believe that you’re going to be thrown to your death. You have five, ten, fifteen seconds to imagine your death. Think about it yourself. How do you imagine your emotions should react? You know, and as I said, that during this we did not believe we’d be let free from this place to tell the world what they done to us. We thought we were going to be killed at the end of it or done away with or whatever decided thing they wanted to do to us and you actually came to the point: Well I hope it’s sooner rather than later. I can’t stand much more of this.
Miriam: And I know as a result of this – in the end, of course, you were charged with nothing because you should not have been charged with anything – you were there interned without trial…
Francie: …No, none of us had been!…
Miriam: …but you suffered mentally for years after, didn’t you, Francie? And is it right that you couldn’t live in Belfast for thirty years – just the sheer trauma?
Francie: Well I managed somehow to escape out of Long Kesh and I was then – they wanted to arrest me to put me back in Long Kesh again or charge me for escaping from lawful custody – I dispute the ‘lawful custody’ – so I ended up living in Dundalk for a few years and then in Dublin for twenty years. And it’s only recent years I’ve returned to Belfast – the past ten years.
Miriam: What impact did that have on your life, Francie?
Francie: I initially thought it had none. You know. I’m one of these big, strong lads – nothing bothers me. I’m grand – but I had discovered as years passed I found a need for counseling. I’ve been receiving counseling on and off for the past thirty years. One other thing I’d like to point out: The British have said there’d be no after-effects of this. They seemed to have forgotten that they released four of the fourteen men – they released them from the prison into psychiatric hospitals. Another man, after he was released (a few months later), spent three months in a psychiatric hospital. Another man spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital. And it’s only in recent years, with speaking to each other, that we actually even admit to each other that yes, this causes me sleepless nights, I’m waking up in the middle of the night – the bed is absolutely saturated with sweat. I have nightmares. I’m afraid to go back to sleep and it does come back – you relive this whole process over and over again and that’s why I think there’s a few points I’d like to bring up here just about the result in Europe….
Miriam: …of the European Court. Just explain to my listeners: I think partly also, to give credit to Rita O’Reilly, she made the documentary called The Torture Files for RTÉ Investigates, and they brought up new evidence because Europe did find that the British were guilty of inhuman and degrading treatment but you and the Irish government believe it was torture…
Francie: …I know it was torture!…
Miriam: …Yeah. And that investigation showed that. So this week’s judgment, which found against that, first of all: How disappointing was that for you, Francie?
Francie: Very dismayed in disappointment. Not only for the fourteen of us but in 1976 the European Commission came up with the verdict that it was torture. That was appealed to the European Court who ruled ‘degrading and inhumane treatment’. And I remember saying at the time, and it’s copied in the Irish Times if somebody cares to look it up , I said it was a political decision. It now gave permission for governments to arrest citizens, drag them from the streets and torture them and say it wasn’t torture. And I think the intervening years have proved it – we have Guantánamo, we had Abu Ghraib, we had the ‘black sites’ – so I think what I said in 1978 was true. Now this ruling this week has now given double indemnity to these governments that want to go ahead and do this poor bugger who, wherever part of the world he’s in today, is going to be arrested by his government – he will be tortured but he’ll be told it’s not torture it’s degrading and inhumane treatment. I think Europe had a massive chance to help eliminate torture throughout the world and they failed So I think there’s a big onus on the Irish government today to appeal this case in the strongest possible terms. Torture must be eliminated throughout the world. I don’t know whether it’ll be eliminated but I think that governments will have to be wary of the fact that if they are convicted of torture the stigma of torture will stick with their nation. When I say ‘political decision’ I think they didn’t want Britain, who was one of the founders of the Human Rights Court, I don’t think they wanted them branded with the stigma of torture.
Miriam: And I know this happened, Francie, when you were a twenty-three year old man – as I said you were never charged with anything. You were a young carpenter and joiner at the time – did cast a shadow over your entire life?
Francie: Oh, it has, yes. It has. I, for years, had been in denial. It’s only in recent years I’ll admit that it changed me in many ways and I’m not actually sure what they were. I’m at times watching a television programme or watching the news I have to get up and leave the room because there’s something coming on that brings it all back to me. And it’s just very hard to explain how it still affects me today. There’s night’s I’m afraid to go to bed because I know I’m going to have a bad night – I’m not going to sleep. I’ve seen me at times locking the door, refusing to answer the phone, refusing to open the door, not opening the blinds, spending four or five days not getting dressed, not eating, not washing, shaving, showering and can’t explain to you or to anybody else why I’ve done that. You know? But during that whole time this whole thing is going through my mind – I’m going through this – living it again. Sometimes I believe I’m actually back in the place. Other times I know I’m not back there but I have the same feelings and same emotions.
Miriam: And Francie lots are saying – Cormac says: Thanks for interviewing Francis. Impossible to understand how any sane person could say this is not torture. When you – you were twenty-three then, Francie, it’s decades later – why is so important for you now, at this stage of your life, that it is held up to be torture, what happened to you, why does it matter after all this time. I understand it but just explain to me why it matters?
Francie: Because, as I said, it gives governments, the ‘degrading and inhumane treatment’, gives governments the permission. George Bush said it wasn’t torture in Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo – he said it was the same as Britain in Ireland it was degrading and inhumane treatment not torture. Israel has used it. Brazil used it. Argentina used it. There’s other countries that have used it. And I think where a country can be found guilty of torture and that stigma attached to that country – it’ll make an awful difference. One other thing: The RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) men, Special Branch, that were trained to do this, they started this in March of ’71 – they brought over a squad and they built the Special Interrogation Centre in Ballykelly Camp and they trained twelve RUC officers to do this interrogation. They refused to do it until they were granted immunity. They were granted immunity! And it wasn’t a Desk Sergeant that granted them immunity. It came from much higher up the scale and I would say as far as the British Parliament because they were well aware of what was going on.
Miriam: And for you personally? I can see the bigger picture of how it will, hopefully, stop states torturing others but for you personally, Francie McGuigan, as we close, why would it matter to you, for you and your life, if it is declared to be torture? Do you think it would ease your pain that you’re going through still?
Francie: I would like to think so but I’m not sure on that because I know I was tortured. My family now know I was tortured. My friends know I was tortured and I think anybody that listens to our case or reads our book knows what happened – that we were tortured. But I think at the moment I’m fighting about what I believe to be, and the lads are all on board with this, it’s not just for the fourteen of us – it’s for every victim anywhere in the world that was tortured by his own government or by foreign governments. Torture is wrong, it’s illegal, it’s bad and it must be stamped out and Europe must take responsibility for what’s happening.
Denis Faul & Raymond Murray Available in paperback Miriam: Well, Francie McGuigan, you came down from Belfast this morning – we appreciate that. And you gave me, actually, a book – thank you very much! – The Hooded Men, written by the greats, Denis Faul and Raymond Murray, about your time. Thank you!
(ends time stamp ~20:12)
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 23 June 2018
Martin Galvin
with details of this weekend's broadcast from
Radio Free Eireann.
Radio Free Eireann will broadcast today Saturday June 23rd.
As we near July 4th celebrations of America's Declaration of Independence, we will ask Dr. Ruan O'Donnell, historian, Senior Lecturer at Limerick University and author of books on Patrick Pearse and Robert Emmet, about Ireland's Declaration of Independence from Britain, and why as we near the 100th anniversary of Ireland's Declaration of Independence there seem to be mixed emotions about celebrating.
Tony O'Hara, a former Blanketman in the Long Kesh will talk about being blocked by the Gaelic Athletic Association from holding an event honoring his brother PATSY O'HARA one of the 1981 Hunger Strike Martyrs.
We will have a final preview of a special live WBAI performance co-starring RFE's own John McDonagh with Malachy McCourt.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
As we near July 4th celebrations of America's Declaration of Independence, we will ask Dr. Ruan O'Donnell, historian, Senior Lecturer at Limerick University and author of books on Patrick Pearse and Robert Emmet, about Ireland's Declaration of Independence from Britain, and why as we near the 100th anniversary of Ireland's Declaration of Independence there seem to be mixed emotions about celebrating.
Tony O'Hara, a former Blanketman in the Long Kesh will talk about being blocked by the Gaelic Athletic Association from holding an event honoring his brother PATSY O'HARA one of the 1981 Hunger Strike Martyrs.
We will have a final preview of a special live WBAI performance co-starring RFE's own John McDonagh with Malachy McCourt.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
June 22, 2018
The Hoods
Christopher Owens reviews a book on anti-social activity in West Belfast.
In your mind, you envisage the perfect scenario, where all avenues are explored, every action thoroughly probed and you're left exhilarated and exhausted at the sheer magnitude of the task at hand.
First published in 2011 (but reprinted this year in paperback), Heather Hamill's book examines the culture of West Belfast, why it breeds a particular type of anti social character, and why the IRA's punishment beatings/shootings do not deter such people. This, naturally, should make for fascinating reading.
However, with Hamill's research period took place between 1995 and 2006, we stumble across a problem: this misses the Mairia Cahill case, which has highlighted just how "problematic" the IRA's justice system can be in very grim detail. As a result, the book itself can seem like Hamlet without the prince.
Nonetheless, The Hoods has a hell of a lot of information and thoughts that can be chewed over without having to consider the Cahill case.
Opening with a discussion of the culture and history of West Belfast, Hamill makes it clear that this is a tight, close knit neighbourhood which functions outside mainstream society due to high unemployment and legacy issues with the state of Northern Ireland (the notion of knowing someone who can "get it" for you at a reduced rate). As a result, whenever law and order breaks down, the locals take it among themselves to sort things out.
Discussing the various vigilante types (like DAAD) who have popped up over the years post ceasefire, Hamill makes the (undoubtedly correct) assertion that Sinn Fein have authority over them, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to operate in the way they did. Hence, when they go too far, Sinn Fein can plausibly deny a role.
Of course, all of this stretches back to the IRA's own punishment squads and their own roots in the community. Hamill does allow people to claim that some in these squads were once "hoods" themselves, but this is put down to a minority. Oddly, no mention of the squad in the Short Strand (around the time of the Robert McCartney murder) that supposedly had someone guilty of sexual violence in their ranks.
Moving on to discussing the "hoods" themselves, by detailing their crimes, livelihoods and hobbies (drink and drugs feature heavily), this segment is both illuminating and hilarious at the same time. This is because, as we know, "hoods" generally aren't known for their articulate views (one, when asked why he doesn't like the IRA, described them as "...dirty, stinkin' bastards") and, as a result, what we get are statements that are minimal on word usage, but excel in blunt delivery.
I must admit, I had a good chuckle at the revelation that "hoods" really, really hate it when the IRA put them on curfew or order them out of the country: "...the four objected bitterly to the restriction on their movements and the resulting boredom: 'You can't really do much on an eight o'clock curfew other than smoke blow, watch football. That's it,' said Georgie (age 21). Micky (age 18) added, 'I'm on an eight o'clock curfew. I'm not allowed to run about with my friends. What am I supposed to do all night...bein' treated like a child for somethin' I didn't do.'"
Clearly, Judith Ward, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four have nothing on these lads!
The same attitudes comes through when people are ordered out of the country. Here, conversely, Hamill does make a good point that, cut off from their families and further highlighting their poor social skills, it's no wonder "hoods" struggle with this punishment. As well as this, with a greater drug problem in England, some feel they'll actually end up worse in such situations than in their home city.
The final chapter deals with the unionist/loyalist side of West Belfast and why punishment beatings/shootings tend to be reserved for paramilitaries who have stepped out of line rather than "hoods." This is put down to a combination of that community having faith in the police and the fact that it's easy for these types to join loyalist paramilitaries. Personally, I am of the impression that, while there is truth in that statement, it's not always as clean cut as that.
I recall hearing a story about an old school acquaintance, who had a flat in the Woodvale area of the city and had a bad habit of holding all night parties. From what I was told, said acquaintance was visited by the UDA and given two options: either join them or take a beating. He opted for the latter.
This tale, if true, seems to indicate a view on the UDA's part that, by joining them, they would have rid him of his anti-social behaviour and trained him into a disciplined soldier. A form of national service, if you will. Which creates an interesting contrast to the IRA, who see themselves as only allowing 'suitable' candidates to join.
She does admit that beatings/shootings do happen to "hoods", but uses a quote from Sammy Duddy to show how the police ended up putting the onus on the loyalist paramilitaries to deal with such crimes, because the police would often encourage the "hoods" to inform on the paramilitaries. Ironically, by revealing this, Duddy gives credence to the Provo's claim to be the only voice of law and order in West Belfast. After all, if the police are only going to use "hoods" to spy on paramilitaries and let them off the hook for their criminal behaviour, why approach them?
Due to necessity, Hamill did not conduct thoroughly probing interviews (she describes the end result as having come from "...unstructured discussions and semi structured interviews..."). Although it's understandable (due to the unwillingness and legalities of people recording stories onto tape), it is frustrating, as certain quotes just cry out for elaboration. Take this one:
Now, this is a pretty serious allegation to make (although one that is believable), considering the IRA's openly stated stance on drug dealers. Here is an opportunity to explore how the IRA were not immune from corruption, as well as the growing power of drug dealers in the city. Unfortunately, Hamill drops the subject and talks about something else.
Another example is how most of the "hoods" that Hamill interviews report having poor relationships with their parents (fathers in particular), yet a good lot of the "hoods" themselves are parents to small children and have no interest in them! Surely this contradiction calls for further discussion on the cycle of abandonment and how it leads to anti social behaviour?
Exasperatingly, certain angles aren't explored at all: the role of "hoods" as £10 touts by the police, claims being issued for shootings/beatings as well as corruption in the IRA ranks. These are serious issues that deserve to be discussed in a book like this.
Finally, Hamill offers us the following paragraph:
Once again, a very serious claim to make, and one that runs against the grain of Troubles research (it's generally accepted that the Fianna split with the Provos in 1986, aligning themselves with Republican Sinn Fein). So where does Hamill get this tale?
Irritatingly, she does not cite a reference for it, and emails to the publisher asking for clarification did not yield any answers.
Having spoken to Anthony McIntyre, Gareth Mulvenna, Iain Turner and various residents of North Belfast, the only such incident that could be universally agreed on was Trevor McKibben's funeral, where Sean Campbell was killed. The problem here was that this happened in 1977, so it couldn't have been that. Interestingly, it was thought by certain people in the area that Campbell was a member of Na Fianna Eireann, however he was never claimed by the organisation and is listed as a civilian in Lost Lives.
Is it possible that Hamill has maybe conflated the above with another incident?
Realistically, this book should have been 600 pages in length (as opposed to 200) as a topic like anti social behaviour in a post war zone like West Belfast and how it is policed is far too vast to fit concisely into a small book.
It's certainly worth reading, and there is plenty in there to discuss and consider, but it could have been so much more.
Heather Hamill, 2011, The Hoods: Crime and Punishment in West Belfast, Princeton University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0691119632
➽ Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
In your mind, you envisage the perfect scenario, where all avenues are explored, every action thoroughly probed and you're left exhilarated and exhausted at the sheer magnitude of the task at hand.
First published in 2011 (but reprinted this year in paperback), Heather Hamill's book examines the culture of West Belfast, why it breeds a particular type of anti social character, and why the IRA's punishment beatings/shootings do not deter such people. This, naturally, should make for fascinating reading.
However, with Hamill's research period took place between 1995 and 2006, we stumble across a problem: this misses the Mairia Cahill case, which has highlighted just how "problematic" the IRA's justice system can be in very grim detail. As a result, the book itself can seem like Hamlet without the prince.
Nonetheless, The Hoods has a hell of a lot of information and thoughts that can be chewed over without having to consider the Cahill case.
Opening with a discussion of the culture and history of West Belfast, Hamill makes it clear that this is a tight, close knit neighbourhood which functions outside mainstream society due to high unemployment and legacy issues with the state of Northern Ireland (the notion of knowing someone who can "get it" for you at a reduced rate). As a result, whenever law and order breaks down, the locals take it among themselves to sort things out.
Discussing the various vigilante types (like DAAD) who have popped up over the years post ceasefire, Hamill makes the (undoubtedly correct) assertion that Sinn Fein have authority over them, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to operate in the way they did. Hence, when they go too far, Sinn Fein can plausibly deny a role.
Of course, all of this stretches back to the IRA's own punishment squads and their own roots in the community. Hamill does allow people to claim that some in these squads were once "hoods" themselves, but this is put down to a minority. Oddly, no mention of the squad in the Short Strand (around the time of the Robert McCartney murder) that supposedly had someone guilty of sexual violence in their ranks.
Moving on to discussing the "hoods" themselves, by detailing their crimes, livelihoods and hobbies (drink and drugs feature heavily), this segment is both illuminating and hilarious at the same time. This is because, as we know, "hoods" generally aren't known for their articulate views (one, when asked why he doesn't like the IRA, described them as "...dirty, stinkin' bastards") and, as a result, what we get are statements that are minimal on word usage, but excel in blunt delivery.
I must admit, I had a good chuckle at the revelation that "hoods" really, really hate it when the IRA put them on curfew or order them out of the country: "...the four objected bitterly to the restriction on their movements and the resulting boredom: 'You can't really do much on an eight o'clock curfew other than smoke blow, watch football. That's it,' said Georgie (age 21). Micky (age 18) added, 'I'm on an eight o'clock curfew. I'm not allowed to run about with my friends. What am I supposed to do all night...bein' treated like a child for somethin' I didn't do.'"
Clearly, Judith Ward, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four have nothing on these lads!
The same attitudes comes through when people are ordered out of the country. Here, conversely, Hamill does make a good point that, cut off from their families and further highlighting their poor social skills, it's no wonder "hoods" struggle with this punishment. As well as this, with a greater drug problem in England, some feel they'll actually end up worse in such situations than in their home city.
The final chapter deals with the unionist/loyalist side of West Belfast and why punishment beatings/shootings tend to be reserved for paramilitaries who have stepped out of line rather than "hoods." This is put down to a combination of that community having faith in the police and the fact that it's easy for these types to join loyalist paramilitaries. Personally, I am of the impression that, while there is truth in that statement, it's not always as clean cut as that.
I recall hearing a story about an old school acquaintance, who had a flat in the Woodvale area of the city and had a bad habit of holding all night parties. From what I was told, said acquaintance was visited by the UDA and given two options: either join them or take a beating. He opted for the latter.
This tale, if true, seems to indicate a view on the UDA's part that, by joining them, they would have rid him of his anti-social behaviour and trained him into a disciplined soldier. A form of national service, if you will. Which creates an interesting contrast to the IRA, who see themselves as only allowing 'suitable' candidates to join.
She does admit that beatings/shootings do happen to "hoods", but uses a quote from Sammy Duddy to show how the police ended up putting the onus on the loyalist paramilitaries to deal with such crimes, because the police would often encourage the "hoods" to inform on the paramilitaries. Ironically, by revealing this, Duddy gives credence to the Provo's claim to be the only voice of law and order in West Belfast. After all, if the police are only going to use "hoods" to spy on paramilitaries and let them off the hook for their criminal behaviour, why approach them?
Due to necessity, Hamill did not conduct thoroughly probing interviews (she describes the end result as having come from "...unstructured discussions and semi structured interviews..."). Although it's understandable (due to the unwillingness and legalities of people recording stories onto tape), it is frustrating, as certain quotes just cry out for elaboration. Take this one:
Angela's offense was drug dealing...Two of her uncles ran sizeable drug dealing operations...She believed that her sentence was relatively lenient, however, because her estranged father had powerful 'connections' with the IRA and had protected her for as long as he could.
Now, this is a pretty serious allegation to make (although one that is believable), considering the IRA's openly stated stance on drug dealers. Here is an opportunity to explore how the IRA were not immune from corruption, as well as the growing power of drug dealers in the city. Unfortunately, Hamill drops the subject and talks about something else.
Another example is how most of the "hoods" that Hamill interviews report having poor relationships with their parents (fathers in particular), yet a good lot of the "hoods" themselves are parents to small children and have no interest in them! Surely this contradiction calls for further discussion on the cycle of abandonment and how it leads to anti social behaviour?
Exasperatingly, certain angles aren't explored at all: the role of "hoods" as £10 touts by the police, claims being issued for shootings/beatings as well as corruption in the IRA ranks. These are serious issues that deserve to be discussed in a book like this.
Finally, Hamill offers us the following paragraph:
In the early 1980's, Loyalist paramilitaries exploded a bomb at a Republican funeral in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast, raising existing IRA suspicions that the organisation had been compromised. The leak was traced to Na Fianna Eireann and, according to Sinn Fein, further investigation revealed that the police had managed to penetrate deep into the IRA's youth wing. Na Fianna Eireann was subsequently disbanded...
Once again, a very serious claim to make, and one that runs against the grain of Troubles research (it's generally accepted that the Fianna split with the Provos in 1986, aligning themselves with Republican Sinn Fein). So where does Hamill get this tale?
Irritatingly, she does not cite a reference for it, and emails to the publisher asking for clarification did not yield any answers.
Having spoken to Anthony McIntyre, Gareth Mulvenna, Iain Turner and various residents of North Belfast, the only such incident that could be universally agreed on was Trevor McKibben's funeral, where Sean Campbell was killed. The problem here was that this happened in 1977, so it couldn't have been that. Interestingly, it was thought by certain people in the area that Campbell was a member of Na Fianna Eireann, however he was never claimed by the organisation and is listed as a civilian in Lost Lives.
Is it possible that Hamill has maybe conflated the above with another incident?
Realistically, this book should have been 600 pages in length (as opposed to 200) as a topic like anti social behaviour in a post war zone like West Belfast and how it is policed is far too vast to fit concisely into a small book.
It's certainly worth reading, and there is plenty in there to discuss and consider, but it could have been so much more.
Heather Hamill, 2011, The Hoods: Crime and Punishment in West Belfast, Princeton University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0691119632
➽ Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
June 21, 2018
Performing Seals
Alex McCrory is scathing of Sinn Fein's West Belfast welcome to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
During the course of the past twenty years, Republicans have had to swallow many bitter pills as they witnessed one climb down after another. Outward signs if this behaviour have been evidenced by Royal handshakes; attendance at British ruling class banquets; the courting of American influence and, more recently, extending the hand of friendship to the modern day descendants of the counter- revolutionary Blueshirts. A record as cynical as it is shameful.
But to get to the point of this criticism. For too long, I have been willing to give the ordinary members of Sinn Fein the benefit of doubt. Naively, I had been holding out the prospect that with each new departure from tradition something within their collective consciousness would awaken them to the long term dangers of Sinn Fein political strategy. And yet, in my heart of hearts, I knew this to be a furlong hope. For leaders must ultimately rely on the compliance and unquestioning loyalty of their flock. A good Shepard knows that his sheep will always follow him, even over the edge of the precipice
And so, to learn that the membership of Sinn Fein welcomed Leo Varadkar to the heart of West Belfast with raucous applause came as no surprise. Are we in the grip of collective amnesia after more than 40 years? Do we forget what this man's party stood for since the time of Partition? Fine Gael was, and continues to be, the party of conservative, capitalist Ireland.
Under Eoin O'Duffy the Blueshirts represented a proto-fascistic ideology of the Catholic middle class. It's conception of Republicanism was both confessional and right wing. Indeed, and this the greatest irony, it sent young men off to Europe to overthrow the government of the Spanish Republic, whilst other young Irishmen fought and died to uphold it.
Fine Gael, with the support of it's Tweedledum counterpart, Fianna Fail, is driving forward the neoliberal program of austerity dictated to it by the European troika. Consequently, the effects of austerity have been very damming in terms of the economic wellbeing of the working class; sections of the middle class have suffered also. Parties in government, whoever they may be, do not have a choice other than to administer this shock treatment to the economy. Indeed, the one country that did try to resist, Greece, was bullied into submission even though under a left-wing government.
Finally, I have a question to ask of those who clapped like performing seals for our own brand of Irish conservatism: Are they unable to grasp to where this must all lead to in the future? If so, I have a piece of advice for them free of charge. They would do well to ponder the fate of several parties that provided support for either one of the big two in past coalitions: Labour, Progressive Democrats, Democratic Left. For it will be too late to complain whenever the big boys wipe the shite of their shoes on you as they walk through the door.
As for a reconversion to any expression of radical Irish Republicanism. Well now! I have given up on that idea, for sure.
Alec McCrory is a former republican prisoner and blanketman.
During the course of the past twenty years, Republicans have had to swallow many bitter pills as they witnessed one climb down after another. Outward signs if this behaviour have been evidenced by Royal handshakes; attendance at British ruling class banquets; the courting of American influence and, more recently, extending the hand of friendship to the modern day descendants of the counter- revolutionary Blueshirts. A record as cynical as it is shameful.
But to get to the point of this criticism. For too long, I have been willing to give the ordinary members of Sinn Fein the benefit of doubt. Naively, I had been holding out the prospect that with each new departure from tradition something within their collective consciousness would awaken them to the long term dangers of Sinn Fein political strategy. And yet, in my heart of hearts, I knew this to be a furlong hope. For leaders must ultimately rely on the compliance and unquestioning loyalty of their flock. A good Shepard knows that his sheep will always follow him, even over the edge of the precipice
And so, to learn that the membership of Sinn Fein welcomed Leo Varadkar to the heart of West Belfast with raucous applause came as no surprise. Are we in the grip of collective amnesia after more than 40 years? Do we forget what this man's party stood for since the time of Partition? Fine Gael was, and continues to be, the party of conservative, capitalist Ireland.
Under Eoin O'Duffy the Blueshirts represented a proto-fascistic ideology of the Catholic middle class. It's conception of Republicanism was both confessional and right wing. Indeed, and this the greatest irony, it sent young men off to Europe to overthrow the government of the Spanish Republic, whilst other young Irishmen fought and died to uphold it.
Fine Gael, with the support of it's Tweedledum counterpart, Fianna Fail, is driving forward the neoliberal program of austerity dictated to it by the European troika. Consequently, the effects of austerity have been very damming in terms of the economic wellbeing of the working class; sections of the middle class have suffered also. Parties in government, whoever they may be, do not have a choice other than to administer this shock treatment to the economy. Indeed, the one country that did try to resist, Greece, was bullied into submission even though under a left-wing government.
Finally, I have a question to ask of those who clapped like performing seals for our own brand of Irish conservatism: Are they unable to grasp to where this must all lead to in the future? If so, I have a piece of advice for them free of charge. They would do well to ponder the fate of several parties that provided support for either one of the big two in past coalitions: Labour, Progressive Democrats, Democratic Left. For it will be too late to complain whenever the big boys wipe the shite of their shoes on you as they walk through the door.
As for a reconversion to any expression of radical Irish Republicanism. Well now! I have given up on that idea, for sure.
Alec McCrory is a former republican prisoner and blanketman.
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.
