Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1151
April 19, 2018
Demand For Atheism In Countries Under Islamic Rule
The latest column in The Freethinker from Maryam Namazie.
Add caption
The scientist and author Richard Dawkins is giving away translations of The God Delusion in countries under Islamic rule like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.
The reason behind the decision is the thirst for atheism in such countries. Whilst 3.3 million copies of the bestseller have been sold since 2006, the unofficial Arabic pdf alone has been downloaded 13 million times.
The rise of atheism in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is something we have been speaking about for some time now. The Iranian Baztab Now website warned of a tsunami of atheism amongst Iranian youth. The #ExMuslimBecause hashtag initiated by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain became viral overnight with over 120,000 Tweets from 65 countries.
The hashtag “#Aik crore Pakistani mulhid” (10 million Pakistani atheists) trended around Darwin Day for two years running. Free Mind, launched by Arab atheists promoting atheism, has recorded more than 1 million visits so far.
The now highly visible and vocal ex-Muslim movement (a new Council has just been established in Jordan), the access to atheism and freethought via social media, the deep-seated opposition to theocratic rule that comes from lived experience, the irrationality of religious doctrine, the authoritarianism of religious rule, scepticism about prophets and contradictory tenets, the unrelenting violence, amongst others, make atheism increasingly enticing for a mostly young population.
Remove Islamism’s threats and apostasy and blasphemy laws from people’s lives and even we ex-Muslims will be stunned at the extent of atheism in countries under Islamic rule.
The powers that be have understood the “threat” atheism poses – seeing it as an existential danger, especially since Islam and state power are intertwined, hence why atheists are persecuted (with many others including religious minorities, women’s rights activists, labour leaders and LGBT).
• Iran as one of the most important bases of atheism in the Middle East, with more than half the population using the Internet regularly, has seen a government ban on more than 160,000 social media accounts and websites for spreading “atheism and corruption” in one year alone.
• Two government ministries in Egypt have been ordered to produce a national plan to “confront and eliminate” atheism. The Egyptian parliament is looking to criminalise atheism. Recently, Mohammed Hashem was told to see a psychiatrist and kicked off a television show for not believing in God. A mother has even lost custody of her children because she is an atheist.
• A series of laws in Saudi Arabia define terrorism as “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion.”
• A Malaysian government minister has said that atheists should be “hunted down” and “re-educated.”
• In Pakistan, a High Court Judge has reiterated that “blasphemers are terrorists” in a case that seeks to ban “derogatory” social media posts against Islam and Muhammad, Islam’s prophet.
Thirteen countries punish atheism with the death penalty, all Islamic states, namely Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE, and Yemen.
And even in countries without the death penalty, like Bangladesh, Islamists kill atheists whilst the government does little or like Tunisia, where Hatem Al Imam, the President of Tunisian Freethinkers has been brutally attacked. Turkish government-backed Islamists in Afrin address “Kurdish atheists,”telling them to repent or face decapitation …
Clearly, to be an atheist, to question or criticise God, prophets, Islam and any religion or dogma is not a crime though too many are being killed or imprisoned for it. It is high time to stop blaming atheists for their persecution under cover of offence, Islamophobia, hurt sentiments… and instead target the states and movements that are hunting down, imprisoning and murdering people for the mere exercise of their freedom of expression and conscience.
Urgent cases that need our immediate attention include:
Bangladesh: Asad Noor, a 25-year-old atheist blogger is facing up to 14 years in prison because he “hurt religious feelings” with his social media posts “mocking the prophet”.
Iran: 20-year-old Sina Dehghan was sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet”. Deghan’s co-defendants, Sahar Eliasi and Mohammad Nouri, have also been convicted of posting anti-Islamic content on social media. Nouri was sentenced to death; Eliasi has been sentenced to three years in prison upon appeal. Soheil Arabi was initially sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet” is on hunger strike and in critical condition. Ruhollah Tavana and Saeed Malekpour have also been sentenced to death for “insulting the Prophet” and “insulting and desecrating Islam” respectively.
Iraq: In Dhi Qar- Al-Nasiriya, a city in the southern part of Iraq, atheists have been hunted down; in most recent news, one of four has been arrested for “spreading the culture of the absence of God.”
Pakistan: Ayaz Nizami and Rana Noman face the death penalty for “blasphemy.” After the arrest, #HangAyazNizami trended on Twitter. Taimoor Raza, 30, has also been sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet Muhammad.”
Saudi Arabia: Ahmad Al-Shamri, in his 20s, has been sentenced to death for atheism and blasphemy; Raif Badawi has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and a thousand lashes for “apostasy” and “insulting Islam”. Poet Ashraf Fayadhhas been sentenced to eight years imprisonment and lashes for poems containing “atheist ideas” reduced from an initial death sentence.
#AtheismNotACrime #EndBlasphemyLaws #EndApostasyLaws
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer.
Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter @MaryamNamazie
Add captionThe scientist and author Richard Dawkins is giving away translations of The God Delusion in countries under Islamic rule like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.
The reason behind the decision is the thirst for atheism in such countries. Whilst 3.3 million copies of the bestseller have been sold since 2006, the unofficial Arabic pdf alone has been downloaded 13 million times.
The rise of atheism in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is something we have been speaking about for some time now. The Iranian Baztab Now website warned of a tsunami of atheism amongst Iranian youth. The #ExMuslimBecause hashtag initiated by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain became viral overnight with over 120,000 Tweets from 65 countries.
The hashtag “#Aik crore Pakistani mulhid” (10 million Pakistani atheists) trended around Darwin Day for two years running. Free Mind, launched by Arab atheists promoting atheism, has recorded more than 1 million visits so far.
The now highly visible and vocal ex-Muslim movement (a new Council has just been established in Jordan), the access to atheism and freethought via social media, the deep-seated opposition to theocratic rule that comes from lived experience, the irrationality of religious doctrine, the authoritarianism of religious rule, scepticism about prophets and contradictory tenets, the unrelenting violence, amongst others, make atheism increasingly enticing for a mostly young population.
Remove Islamism’s threats and apostasy and blasphemy laws from people’s lives and even we ex-Muslims will be stunned at the extent of atheism in countries under Islamic rule.
The powers that be have understood the “threat” atheism poses – seeing it as an existential danger, especially since Islam and state power are intertwined, hence why atheists are persecuted (with many others including religious minorities, women’s rights activists, labour leaders and LGBT).
• Iran as one of the most important bases of atheism in the Middle East, with more than half the population using the Internet regularly, has seen a government ban on more than 160,000 social media accounts and websites for spreading “atheism and corruption” in one year alone.
• Two government ministries in Egypt have been ordered to produce a national plan to “confront and eliminate” atheism. The Egyptian parliament is looking to criminalise atheism. Recently, Mohammed Hashem was told to see a psychiatrist and kicked off a television show for not believing in God. A mother has even lost custody of her children because she is an atheist.
• A series of laws in Saudi Arabia define terrorism as “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion.”
• A Malaysian government minister has said that atheists should be “hunted down” and “re-educated.”
• In Pakistan, a High Court Judge has reiterated that “blasphemers are terrorists” in a case that seeks to ban “derogatory” social media posts against Islam and Muhammad, Islam’s prophet.
Thirteen countries punish atheism with the death penalty, all Islamic states, namely Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE, and Yemen.
And even in countries without the death penalty, like Bangladesh, Islamists kill atheists whilst the government does little or like Tunisia, where Hatem Al Imam, the President of Tunisian Freethinkers has been brutally attacked. Turkish government-backed Islamists in Afrin address “Kurdish atheists,”telling them to repent or face decapitation …
Clearly, to be an atheist, to question or criticise God, prophets, Islam and any religion or dogma is not a crime though too many are being killed or imprisoned for it. It is high time to stop blaming atheists for their persecution under cover of offence, Islamophobia, hurt sentiments… and instead target the states and movements that are hunting down, imprisoning and murdering people for the mere exercise of their freedom of expression and conscience.
Urgent cases that need our immediate attention include:
Bangladesh: Asad Noor, a 25-year-old atheist blogger is facing up to 14 years in prison because he “hurt religious feelings” with his social media posts “mocking the prophet”.
Iran: 20-year-old Sina Dehghan was sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet”. Deghan’s co-defendants, Sahar Eliasi and Mohammad Nouri, have also been convicted of posting anti-Islamic content on social media. Nouri was sentenced to death; Eliasi has been sentenced to three years in prison upon appeal. Soheil Arabi was initially sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet” is on hunger strike and in critical condition. Ruhollah Tavana and Saeed Malekpour have also been sentenced to death for “insulting the Prophet” and “insulting and desecrating Islam” respectively.
Iraq: In Dhi Qar- Al-Nasiriya, a city in the southern part of Iraq, atheists have been hunted down; in most recent news, one of four has been arrested for “spreading the culture of the absence of God.”
Pakistan: Ayaz Nizami and Rana Noman face the death penalty for “blasphemy.” After the arrest, #HangAyazNizami trended on Twitter. Taimoor Raza, 30, has also been sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet Muhammad.”
Saudi Arabia: Ahmad Al-Shamri, in his 20s, has been sentenced to death for atheism and blasphemy; Raif Badawi has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and a thousand lashes for “apostasy” and “insulting Islam”. Poet Ashraf Fayadhhas been sentenced to eight years imprisonment and lashes for poems containing “atheist ideas” reduced from an initial death sentence.
#AtheismNotACrime #EndBlasphemyLaws #EndApostasyLaws
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer.Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter @MaryamNamazie
April 18, 2018
The Funeral Murders
Brian Morgan challenges the bias in a recent documentary covering the deaths of two British soldiers in 1988.
I have just seen the BBC documentary The Funeral Murders by Vanessa Engle (Here). Ms Engle’s makes no attempt to understand or investigate events of 1988 nor to be balanced. Instead the film-maker seems to take the opportunity to re-affirm, 30 years later, the depiction of the people of west Belfast as savages or hyenas; and in case you missed her emphasis the first time the footage of the hyenas was played a second time for good measure. Ms Engle’s does not make any pretence that she is trying to understand or investigate the events of 1988. She offers nothing new but has studiously left undisturbed the contradictions to the official accounts, which remain to be answered.
I was involved in the events that occurred at both funerals. I was not a member of the IRA nor had I any training on how to respond to armed gunmen attacking civilians. All the contributors, including the 3 IRA/Republican spokespersons seem to overlook that the majority of those who pursued Michael Stone or disarmed the 2 Corporals were ordinary members of the public and not members of the IRA.
I was one of the civilian majority on both occasions; at Milltown we could say there was at least a 2:1 ratio of civilian/IRA involvement (based on those killed); and in Andersonstown the civilian ratio is even higher if we consider the number of civilians who received convictions ranging from suspended sentences up to life imprisonment. To this day I remain confident that I acted impeccably on both occasions and at no time did I act like a hyena nor did I witness anyone else behave that way.
There are 2 important comparisons to be made: after Stone had been caught and disarmed the Security Forces moved in to rescue him. Whereas, they deserted the 2 Corporals knowing that they could have intervened. In both cases the members of the public who apprehended these armed attackers did no more than rough them up a bit in order to disarm them. For example, both Corporals were able to walk unassisted to Casement Park where members of the IRA awaited them.
In Milltown, myself and Thomas McErlean (I did not know him at the time) were at the front of the chase after Michael Stone. We were running after him along the fence. The angle of the footage from the graveyard gives a false sense of the pursuing crowd being more tightly grouped than we actually were. In reality, there was a notable gap between us and those behind us. When Stone reached the end of the fence close to the motorway Thomas McErlean told me that he had been hit. I caught hold of him while he was still on his feet. As I kneeled beside him I could not see what was wrong with him and did not know what to do. When someone arrived, that seemed to know what to do Thomas turned his face toward me and told me that he was ok and for me to keep chasing Stone: “Don’t let him get away.” he insisted. I continued to chase after Stone. I was again at the head of the chase and each time I tried to get ahead of Stone he would shoot at me to stop me encircling him. A container lorry was stopped on the road ahead of us and when I reached it I used it for cover to sprint ahead. Another man from Nansen Street in Iveagh was with me. We managed to get ahead of Stone and cut off his route. While Stone fired shots at us this afforded another man the chance to come up behind him. This man initially had a large traffic cone to hit Stone with but it was too unwieldy and as Stone realised he was there the man quickly dropped the cone and wrapped an arm around Stone’s neck pulling him backwards. As Stone stumbled he threw his last grenade among his pursuers, a boy (from Beechmount), in his early or mid-teens quickly kicked the grenade down the embankment where it exploded harmlessly. A number of us descended onto Stone from every direction. I managed to get his gun. I had never handled a revolver before and by the time I realised the gun was empty a larger crowd had descended on Stone that only his legs remained visible to me. I later learned that a second gun had fallen out of his pocket –apparently, this gun had jammed because the wrong size bullets were in it.
At the funeral 3 days later, I was near the back when I heard the commotion and screeching of car wheels. I sprinted forward. I arrived as one suspected loyalist was being brought to the ground. For a moment I saw his gun lying on the road. As I went to reach for it someone else lifted it. I then noticed 2 men wrestling with each other. One was a steward and the other I knew to see from the Davis area. I initially thought he had the gun and the steward had mistaken him for another loyalist attacker. I broke them up and when I turned around again the suspected loyalist was standing up and someone began to lead him toward Casement Park. I was standing by the front door of the attacker’s car when someone told me to search the front while he searched the back of the car. This man opened a holdall and made a sharp intake of air at whatever he saw. As we looked at each other between the front seats he told me to drive. I did not know how to drive and he then told me to clear the road for him. I thought it might have been explosives in the bag and shouted for everyone to clear the road because there was a bomb in the car. A space opened up and the car revved away.
Afterwards the BBC broadcast a blatantly false report; the claim was (and still is) that after leaving North Howard Street Mill the soldiers should have turned left instead of right on the Falls Road –one route would have afforded them safety along the M1 the other provided only danger on the Andersonstown Road. It was such a false claim I figured it was only for the benefit of anyone who did not know Belfast, (the Soldiers Families for example) because everyone here knows the Grosvenor, Broadway and Donegal Roads are all direct access roads onto the motorway, as is Kennedy Way also. Ms Engle’s did not try to correct the record but repeated the inaccurate historical BBC narrative. Nor did Ms Engle’s make any attempt to challenge or question the official account from the MoD.
There is persuasive evidence that these 2 soldiers did not leave North Howard Street Barracks as alleged but where in fact based in in the Andersonstown area that day. For example, the documentary unwittingly reveals that the Soldiers were initially identified by a commanding RUC officer in Andersonstown because they were driving one of his unmarked patrol cars from Woodbourne Barracks.
Senior Republican, Danny Morrison gave his personal view about something he obviously had no first-hand knowledge about. No one involved in the initial disarming of both suspected loyalists had any idea both attackers were Military personnel. In addition, an anonymous IRA spokesperson berated how the public responded under attack. The IRA took control of the situation at a later stage, ultimately shooting both soldiers. I don’t think the Country IRA apply a higher standard when they shoot their semi naked victims and dump their bodies along the border. I also assume, that this man’s closest experience, if any, of contact with his enemy might be no more than through a pair of binoculars on a command-wire half a mile away from any attack. It certainly, is not as a civilian up close and personal as in Milltown or Andersonstown.
In reply to Mr Morrison and the anonymous IRA man with regard to the initially suspected loyalists: 1) the IRA only took control of the situation once the 2 were inside Casement Park. Only then were the soldiers stripped and searched and that is the earliest stage when the 2 assumed loyalist attacker’s true identities could have become known.
Regardless of their identities, panicked and frightened civilians acted in unison in self-defence to prevent a deadly attack. It was the quick reaction of those closest to the car that day that prevented any civilian deaths had these men not been stopped. I would even say that there are probably people in France, London, Germany and the US wishing they could have reacted as quickly as unarmed civilians in Belfast did when faced with the same unknown dangers from gunmen driving at deadly speed into members of the public.
If the 2 Soldiers were, as contributors claim, so restrained and professional in the face of danger then they did not mount the footpath and drive at mourners out of panic as has been suggested, because they were the threat and not the mourners attending a funeral. One former Security Force contributor on the documentary was doing more to bemoan his disdain for the restrictions placed on the security forces from shooting Nationalists at random.
It has been said that, as professionals, the 2 Corporals tried to do what an amateur failed to do in Milltown Cemetery. From looking at a map that portion of the funeral route was probably the best location to spring an attack and still allow for the attackers to escape safely. However, they did not have the benefit of Google street view –an overhead map would not have shown the steel barrier between the road and the shops where their possible plan appears to have gone wrong. They drew level with where Adams & McGuinness where and only then realised there was a steel barrier between them. They could have kept driving forward to safety; the road ahead was clearing for them. Instead they reversed back the way they had come; they could have continued to reverse down the Andersons Road from where they came but they didn’t. Alternatively, they could have turned up Slemish Way but they choose not to. Instead they turned the wheels of the car to attempt to make another run at the cortege but this time without the barrier obstructing them. Their way was blocked this time by the quick thinking of a taxi driver. Even then they could still have reversed to safety further along the Andersonstown Road in the direction they had come.
Just like one of the contributors, I too was an ordinary Catholic from west Belfast and these attacks made their mark on me. There is no dispute that these 2 soldiers died an awful death: what needn’t have happened did.
The 2 attacking soldiers were not as restrained as they are posthumously being credited with. The soldier in the passenger seat attempted to shoot at the crowd but his gun jammed. The driver could not get a clear shot at those tackling his partner. He fired a shot and then attempted to get out of the car to get a clear shot at those grappling with his partner. He was prevented from killing anyone by the quick thinking of those close by.
However, they were prevented from killing anyone and none of the critics in the documentary, suggest how members of the public should react when under violent attack from gun, grenade or high speed car? The Loyalist contributor was unshaking for his pragmatic opinion that his community would have reacted the same way under similar circumstances.
I, and those who acted with me, acted with the best intention to bring 2 deadly situations to a stop and to prevent innocent civilians from being killed. It was not our fault these 2 soldiers recklessly put their own lives, and the lives of others, at risk. They could have withdrawn but choose not to but instead decided to attack at speed in their car.
As mostly civilians, we acted as best we could, our attackers were armed and we were not, we had no training and we were unprepared. I dare say that that there are people wishing they had been able to act sooner on the Promenade des Anglais on Bastile Day in 2016 to stop or limit the number of innocent people killed that day. It was only by luck and not design that the 2 Corporals did not kill anyone when they mounted foot paths and drove at deadly speed at mourners or because one of their guns jammed and the other soldier was quickly disarmed before getting a clear shot.
Equally, the Security Forces held back from rescuing their own men because they thought Nationalists/ Republicans were on the receiving end and not their own. It is not our fault they made a bad judgment call. Ms Engle’s further displays her own bias when being told by a senior RUC officer in charge that he was being ordered to act contrary to his own best judgment; Ms Engle’s did not try to discover who gave him his orders in March 1988 or why? What was her point?
Nor did she question how Michael Stone came to use an RUC issue revolver in his attack? The Official line is that the RUC officer who may have aided and abetted in the Milltown Attack could not be identified because the serial number on his gun had been filed off. That is baloney, it is well established forensic science that the indentation of a serial number on metal cannot be fully removed because it is still discernible at molecular level. Nor was she concerned that MI5 armed Loyalists with the very grenades that Stone used in his deadly attack in Milltown Cemetery.
The Security Forces had an arsenal of camera’s trained on Milltown Cemetery, not least from Broadway Towers or several helicopters: it is inconceivable that they did not track where the white van went or get a picture of the number plate.
Some years ago within British Military circles questions were being asked about the mysterious death of a member of the Military Police in Afghanistan. Members of the British Army for some reason related this man’s mysterious death to something he discovered when tasked to investigate Michael Stone’s attack on mourners in Milltown Cemetery.
Ms Engle’s has made no attempt to understand or investigate the outstanding questions that remain from those attacks and the security Forces role in either attack. Instead she made a documentary to re-demonise Nationalist’s/Republican’s for acting in self-defence 30 years ago. I am not only proud of how I responded and conducted myself but with every Islamic attack in Europe or elsewhere I only wish other civilians could follow our example; whether their attackers are armed with guns, knives or cars.
I have just seen the BBC documentary The Funeral Murders by Vanessa Engle (Here). Ms Engle’s makes no attempt to understand or investigate events of 1988 nor to be balanced. Instead the film-maker seems to take the opportunity to re-affirm, 30 years later, the depiction of the people of west Belfast as savages or hyenas; and in case you missed her emphasis the first time the footage of the hyenas was played a second time for good measure. Ms Engle’s does not make any pretence that she is trying to understand or investigate the events of 1988. She offers nothing new but has studiously left undisturbed the contradictions to the official accounts, which remain to be answered.
I was involved in the events that occurred at both funerals. I was not a member of the IRA nor had I any training on how to respond to armed gunmen attacking civilians. All the contributors, including the 3 IRA/Republican spokespersons seem to overlook that the majority of those who pursued Michael Stone or disarmed the 2 Corporals were ordinary members of the public and not members of the IRA.
I was one of the civilian majority on both occasions; at Milltown we could say there was at least a 2:1 ratio of civilian/IRA involvement (based on those killed); and in Andersonstown the civilian ratio is even higher if we consider the number of civilians who received convictions ranging from suspended sentences up to life imprisonment. To this day I remain confident that I acted impeccably on both occasions and at no time did I act like a hyena nor did I witness anyone else behave that way.
There are 2 important comparisons to be made: after Stone had been caught and disarmed the Security Forces moved in to rescue him. Whereas, they deserted the 2 Corporals knowing that they could have intervened. In both cases the members of the public who apprehended these armed attackers did no more than rough them up a bit in order to disarm them. For example, both Corporals were able to walk unassisted to Casement Park where members of the IRA awaited them.
In Milltown, myself and Thomas McErlean (I did not know him at the time) were at the front of the chase after Michael Stone. We were running after him along the fence. The angle of the footage from the graveyard gives a false sense of the pursuing crowd being more tightly grouped than we actually were. In reality, there was a notable gap between us and those behind us. When Stone reached the end of the fence close to the motorway Thomas McErlean told me that he had been hit. I caught hold of him while he was still on his feet. As I kneeled beside him I could not see what was wrong with him and did not know what to do. When someone arrived, that seemed to know what to do Thomas turned his face toward me and told me that he was ok and for me to keep chasing Stone: “Don’t let him get away.” he insisted. I continued to chase after Stone. I was again at the head of the chase and each time I tried to get ahead of Stone he would shoot at me to stop me encircling him. A container lorry was stopped on the road ahead of us and when I reached it I used it for cover to sprint ahead. Another man from Nansen Street in Iveagh was with me. We managed to get ahead of Stone and cut off his route. While Stone fired shots at us this afforded another man the chance to come up behind him. This man initially had a large traffic cone to hit Stone with but it was too unwieldy and as Stone realised he was there the man quickly dropped the cone and wrapped an arm around Stone’s neck pulling him backwards. As Stone stumbled he threw his last grenade among his pursuers, a boy (from Beechmount), in his early or mid-teens quickly kicked the grenade down the embankment where it exploded harmlessly. A number of us descended onto Stone from every direction. I managed to get his gun. I had never handled a revolver before and by the time I realised the gun was empty a larger crowd had descended on Stone that only his legs remained visible to me. I later learned that a second gun had fallen out of his pocket –apparently, this gun had jammed because the wrong size bullets were in it.
At the funeral 3 days later, I was near the back when I heard the commotion and screeching of car wheels. I sprinted forward. I arrived as one suspected loyalist was being brought to the ground. For a moment I saw his gun lying on the road. As I went to reach for it someone else lifted it. I then noticed 2 men wrestling with each other. One was a steward and the other I knew to see from the Davis area. I initially thought he had the gun and the steward had mistaken him for another loyalist attacker. I broke them up and when I turned around again the suspected loyalist was standing up and someone began to lead him toward Casement Park. I was standing by the front door of the attacker’s car when someone told me to search the front while he searched the back of the car. This man opened a holdall and made a sharp intake of air at whatever he saw. As we looked at each other between the front seats he told me to drive. I did not know how to drive and he then told me to clear the road for him. I thought it might have been explosives in the bag and shouted for everyone to clear the road because there was a bomb in the car. A space opened up and the car revved away.
Afterwards the BBC broadcast a blatantly false report; the claim was (and still is) that after leaving North Howard Street Mill the soldiers should have turned left instead of right on the Falls Road –one route would have afforded them safety along the M1 the other provided only danger on the Andersonstown Road. It was such a false claim I figured it was only for the benefit of anyone who did not know Belfast, (the Soldiers Families for example) because everyone here knows the Grosvenor, Broadway and Donegal Roads are all direct access roads onto the motorway, as is Kennedy Way also. Ms Engle’s did not try to correct the record but repeated the inaccurate historical BBC narrative. Nor did Ms Engle’s make any attempt to challenge or question the official account from the MoD.
There is persuasive evidence that these 2 soldiers did not leave North Howard Street Barracks as alleged but where in fact based in in the Andersonstown area that day. For example, the documentary unwittingly reveals that the Soldiers were initially identified by a commanding RUC officer in Andersonstown because they were driving one of his unmarked patrol cars from Woodbourne Barracks.
Senior Republican, Danny Morrison gave his personal view about something he obviously had no first-hand knowledge about. No one involved in the initial disarming of both suspected loyalists had any idea both attackers were Military personnel. In addition, an anonymous IRA spokesperson berated how the public responded under attack. The IRA took control of the situation at a later stage, ultimately shooting both soldiers. I don’t think the Country IRA apply a higher standard when they shoot their semi naked victims and dump their bodies along the border. I also assume, that this man’s closest experience, if any, of contact with his enemy might be no more than through a pair of binoculars on a command-wire half a mile away from any attack. It certainly, is not as a civilian up close and personal as in Milltown or Andersonstown.
In reply to Mr Morrison and the anonymous IRA man with regard to the initially suspected loyalists: 1) the IRA only took control of the situation once the 2 were inside Casement Park. Only then were the soldiers stripped and searched and that is the earliest stage when the 2 assumed loyalist attacker’s true identities could have become known.
Regardless of their identities, panicked and frightened civilians acted in unison in self-defence to prevent a deadly attack. It was the quick reaction of those closest to the car that day that prevented any civilian deaths had these men not been stopped. I would even say that there are probably people in France, London, Germany and the US wishing they could have reacted as quickly as unarmed civilians in Belfast did when faced with the same unknown dangers from gunmen driving at deadly speed into members of the public.
If the 2 Soldiers were, as contributors claim, so restrained and professional in the face of danger then they did not mount the footpath and drive at mourners out of panic as has been suggested, because they were the threat and not the mourners attending a funeral. One former Security Force contributor on the documentary was doing more to bemoan his disdain for the restrictions placed on the security forces from shooting Nationalists at random.
It has been said that, as professionals, the 2 Corporals tried to do what an amateur failed to do in Milltown Cemetery. From looking at a map that portion of the funeral route was probably the best location to spring an attack and still allow for the attackers to escape safely. However, they did not have the benefit of Google street view –an overhead map would not have shown the steel barrier between the road and the shops where their possible plan appears to have gone wrong. They drew level with where Adams & McGuinness where and only then realised there was a steel barrier between them. They could have kept driving forward to safety; the road ahead was clearing for them. Instead they reversed back the way they had come; they could have continued to reverse down the Andersons Road from where they came but they didn’t. Alternatively, they could have turned up Slemish Way but they choose not to. Instead they turned the wheels of the car to attempt to make another run at the cortege but this time without the barrier obstructing them. Their way was blocked this time by the quick thinking of a taxi driver. Even then they could still have reversed to safety further along the Andersonstown Road in the direction they had come.
Just like one of the contributors, I too was an ordinary Catholic from west Belfast and these attacks made their mark on me. There is no dispute that these 2 soldiers died an awful death: what needn’t have happened did.
The 2 attacking soldiers were not as restrained as they are posthumously being credited with. The soldier in the passenger seat attempted to shoot at the crowd but his gun jammed. The driver could not get a clear shot at those tackling his partner. He fired a shot and then attempted to get out of the car to get a clear shot at those grappling with his partner. He was prevented from killing anyone by the quick thinking of those close by.
However, they were prevented from killing anyone and none of the critics in the documentary, suggest how members of the public should react when under violent attack from gun, grenade or high speed car? The Loyalist contributor was unshaking for his pragmatic opinion that his community would have reacted the same way under similar circumstances.
I, and those who acted with me, acted with the best intention to bring 2 deadly situations to a stop and to prevent innocent civilians from being killed. It was not our fault these 2 soldiers recklessly put their own lives, and the lives of others, at risk. They could have withdrawn but choose not to but instead decided to attack at speed in their car.
As mostly civilians, we acted as best we could, our attackers were armed and we were not, we had no training and we were unprepared. I dare say that that there are people wishing they had been able to act sooner on the Promenade des Anglais on Bastile Day in 2016 to stop or limit the number of innocent people killed that day. It was only by luck and not design that the 2 Corporals did not kill anyone when they mounted foot paths and drove at deadly speed at mourners or because one of their guns jammed and the other soldier was quickly disarmed before getting a clear shot.
Equally, the Security Forces held back from rescuing their own men because they thought Nationalists/ Republicans were on the receiving end and not their own. It is not our fault they made a bad judgment call. Ms Engle’s further displays her own bias when being told by a senior RUC officer in charge that he was being ordered to act contrary to his own best judgment; Ms Engle’s did not try to discover who gave him his orders in March 1988 or why? What was her point?
Nor did she question how Michael Stone came to use an RUC issue revolver in his attack? The Official line is that the RUC officer who may have aided and abetted in the Milltown Attack could not be identified because the serial number on his gun had been filed off. That is baloney, it is well established forensic science that the indentation of a serial number on metal cannot be fully removed because it is still discernible at molecular level. Nor was she concerned that MI5 armed Loyalists with the very grenades that Stone used in his deadly attack in Milltown Cemetery.
The Security Forces had an arsenal of camera’s trained on Milltown Cemetery, not least from Broadway Towers or several helicopters: it is inconceivable that they did not track where the white van went or get a picture of the number plate.
Some years ago within British Military circles questions were being asked about the mysterious death of a member of the Military Police in Afghanistan. Members of the British Army for some reason related this man’s mysterious death to something he discovered when tasked to investigate Michael Stone’s attack on mourners in Milltown Cemetery.
Ms Engle’s has made no attempt to understand or investigate the outstanding questions that remain from those attacks and the security Forces role in either attack. Instead she made a documentary to re-demonise Nationalist’s/Republican’s for acting in self-defence 30 years ago. I am not only proud of how I responded and conducted myself but with every Islamic attack in Europe or elsewhere I only wish other civilians could follow our example; whether their attackers are armed with guns, knives or cars.
April 17, 2018
Fighting the Empire - Dublin in the Revolutionary Years (1)
Matt Treacy journeys back a century in time to Dublin.
Dublin between the defeat of the 1916 Rising and the resurgence of the revolution after 1917 was a grim place for many of its inhabitants. A Local Government Board report in 1917 on the health of mothers and children stated that the infant mortality rate in the city was 160.3 per 1,000. 9% of children born in the city died before they reached the age of one. To put that into perspective it was around twice the current child mortality rate of even the most impoverished and conflict ridden African countries.
In one week alone, in April 1917, eighteen children had died of measles in Dublin. Destitution haunted tens of thousands and unemployment was a virtual death sentence, but even having a job was no guarantee of surviving the grim streets on which Big Jim Larkin had once thundered witnessed the daily crucifixion of Christ. In the first week of April, 1917, the St. Joseph’s Night Refuge on Cork Street run by the Sisters of Mercy had taken in 539 women workers and their children.
There were those who thrived like cockroaches on the city’s misery. The women who ran the brothels with the help of male thugs, or “bullies” as they were known in Dublin parlance, seem to be partly glorified in Joyce’s Ulysses. They were anything but romantic rebels against convention. One of them was Eliza Mack who ran a brothel in Mecklenburgh Street. She lived at 85 Lower Tyrone Street which became Railway Street. In the 1901 Census, her “lodgers” are variously listed as a dressmaker, lace maker, waitress, milliner, housemaid and servant. They were all aged between 21 and 32, Mack was 50, and all other than perhaps the servant were prostitutes.
None of the women in the house were born in Dublin and two of them were English. Mack herself was born in Cork, which lends credence to the belief that most of the women working in the “kips” were originally from outside of the city and had been forced by one means or another to work for the likes of Mack. As they aged and their looks faded like Dicey Reilly they moved to cheaper rougher establishments and eventually onto the streets. Becky Cooper was another of the main brothel keepers who also had a house on Mecklenburgh Street. Some have speculated that Joyce based his Bella Cohen on Becky Cooper, although curiously there was a 58 year old Anne Cohen who lived at 14 Mecklenburgh Lane in 1901.
Cooper’s brother, John “Chanters” or “Shankers” Ryan, who was a Military Policeman was shot dead by the IRA Squad in Hynes pub 19 Lower Gloucester Place on February 6, 1921. He had been the tout who had led the Auxies to the house on Gloucester Street, now Seán MacDermott Street, where Dick McKee and Peadar Clancy were staying on November 20, 1920. Ryan lived on Railway Street and Gloucester Place connected it to Gloucester Street.
Among those others who fed off the desperation of the poor were the moneylenders. On November 20, 1917, two moneylenders, a mother and daughter Josephine and Mary McMahon of 2 Lower Gardiner Street were fined a total of £30 for charging exorbitant interest rates – calculated at 1300% over the year – and having kept the papers of women who were married to soldiers to ensure that they would repay what was owed from the “separation” or “ring” money. In one case a woman who had borrowed 23 shillings – £1 3s – was liable to pay back £4 12s.
One of the causes of lack of money was the high cost of housing, even for those who were working. Apart from that the standard of housing in Dublin was bad. That did lead to the Corporation to propose a number of housing schemes in the city, but they were not greeted with much enthusiasm by anyone. Land owners demanded high prices for sites, and others objected to the poor quality of the housing proposed.
In September an inquiry by P.C Cowan of the Local Government Board, who wrote a report on the housing situation in Dublin, assessed the application of the city authorities for a £191,150 loan to build houses. The standard set for the homes does not sound very attractive. They were to consist of three rooms, with a nine foot by seven foot bedroom with no provision for hot water or baths as they were deemed to be too expensive. There were to be 26 houses per acre which both the Tenants Association, who argued for a maximum of ten, and the Dublin Watch Committee, believed was too congested and would create new slums. Rents were set at between 6s and 10s a week, which was thought too high for many on low incomes.
As the extension of a limited franchise to women seemed increasingly likely, a meeting in the Mansion house on March 14 1917 proposed that the enfranchisement of women be made an integral part of any solution of the “Irish question.” The meeting was supported by a disparate range of organisations; from the Irish Catholic Women Suffrage Association to the Conservative and Unionist Suffrage Association. Mrs. De Burgh Daly of the Church League for Women Suffrage referred to the fact that some Dublin women were earning as little as 10 or 12s a week, and some girls as little as 6s, and that that alone entitled them to an “unanswerable claim to a share in the government of the country.”
The Unionists and Redmondites, fearful of the outcome of an election held on a much wider franchise, began to equivocate on the whole issue of the expanded franchise, including for women. There were even proposals that Ireland be excluded from the new legislation so as not to threaten the status quo. It was alleged that the Irish Tories and Redmondites were attempting to apply pressure on Lloyd George to hold any new general election on the old register.
At a meeting on October 30 1917, presided over by Lord Mayor O’Neill, opposition was made clear to any attempt to exclude Ireland from a new electoral act. When confronted over his new stance on the issue of women’s suffrage, Redmond had apparently said that he had not changed his mind. A message from Arthur Griffith to the meeting declared that Sinn Féin “repudiated the authority of men who pretended to represent Ireland attempting to prevent Irish men and Irish women receiving their franchise which was their right.”
Although Catholic social activists supported improving the lot of working people, most of the efforts of Catholic groups were taken up with moral issues. Count Plunkett, father of Joseph executed following the Rising and who had won the North Roscommon seat as an abstentionist republican candidate in February 1917, spoke at a Catholic Truth Society conference on October 11. His main focus was on the dangers facing Irish girls who travelled to England to work in munitions factories, given that England was now a “largely paganised country.”
Fr. R. Devane spoke on the dangers of socialism. As workers acquired expanded political rights the question was whether they would abide by Catholic social teaching, or embrace atheistic socialism. The key to ensuring that they would follow the Faith of their Fathers was for the church to reach out to the working man and to “espouse the cause of the weak and oppressed.” In common with most Catholic activists, he was careful not to disparage Connolly who he said had “spoke on behalf of the oppressed through the compelling mouths of Mauser rifles,” but that what was really required was the formation of a Catholic Social League, similar to that founded in Cork.
The Cork league had been formed in July 1917 by Professor Alfred O’Rahilly in frustration at the refusal of the local St. Vincent de Paul society to seriously address issues such as the exploitation of workers in Cork. The type of “Catholic Action” decried by O’Rahilly was epitomised in Dublin by the Vigilance Association or Committee which was obsessed with “evil literature” and the nefarious impact of the theatre and cinema rather than the conditions of life of the objects of their moral concern.
In October 1917 the Vigilance Association managed to persuade Dublin Corporation to appoint two of its members, E.M Gough and A.J Murray as voluntary film censors. That was proposed by Sir Charles Cameron, who was in charge of the Public Health Department for the Corporation. He was also a leading Freemason in Dublin, and the Corporation was still dominated by members of the Irish Party and Unionists in 1917. The desire to police public morality was by no means the preserve of militant Catholics, and was a common feature of all western countries after World War I. The Vigilance Committee attended screenings of what they deemed to be immoral films and then reported them to the Corporation in an effort to persuade cinema owners to withdraw the offending items.
As the national struggle began to intensify so too did the strains produced by external events. In 1918 they were to range from the attempts to introduce conscription in the final months of World War I, to the devastation caused by the influenza and pneumonia epidemic that beset the city later in the year. All of that impacted upon the politics of Dublin with increased social tension around housing and workers wages and conditions.
At its AGM in January, the Dublin Watch Committee continued to call for more urgency and higher standards in relation to housing in the city. They were also concerned, in the spirit of civic responsibility, as were the religiously motivated guardians of public morality, with the consequences of sexual misadventure. Mrs. Tarpey said that there was an urgent need to tackle the problem of venereal disease, and that there was “something absolutely rotten” about Dublin.
Republicans also saw the need to tackle the terrible poverty that afflicted the city. A meeting of the South Dublin Guardians heard a proposal from the Wood Quay Sinn Féin cumann that part of the rates be used to buy food at wholesale cost price to be sold to the poor. The chairman said that they had no power to do any such thing. Sinn Féin had established a committee to prevent the export of food to Britain. Its Director of Food, Diarmuid Lynch had been arrested following the seizure of pigs on the North Circular Road en route to the North Wall and the boat. Matters did not end well for our porcine friends as apparently they were brought to Donnelly’s pig factory on Cork Street and slaughtered.
The Dáil continued to push such a policy and also supported the introduction of tillage rather than the rearing of animals for live export, but given the interests of many farmers in the latter, and the fact that many had done well during the war, there were obvious tensions over such notions within the movement. Such madness as buying food for the poor would certainly not have impressed the prudent bourgeois of the Dublin Chamber of commerce who demanded an inquiry into Corporation accounts as they felt that the burden of paying for the workhouses and asylums was too onerous.
Some had a sunnier view of the city despite its apparent woes. A Daily Express visitor enthused about the “streets, brilliantly lighted.. thronged with gay crowds. The men discuss Sinn Féin or sport and the women the “pictures.” The great DMP languidly stroll along with nothing to do and plenty of time to do it.” That would not last long.
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
Dublin between the defeat of the 1916 Rising and the resurgence of the revolution after 1917 was a grim place for many of its inhabitants. A Local Government Board report in 1917 on the health of mothers and children stated that the infant mortality rate in the city was 160.3 per 1,000. 9% of children born in the city died before they reached the age of one. To put that into perspective it was around twice the current child mortality rate of even the most impoverished and conflict ridden African countries.
In one week alone, in April 1917, eighteen children had died of measles in Dublin. Destitution haunted tens of thousands and unemployment was a virtual death sentence, but even having a job was no guarantee of surviving the grim streets on which Big Jim Larkin had once thundered witnessed the daily crucifixion of Christ. In the first week of April, 1917, the St. Joseph’s Night Refuge on Cork Street run by the Sisters of Mercy had taken in 539 women workers and their children.
There were those who thrived like cockroaches on the city’s misery. The women who ran the brothels with the help of male thugs, or “bullies” as they were known in Dublin parlance, seem to be partly glorified in Joyce’s Ulysses. They were anything but romantic rebels against convention. One of them was Eliza Mack who ran a brothel in Mecklenburgh Street. She lived at 85 Lower Tyrone Street which became Railway Street. In the 1901 Census, her “lodgers” are variously listed as a dressmaker, lace maker, waitress, milliner, housemaid and servant. They were all aged between 21 and 32, Mack was 50, and all other than perhaps the servant were prostitutes.
None of the women in the house were born in Dublin and two of them were English. Mack herself was born in Cork, which lends credence to the belief that most of the women working in the “kips” were originally from outside of the city and had been forced by one means or another to work for the likes of Mack. As they aged and their looks faded like Dicey Reilly they moved to cheaper rougher establishments and eventually onto the streets. Becky Cooper was another of the main brothel keepers who also had a house on Mecklenburgh Street. Some have speculated that Joyce based his Bella Cohen on Becky Cooper, although curiously there was a 58 year old Anne Cohen who lived at 14 Mecklenburgh Lane in 1901.
Cooper’s brother, John “Chanters” or “Shankers” Ryan, who was a Military Policeman was shot dead by the IRA Squad in Hynes pub 19 Lower Gloucester Place on February 6, 1921. He had been the tout who had led the Auxies to the house on Gloucester Street, now Seán MacDermott Street, where Dick McKee and Peadar Clancy were staying on November 20, 1920. Ryan lived on Railway Street and Gloucester Place connected it to Gloucester Street.
Among those others who fed off the desperation of the poor were the moneylenders. On November 20, 1917, two moneylenders, a mother and daughter Josephine and Mary McMahon of 2 Lower Gardiner Street were fined a total of £30 for charging exorbitant interest rates – calculated at 1300% over the year – and having kept the papers of women who were married to soldiers to ensure that they would repay what was owed from the “separation” or “ring” money. In one case a woman who had borrowed 23 shillings – £1 3s – was liable to pay back £4 12s.
One of the causes of lack of money was the high cost of housing, even for those who were working. Apart from that the standard of housing in Dublin was bad. That did lead to the Corporation to propose a number of housing schemes in the city, but they were not greeted with much enthusiasm by anyone. Land owners demanded high prices for sites, and others objected to the poor quality of the housing proposed.
In September an inquiry by P.C Cowan of the Local Government Board, who wrote a report on the housing situation in Dublin, assessed the application of the city authorities for a £191,150 loan to build houses. The standard set for the homes does not sound very attractive. They were to consist of three rooms, with a nine foot by seven foot bedroom with no provision for hot water or baths as they were deemed to be too expensive. There were to be 26 houses per acre which both the Tenants Association, who argued for a maximum of ten, and the Dublin Watch Committee, believed was too congested and would create new slums. Rents were set at between 6s and 10s a week, which was thought too high for many on low incomes.
As the extension of a limited franchise to women seemed increasingly likely, a meeting in the Mansion house on March 14 1917 proposed that the enfranchisement of women be made an integral part of any solution of the “Irish question.” The meeting was supported by a disparate range of organisations; from the Irish Catholic Women Suffrage Association to the Conservative and Unionist Suffrage Association. Mrs. De Burgh Daly of the Church League for Women Suffrage referred to the fact that some Dublin women were earning as little as 10 or 12s a week, and some girls as little as 6s, and that that alone entitled them to an “unanswerable claim to a share in the government of the country.”
The Unionists and Redmondites, fearful of the outcome of an election held on a much wider franchise, began to equivocate on the whole issue of the expanded franchise, including for women. There were even proposals that Ireland be excluded from the new legislation so as not to threaten the status quo. It was alleged that the Irish Tories and Redmondites were attempting to apply pressure on Lloyd George to hold any new general election on the old register.
At a meeting on October 30 1917, presided over by Lord Mayor O’Neill, opposition was made clear to any attempt to exclude Ireland from a new electoral act. When confronted over his new stance on the issue of women’s suffrage, Redmond had apparently said that he had not changed his mind. A message from Arthur Griffith to the meeting declared that Sinn Féin “repudiated the authority of men who pretended to represent Ireland attempting to prevent Irish men and Irish women receiving their franchise which was their right.”
Although Catholic social activists supported improving the lot of working people, most of the efforts of Catholic groups were taken up with moral issues. Count Plunkett, father of Joseph executed following the Rising and who had won the North Roscommon seat as an abstentionist republican candidate in February 1917, spoke at a Catholic Truth Society conference on October 11. His main focus was on the dangers facing Irish girls who travelled to England to work in munitions factories, given that England was now a “largely paganised country.”
Fr. R. Devane spoke on the dangers of socialism. As workers acquired expanded political rights the question was whether they would abide by Catholic social teaching, or embrace atheistic socialism. The key to ensuring that they would follow the Faith of their Fathers was for the church to reach out to the working man and to “espouse the cause of the weak and oppressed.” In common with most Catholic activists, he was careful not to disparage Connolly who he said had “spoke on behalf of the oppressed through the compelling mouths of Mauser rifles,” but that what was really required was the formation of a Catholic Social League, similar to that founded in Cork.
The Cork league had been formed in July 1917 by Professor Alfred O’Rahilly in frustration at the refusal of the local St. Vincent de Paul society to seriously address issues such as the exploitation of workers in Cork. The type of “Catholic Action” decried by O’Rahilly was epitomised in Dublin by the Vigilance Association or Committee which was obsessed with “evil literature” and the nefarious impact of the theatre and cinema rather than the conditions of life of the objects of their moral concern.
In October 1917 the Vigilance Association managed to persuade Dublin Corporation to appoint two of its members, E.M Gough and A.J Murray as voluntary film censors. That was proposed by Sir Charles Cameron, who was in charge of the Public Health Department for the Corporation. He was also a leading Freemason in Dublin, and the Corporation was still dominated by members of the Irish Party and Unionists in 1917. The desire to police public morality was by no means the preserve of militant Catholics, and was a common feature of all western countries after World War I. The Vigilance Committee attended screenings of what they deemed to be immoral films and then reported them to the Corporation in an effort to persuade cinema owners to withdraw the offending items.
As the national struggle began to intensify so too did the strains produced by external events. In 1918 they were to range from the attempts to introduce conscription in the final months of World War I, to the devastation caused by the influenza and pneumonia epidemic that beset the city later in the year. All of that impacted upon the politics of Dublin with increased social tension around housing and workers wages and conditions.
At its AGM in January, the Dublin Watch Committee continued to call for more urgency and higher standards in relation to housing in the city. They were also concerned, in the spirit of civic responsibility, as were the religiously motivated guardians of public morality, with the consequences of sexual misadventure. Mrs. Tarpey said that there was an urgent need to tackle the problem of venereal disease, and that there was “something absolutely rotten” about Dublin.
Republicans also saw the need to tackle the terrible poverty that afflicted the city. A meeting of the South Dublin Guardians heard a proposal from the Wood Quay Sinn Féin cumann that part of the rates be used to buy food at wholesale cost price to be sold to the poor. The chairman said that they had no power to do any such thing. Sinn Féin had established a committee to prevent the export of food to Britain. Its Director of Food, Diarmuid Lynch had been arrested following the seizure of pigs on the North Circular Road en route to the North Wall and the boat. Matters did not end well for our porcine friends as apparently they were brought to Donnelly’s pig factory on Cork Street and slaughtered.
The Dáil continued to push such a policy and also supported the introduction of tillage rather than the rearing of animals for live export, but given the interests of many farmers in the latter, and the fact that many had done well during the war, there were obvious tensions over such notions within the movement. Such madness as buying food for the poor would certainly not have impressed the prudent bourgeois of the Dublin Chamber of commerce who demanded an inquiry into Corporation accounts as they felt that the burden of paying for the workhouses and asylums was too onerous.
Some had a sunnier view of the city despite its apparent woes. A Daily Express visitor enthused about the “streets, brilliantly lighted.. thronged with gay crowds. The men discuss Sinn Féin or sport and the women the “pictures.” The great DMP languidly stroll along with nothing to do and plenty of time to do it.” That would not last long.
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 “Anti-Imperialism” Of Idiots
From People And Nature A guest post by Leila Al=Shami, first published on her blog.
Cartoon by Yaser, criticising selective outrage which only applies to chemical attacks
The first thing to note from the three major mobilisations of the western ‘anti-war’ left is that they have little to do with ending the war. More than half a million Syrians have been killed since 2011. The vast majority of civilian deaths have been through the use of conventional weapons and 94 per cent of these victims were killed by the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance. There is no outrage or concern feigned for this war, which followed the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators. There’s no outrage when barrel bombs, chemical weapons and napalm are dropped on democratically self-organized communities or target hospitals and rescue workers. Civilians are expendable; the military capabilities of a genocidal, fascist regime are not. In fact the slogan ‘Hands off Syria’ really means ‘Hands off Assad’ and support is often given for Russia’s military intervention. This was evident yesterday at a demonstration organized by Stop the War UK where a number of regime and Russian flags were shamefully on display.
This left exhibits deeply authoritarian tendencies, one that places states themselves at the centre of political analysis. Solidarity is therefore extended to states (seen as the main actor in a struggle for liberation) rather than oppressed or underprivileged groups in any given society, no matter that state’s tyranny. Blind to the social war occurring within Syria itself, the Syrian people (where they exist) are viewed as mere pawns in a geo-political chess game. They repeat the mantra ‘Assad is the legitimate ruler of a sovereign country’. Assad – who inherited a dictatorship from his father and has never held, let alone won, a free and fair election. Assad – whose ‘Syrian Arab Army’ can only regain the territory it lost with the backing of a hotchpotch of foreign mercenaries and supported by foreign bombs, and who are fighting, by and large, Syrian-born rebels and civilians. How many would consider their own elected government legitimate if it began carrying out mass rape campaigns against dissidents? It’s only the complete dehumanization of Syrians that makes such a position even possible. It’s a racism that sees Syrians as incapable of achieving, let alone deserving, anything better than one of the most brutal dictatorships of our time.
For this authoritarian left, support is extended to the Assad regime in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’. Assad is seen as part of the ‘axis of resistance’ against both US Empire and Zionism. It matters little that the Assad regime itself supported the first Gulf war, or participated in the US illegal rendition programme where suspected terrorists were tortured in Syria on the CIA’s behalf. The fact that this regime probably holds the dubious distinction of slaughtering more Palestinians than the Israeli state is constantly overlooked, as is the fact that it’s more intent on using its armed forces to suppress internal dissent than to liberate the Israeli-occupied Golan.
This ‘anti-imperialism’ of idiots is one which equates imperialism with the actions of the US alone. They seem unaware that the US has been bombing Syria since 2014. In its campaign to liberate Raqqa from Daesh all international norms of war and considerations of proportionality were abandoned. Over 1,000 civilians were killed and the UN estimates that 80 per cent of the city is now uninhabitable. There were no protests organized by leading ‘anti-war’ organizations against this intervention, no calls to ensure that civilians and civilian infrastructure were protected. Instead they adopted the ‘War on Terror’ discourse, once the preserve of neo-cons, now promulgated by the regime, that all opposition to Assad are jihadi terrorists. They turned a blind eye to Assad filling his gulag with thousands of secular, peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators for death by torture, whilst releasing militant-Islamists from prison. Similarly, the continuing protests held in liberated areas in opposition to extremist and authoritarian groups such as Daesh, Nusra and Ahrar Al Sham have been ignored. Syrians are not seen as possessing the sophistication to hold a diverse range of views. Civil society activists (including many amazing women), citizen journalists, humanitarian workers are irrelevant. The entire opposition is reduced to its most authoritarian elements or seen as mere conduits for foreign interests.
This pro-fascist left seems blind to any form of imperialism that is non-western in origin. It combines identity politics with egoism. Everything that happens is viewed through the prism of what it means for westerners – only white men have the power to make history. According to the Pentagon there are currently around 2000 American troops in Syria. The US has established a number of military bases in the Kurdish-controlled north for the first time in Syria’s history. This should concern anyone who supports Syrian self-determination yet pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias which are now occupying large parts of the country, or the murderous bombing raids carried out by the Russian air force in support of the fascist dictatorship. Russia has now established permanent military bases in the country, and has been handed exclusive rights over Syria’s oil and gas as a reward for its support. Noam Chomsky once argued that Russia’s intervention could not be considered imperialism because it was invited to bomb the country by the Syrian regime. By that analysis, the US’s intervention in Vietnam was not imperialism either, invited as it was by the South-Vietnamese government.
A number of anti-war organizations have justified their silence on Russian and Iranian interventions by arguing that ‘the main enemy is at home’. This excuses them from undertaking any serious power analysis to determine who the main actors driving the war actually are. For Syrians the main enemy is indeed at home – it’s Assad who is engaging in what the UN has termed ‘the crime of extermination’. Without being aware of their own contradictions many of the same voices have been vocally opposed (and rightly so) to Israel’s current assault on peaceful demonstrators in Gaza. Of course, one of the main ways imperialism works is to deny native voices. In this vein, leading western anti-war organizations hold conferences on Syria without inviting any Syrian speakers.
The other major political trend to have thrown its weight behind the Assad regime and organize against US, UK and French strikes on Syria is the far right. Today, the discourse of fascists and these ‘anti-imperialist leftists’ is virtually indistinguishable. In the US, white supremacist Richard Spencer, alt right podcaster Mike Enoch and anti-immigration activist Ann Coulter are all opposing US strikes. In the UK former BNP leader Nick Griffin and Islamophobe Katie Hopkins join the calls. The place where the alt-right and alt-left frequently converge is around promoting various conspiracy theories to absolve the regime of its crimes. They claim chemical massacres are false flags or that rescue workers are Al Qaeda and therefore legitimate targets for attack. Those spreading such reports are not on the ground in Syria and are unable to independently verify their claims. They are often dependent on Russian or Assad state propaganda outlets because they ‘don’t trust the MSM’ or Syrians directly affected. Sometimes the convergence of these two seemingly opposite strands of the political spectrum turns into outright collaboration. The ANSWER coalition, which is organizing many of the demonstrations against a strike on Assad in the US, has such a history. Both strands frequently promote Islamophobic and anti-Semitic narratives. Both share the same talking points and same memes.
There are many valid reasons for opposing external military intervention in Syria, whether it be by the US, Russia, Iran or Turkey. None of these states are acting in the interests of the Syrian people, democracy or human rights. They act solely in their own interests. The US, UK and French intervention today is less about protecting Syrians from mass-atrocity and more about enforcing an international norm that chemical weapons use is unacceptable, lest one day they be used on westerners themselves. More foreign bombs will not bring about peace and stability. There’s little appetite to force Assad from power which would contribute to ending the worst of the atrocities. Yet in opposing foreign intervention, one needs to come up with an alternative to protect Syrians from slaughter. It’s morally objectionable to say the least to expect Syrians to just shut up and die to protect the higher principle of ‘anti-imperialism’. Many alternatives to foreign military intervention have been proposed by Syrians time and again and have been ignored. And so the question remains, when diplomatic options have failed, when a genocidal regime is protected from censure by powerful international backers, when no progress is made in stopping daily bombing, ending starvation sieges or releasing prisoners who are being tortured on an industrial scale, what can be done.
I no longer have an answer. I’ve consistently opposed all foreign military intervention in Syria, supported Syrian led process to rid their country of a tyrant and international processes grounded in efforts to protect civilians and human rights and ensure accountability for all actors responsible for war-crimes. A negotiated settlement is the only way to end this war – and still seems as distant as ever. Assad (and his backers) are determined to thwart any process, pursue a total military victory and crush any remaining democratic alternative. Hundreds of Syrians are being killed every week in the most barbaric ways imaginable. Extremist groups and ideologies are thriving in the chaos wrought by the state. Civilians continue to flee in their thousands as legal processes – such as Law No.10 – are implemented to ensure they will never return to their homes. The international system itself is collapsing under the weight of its own impotence. The words ‘Never Again’ ring hollow. There’s no major people’s movement which stands in solidarity with the victims. They are instead slandered, their suffering is mocked or denied, and their voices either absent from discussions or questioned by people far away, who know nothing of Syria, revolution or war, and who arrogantly believe they know what is best. It is this desperate situation which causes many Syrians to welcome the US, UK and France’s action and who now see foreign intervention as their only hope, despite the risks they know it entails.
One thing is for sure – I won’t lose any sleep over targeted strikes aimed at regime military bases and chemical weapons plants which may provide Syrians with a short respite from the daily killing. And I will never see people who place grand narratives over lived realities, who support brutal regimes in far off countries, or who peddle racism, conspiracy theories and atrocity denial, as allies. 14 April 2018 (posted here 15 April)
Leila Al-Shami is a British Syrian, who has been involved in human rights and social justice struggles in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East since 2000. She is co-author of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War.
More on Syria and Iran
■ A new edition of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War, by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami, was published in February this year.
■ Iran: sedition, revolt, revolution and social disintegration, by Torab Saleth (March 2018)
■ Syria: the revolution is alive, but buried under rubble (December 2017)
■ The voices of Syria’s revolution (July 2017)
■ Syria. “Tyrants across the world know now they can maintain power through mass slaughter”. Interview with Leila al-Shami (December 2016)
Cartoon by Yaser, criticising selective outrage which only applies to chemical attacks The first thing to note from the three major mobilisations of the western ‘anti-war’ left is that they have little to do with ending the war. More than half a million Syrians have been killed since 2011. The vast majority of civilian deaths have been through the use of conventional weapons and 94 per cent of these victims were killed by the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance. There is no outrage or concern feigned for this war, which followed the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators. There’s no outrage when barrel bombs, chemical weapons and napalm are dropped on democratically self-organized communities or target hospitals and rescue workers. Civilians are expendable; the military capabilities of a genocidal, fascist regime are not. In fact the slogan ‘Hands off Syria’ really means ‘Hands off Assad’ and support is often given for Russia’s military intervention. This was evident yesterday at a demonstration organized by Stop the War UK where a number of regime and Russian flags were shamefully on display.
This left exhibits deeply authoritarian tendencies, one that places states themselves at the centre of political analysis. Solidarity is therefore extended to states (seen as the main actor in a struggle for liberation) rather than oppressed or underprivileged groups in any given society, no matter that state’s tyranny. Blind to the social war occurring within Syria itself, the Syrian people (where they exist) are viewed as mere pawns in a geo-political chess game. They repeat the mantra ‘Assad is the legitimate ruler of a sovereign country’. Assad – who inherited a dictatorship from his father and has never held, let alone won, a free and fair election. Assad – whose ‘Syrian Arab Army’ can only regain the territory it lost with the backing of a hotchpotch of foreign mercenaries and supported by foreign bombs, and who are fighting, by and large, Syrian-born rebels and civilians. How many would consider their own elected government legitimate if it began carrying out mass rape campaigns against dissidents? It’s only the complete dehumanization of Syrians that makes such a position even possible. It’s a racism that sees Syrians as incapable of achieving, let alone deserving, anything better than one of the most brutal dictatorships of our time.
For this authoritarian left, support is extended to the Assad regime in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’. Assad is seen as part of the ‘axis of resistance’ against both US Empire and Zionism. It matters little that the Assad regime itself supported the first Gulf war, or participated in the US illegal rendition programme where suspected terrorists were tortured in Syria on the CIA’s behalf. The fact that this regime probably holds the dubious distinction of slaughtering more Palestinians than the Israeli state is constantly overlooked, as is the fact that it’s more intent on using its armed forces to suppress internal dissent than to liberate the Israeli-occupied Golan.
This ‘anti-imperialism’ of idiots is one which equates imperialism with the actions of the US alone. They seem unaware that the US has been bombing Syria since 2014. In its campaign to liberate Raqqa from Daesh all international norms of war and considerations of proportionality were abandoned. Over 1,000 civilians were killed and the UN estimates that 80 per cent of the city is now uninhabitable. There were no protests organized by leading ‘anti-war’ organizations against this intervention, no calls to ensure that civilians and civilian infrastructure were protected. Instead they adopted the ‘War on Terror’ discourse, once the preserve of neo-cons, now promulgated by the regime, that all opposition to Assad are jihadi terrorists. They turned a blind eye to Assad filling his gulag with thousands of secular, peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators for death by torture, whilst releasing militant-Islamists from prison. Similarly, the continuing protests held in liberated areas in opposition to extremist and authoritarian groups such as Daesh, Nusra and Ahrar Al Sham have been ignored. Syrians are not seen as possessing the sophistication to hold a diverse range of views. Civil society activists (including many amazing women), citizen journalists, humanitarian workers are irrelevant. The entire opposition is reduced to its most authoritarian elements or seen as mere conduits for foreign interests.
This pro-fascist left seems blind to any form of imperialism that is non-western in origin. It combines identity politics with egoism. Everything that happens is viewed through the prism of what it means for westerners – only white men have the power to make history. According to the Pentagon there are currently around 2000 American troops in Syria. The US has established a number of military bases in the Kurdish-controlled north for the first time in Syria’s history. This should concern anyone who supports Syrian self-determination yet pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias which are now occupying large parts of the country, or the murderous bombing raids carried out by the Russian air force in support of the fascist dictatorship. Russia has now established permanent military bases in the country, and has been handed exclusive rights over Syria’s oil and gas as a reward for its support. Noam Chomsky once argued that Russia’s intervention could not be considered imperialism because it was invited to bomb the country by the Syrian regime. By that analysis, the US’s intervention in Vietnam was not imperialism either, invited as it was by the South-Vietnamese government.
A number of anti-war organizations have justified their silence on Russian and Iranian interventions by arguing that ‘the main enemy is at home’. This excuses them from undertaking any serious power analysis to determine who the main actors driving the war actually are. For Syrians the main enemy is indeed at home – it’s Assad who is engaging in what the UN has termed ‘the crime of extermination’. Without being aware of their own contradictions many of the same voices have been vocally opposed (and rightly so) to Israel’s current assault on peaceful demonstrators in Gaza. Of course, one of the main ways imperialism works is to deny native voices. In this vein, leading western anti-war organizations hold conferences on Syria without inviting any Syrian speakers.
The other major political trend to have thrown its weight behind the Assad regime and organize against US, UK and French strikes on Syria is the far right. Today, the discourse of fascists and these ‘anti-imperialist leftists’ is virtually indistinguishable. In the US, white supremacist Richard Spencer, alt right podcaster Mike Enoch and anti-immigration activist Ann Coulter are all opposing US strikes. In the UK former BNP leader Nick Griffin and Islamophobe Katie Hopkins join the calls. The place where the alt-right and alt-left frequently converge is around promoting various conspiracy theories to absolve the regime of its crimes. They claim chemical massacres are false flags or that rescue workers are Al Qaeda and therefore legitimate targets for attack. Those spreading such reports are not on the ground in Syria and are unable to independently verify their claims. They are often dependent on Russian or Assad state propaganda outlets because they ‘don’t trust the MSM’ or Syrians directly affected. Sometimes the convergence of these two seemingly opposite strands of the political spectrum turns into outright collaboration. The ANSWER coalition, which is organizing many of the demonstrations against a strike on Assad in the US, has such a history. Both strands frequently promote Islamophobic and anti-Semitic narratives. Both share the same talking points and same memes.
There are many valid reasons for opposing external military intervention in Syria, whether it be by the US, Russia, Iran or Turkey. None of these states are acting in the interests of the Syrian people, democracy or human rights. They act solely in their own interests. The US, UK and French intervention today is less about protecting Syrians from mass-atrocity and more about enforcing an international norm that chemical weapons use is unacceptable, lest one day they be used on westerners themselves. More foreign bombs will not bring about peace and stability. There’s little appetite to force Assad from power which would contribute to ending the worst of the atrocities. Yet in opposing foreign intervention, one needs to come up with an alternative to protect Syrians from slaughter. It’s morally objectionable to say the least to expect Syrians to just shut up and die to protect the higher principle of ‘anti-imperialism’. Many alternatives to foreign military intervention have been proposed by Syrians time and again and have been ignored. And so the question remains, when diplomatic options have failed, when a genocidal regime is protected from censure by powerful international backers, when no progress is made in stopping daily bombing, ending starvation sieges or releasing prisoners who are being tortured on an industrial scale, what can be done.
I no longer have an answer. I’ve consistently opposed all foreign military intervention in Syria, supported Syrian led process to rid their country of a tyrant and international processes grounded in efforts to protect civilians and human rights and ensure accountability for all actors responsible for war-crimes. A negotiated settlement is the only way to end this war – and still seems as distant as ever. Assad (and his backers) are determined to thwart any process, pursue a total military victory and crush any remaining democratic alternative. Hundreds of Syrians are being killed every week in the most barbaric ways imaginable. Extremist groups and ideologies are thriving in the chaos wrought by the state. Civilians continue to flee in their thousands as legal processes – such as Law No.10 – are implemented to ensure they will never return to their homes. The international system itself is collapsing under the weight of its own impotence. The words ‘Never Again’ ring hollow. There’s no major people’s movement which stands in solidarity with the victims. They are instead slandered, their suffering is mocked or denied, and their voices either absent from discussions or questioned by people far away, who know nothing of Syria, revolution or war, and who arrogantly believe they know what is best. It is this desperate situation which causes many Syrians to welcome the US, UK and France’s action and who now see foreign intervention as their only hope, despite the risks they know it entails.
One thing is for sure – I won’t lose any sleep over targeted strikes aimed at regime military bases and chemical weapons plants which may provide Syrians with a short respite from the daily killing. And I will never see people who place grand narratives over lived realities, who support brutal regimes in far off countries, or who peddle racism, conspiracy theories and atrocity denial, as allies. 14 April 2018 (posted here 15 April)
Leila Al-Shami is a British Syrian, who has been involved in human rights and social justice struggles in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East since 2000. She is co-author of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War.
More on Syria and Iran
■ A new edition of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War, by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami, was published in February this year.
■ Iran: sedition, revolt, revolution and social disintegration, by Torab Saleth (March 2018)
■ Syria: the revolution is alive, but buried under rubble (December 2017)
■ The voices of Syria’s revolution (July 2017)
■ Syria. “Tyrants across the world know now they can maintain power through mass slaughter”. Interview with Leila al-Shami (December 2016)
April 16, 2018
Eyeless In Gaza
Uri Avnery protests the murder of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli Army.
Write Down I, Uri Avnery, soldier number 44410 of the Israel army, hereby dissociate myself from the army sharpshooters who murder unarmed demonstrators along the Gaza Strip, and from their commanders, who give them the orders, up to the commander in chief.
We don't belong to the same army, or to the same state. We hardly belong to the same human race.
Is My government committing "war crimes" along the border of the Gaza Strip?
I don't know. I am not a jurist.
It seems that officials of the International Criminal Court believe that the acts of our soldiers do constitute war crimes. They demand an international investigation.
To prevent that, our army command proposes an Israeli military investigation. That is manifestly ridiculous - an army investigating itself about acts committed on direct orders of the Chief of Staff.
As was published in advance, sharpshooters were posted along the border fence and ordered to kill "ringleaders" of the unarmed protesters on the other side of the fence. The Gaza leadership had announced that these unarmed protests were to take place every week, after Friday prayers, until Naqba Day.
During the first two Fridays, 29 unarmed people were shot dead and more than a thousand wounded by sharpshooters.
For me this is not a judicial question. It is a crime, not only against the unarmed protesters. It is also a crime against the State of Israel, against the people of Israel and against the Israeli army.
Since I was a member of that army on the day of its foundation, I think that it is also a crime against my comrades and me.
This Week a short video, recorded by a soldier at the time of such an action, was widely seen in Israel.
It shows the action from the angle of a soldier who was obviously standing next to a sharpshooter. The sharpshooter sees the demonstrators from a distance of hundreds of yards. The hairs of his sights move at random, than settle on an individual. He shoots. The person drops on the spot.
A joyous cry "Yesh" is heard all around from unseen soldiers who have been watching. "Yesh" means "got him", a jubilant yell, such as would accompany a hunter's success in killing a rabbit.
Many hundreds of thousands of Israelis have seen this film by now, since it was shown for the first time on TV. Except for a few articles and letters to the editor (in Haaretz), there has been no protest.
This did not happen overseas, in some remote colony. It happened right next to us, 45 minute's drive from my home.
The killer was not a hardened mercenary. He - and the joyous soldiers around him - were just ordinary youngsters, drafted at the age of 18 like most Jewish Israelis.
All of them were just "following orders". (Remember?) We have not heard of one single case of a soldier refusing orders.
Until Two weeks ago, I had the highest respect for our highest officer, the Chief of Staff, Gadi Eizenkot. Surrounded by officers who are mere military technicians, he seemed an officer who, in spite of his unmilitary appearance, was well capable of upholding the dignity of the army against the punk who serves as Minister of Defense.
No more. Eizenkot has given the murderous orders. Why, for heavens sake?
Like the British in India and the white racists in the US, the Israeli government does not know how to deal with unarmed protest. It has never encountered it. It does not exist in Arab tradition.
By chance this week I saw the classic movie about Mahatma Gandhi. The British tried everything - they beat him and myriads of others into pulp, they shot thousands of others. When Gandhi and his followers suffered this torment and did not hit back, the British eventually admitted defeat and went away.
So did the white racist opponents of Martin Luther King in Alabama. A Palestinian follower of his came to this country at the beginning of the occupation and tried to convince his countrymen to try this method. The Israel army opened fire, and the Palestinians reverted to the armed struggle.
Not this time. The (violent) Islamic Hamas in the Gaza Strip calls on the population to try unarmed protest, tens of thousands follow. This can lead to unforeseen results. One of them is the sharpshooters' order to kill more or less at random.
When I stated publicly that I am ashamed, a reader accused me of hypocrisy. He cited from my two books about our (1948) War of Independence, in which I had described atrocities to which I was a witness.
Sure, there were atrocities (as in every war). The perpetrators were soldiers of all ethnic and social groups. But they were denounced by some of their comrades (also of all ethnic and social groups). Most soldiers were in the middle, following the most persuasive.
Now the picture is different. Not only is the shooting of the unarmed protesters, far from the fence, done by order, but there seem to be no other voices. The military and political leadership is united. Even in civilian society, voices against the mass murder are very few.
How Do the Israeli media react? Well, they don't. This momentous event in Israel's history is almost ignored.
Fortunately for the perpetrators, there are plenty of events to take our minds off them and their actions. President Bashar al-Assad has apparently used chemical weapons against his rebels. The Israeli media are having a feast. How awful! How barbarous! How Arab!
Then there is the problem of the 36,000 "illegal" (meaning non-Jewish) African workers who have entered Israel. The government wants to throw them out. Decent Israelis very properly want to prevent this. That is a full-time job. No time for the Gaza Strip.
And there is, of course, Holocaust Memorial Day, which happens conveniently this week. One can write endlessly about this awful chapter in our history. What is Gaza compared to this horrible event?
What About our media?
The sorrowful fact is that the Israeli media have reverted to what they were in the early days of the state: an instrument of the government. It took my news magazine dozens of years to break that habit. For many years we had a decent press, with some wonderful journalists and broadcasters.
No more. A few are left, but the great majority of the press is now coordinated with the regime ("gleichgeschaltet" in German). Two minutes on Gaza. 20 minutes on what's happening in Syria. 10 minutes for the latest (imaginary) outbreak of anti-Semitism in the British Labor Party.
Most of the journalists and broadcasters, honest and well-meaning people all, are not even conscious of what they are doing (or not doing). They are innocent of any other thoughts.
Where Is the "Left"? Where is the so-called "Center"?
They have not disappeared, as some lament. Far from it. A shift of some percent or a move of one of the small parties would suffice to topple Binyamin Netanyahu.
But they all seem to be paralyzed. Nobody dares to speak out against the killing, apart from some faint whispers. Even the many admirable groups of youngsters who fight against the occupation, each on some special sector, are silent about the Gaza killings.
No mass demonstrations. No huge protests. Nothing.
So we, too, are to blame. And perhaps more than others.
Please write down: I am guilty!
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Write Down I, Uri Avnery, soldier number 44410 of the Israel army, hereby dissociate myself from the army sharpshooters who murder unarmed demonstrators along the Gaza Strip, and from their commanders, who give them the orders, up to the commander in chief.
We don't belong to the same army, or to the same state. We hardly belong to the same human race.
Is My government committing "war crimes" along the border of the Gaza Strip?
I don't know. I am not a jurist.
It seems that officials of the International Criminal Court believe that the acts of our soldiers do constitute war crimes. They demand an international investigation.
To prevent that, our army command proposes an Israeli military investigation. That is manifestly ridiculous - an army investigating itself about acts committed on direct orders of the Chief of Staff.
As was published in advance, sharpshooters were posted along the border fence and ordered to kill "ringleaders" of the unarmed protesters on the other side of the fence. The Gaza leadership had announced that these unarmed protests were to take place every week, after Friday prayers, until Naqba Day.
During the first two Fridays, 29 unarmed people were shot dead and more than a thousand wounded by sharpshooters.
For me this is not a judicial question. It is a crime, not only against the unarmed protesters. It is also a crime against the State of Israel, against the people of Israel and against the Israeli army.
Since I was a member of that army on the day of its foundation, I think that it is also a crime against my comrades and me.
This Week a short video, recorded by a soldier at the time of such an action, was widely seen in Israel.
It shows the action from the angle of a soldier who was obviously standing next to a sharpshooter. The sharpshooter sees the demonstrators from a distance of hundreds of yards. The hairs of his sights move at random, than settle on an individual. He shoots. The person drops on the spot.
A joyous cry "Yesh" is heard all around from unseen soldiers who have been watching. "Yesh" means "got him", a jubilant yell, such as would accompany a hunter's success in killing a rabbit.
Many hundreds of thousands of Israelis have seen this film by now, since it was shown for the first time on TV. Except for a few articles and letters to the editor (in Haaretz), there has been no protest.
This did not happen overseas, in some remote colony. It happened right next to us, 45 minute's drive from my home.
The killer was not a hardened mercenary. He - and the joyous soldiers around him - were just ordinary youngsters, drafted at the age of 18 like most Jewish Israelis.
All of them were just "following orders". (Remember?) We have not heard of one single case of a soldier refusing orders.
Until Two weeks ago, I had the highest respect for our highest officer, the Chief of Staff, Gadi Eizenkot. Surrounded by officers who are mere military technicians, he seemed an officer who, in spite of his unmilitary appearance, was well capable of upholding the dignity of the army against the punk who serves as Minister of Defense.
No more. Eizenkot has given the murderous orders. Why, for heavens sake?
Like the British in India and the white racists in the US, the Israeli government does not know how to deal with unarmed protest. It has never encountered it. It does not exist in Arab tradition.
By chance this week I saw the classic movie about Mahatma Gandhi. The British tried everything - they beat him and myriads of others into pulp, they shot thousands of others. When Gandhi and his followers suffered this torment and did not hit back, the British eventually admitted defeat and went away.
So did the white racist opponents of Martin Luther King in Alabama. A Palestinian follower of his came to this country at the beginning of the occupation and tried to convince his countrymen to try this method. The Israel army opened fire, and the Palestinians reverted to the armed struggle.
Not this time. The (violent) Islamic Hamas in the Gaza Strip calls on the population to try unarmed protest, tens of thousands follow. This can lead to unforeseen results. One of them is the sharpshooters' order to kill more or less at random.
When I stated publicly that I am ashamed, a reader accused me of hypocrisy. He cited from my two books about our (1948) War of Independence, in which I had described atrocities to which I was a witness.
Sure, there were atrocities (as in every war). The perpetrators were soldiers of all ethnic and social groups. But they were denounced by some of their comrades (also of all ethnic and social groups). Most soldiers were in the middle, following the most persuasive.
Now the picture is different. Not only is the shooting of the unarmed protesters, far from the fence, done by order, but there seem to be no other voices. The military and political leadership is united. Even in civilian society, voices against the mass murder are very few.
How Do the Israeli media react? Well, they don't. This momentous event in Israel's history is almost ignored.
Fortunately for the perpetrators, there are plenty of events to take our minds off them and their actions. President Bashar al-Assad has apparently used chemical weapons against his rebels. The Israeli media are having a feast. How awful! How barbarous! How Arab!
Then there is the problem of the 36,000 "illegal" (meaning non-Jewish) African workers who have entered Israel. The government wants to throw them out. Decent Israelis very properly want to prevent this. That is a full-time job. No time for the Gaza Strip.
And there is, of course, Holocaust Memorial Day, which happens conveniently this week. One can write endlessly about this awful chapter in our history. What is Gaza compared to this horrible event?
What About our media?
The sorrowful fact is that the Israeli media have reverted to what they were in the early days of the state: an instrument of the government. It took my news magazine dozens of years to break that habit. For many years we had a decent press, with some wonderful journalists and broadcasters.
No more. A few are left, but the great majority of the press is now coordinated with the regime ("gleichgeschaltet" in German). Two minutes on Gaza. 20 minutes on what's happening in Syria. 10 minutes for the latest (imaginary) outbreak of anti-Semitism in the British Labor Party.
Most of the journalists and broadcasters, honest and well-meaning people all, are not even conscious of what they are doing (or not doing). They are innocent of any other thoughts.
Where Is the "Left"? Where is the so-called "Center"?
They have not disappeared, as some lament. Far from it. A shift of some percent or a move of one of the small parties would suffice to topple Binyamin Netanyahu.
But they all seem to be paralyzed. Nobody dares to speak out against the killing, apart from some faint whispers. Even the many admirable groups of youngsters who fight against the occupation, each on some special sector, are silent about the Gaza killings.
No mass demonstrations. No huge protests. Nothing.
So we, too, are to blame. And perhaps more than others.
Please write down: I am guilty!
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
DUP Burning The Midnight Oil
The pro-Union community needs to get back to the ethos of the original 1998 Good Friday Agreement if it is to provide a realistic kick-start to the stalled peace process. Controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, uses his Fearless Flying Column today to analyse how this can be achieved.
If Unionism wants to regain the upper hand politically in any future devolved Assembly, indeed even kick-start the current stalled process, it must implement the original ethos of the Good Friday Agreement which stated that the largest designation - Unionism or nationalism - could lay claim to the coveted First Minister’s post.
The largest designation principle worked well for the Trimble-Mallon era because it took advantage of the splits within the pro-Union community. In 1998, in the first Assembly following the signing of the Belfast Agreement, several shades of Unionism were represented - Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists, Progressive Unionists, United Kingdom Unionists, and United Unionist Assembly Party.
And on at least one occasion, the centrist Alliance Party was called upon to redesignate as Unionist to save the Assembly in a key vote. But all this was to change for Unionism following the 2003 Assembly and 2005 General elections. By the latter, the DUP had overtaken the rival UUP as the lead party in Unionism and Sinn Fein had passed the moderate SDLP in terms of Assembly seats.
The DUP and Sinn Fein had stolen their rivals political clothes - and seats - by roaming into the respective electorally lucrative middle classes, while still retaining their traditional working class roots.
But it was to the advantage of both the DUP and Sinn Fein to change the designation rule established in the Belfast Agreement. In 2006, it was better to have First Minister and deputy First Minister decided by the largest parties.
While this new ruling at St Andrews was to herald in in 2007 the era of the so-called Chuckle Brothers between the late Rev Ian Paisley and the late Martin McGuinness, it has created a dangerous long-term future for Unionism.
A decade later, the snap Assembly poll in 2017 following the collapse of power-sharing that January saw the DUP finish just one seat ahead of Sinn Fein as Unionism and nationalism opted for the two-party system, namely - which single party could best represent both camps? This left many middle class Unionists and nationalists who traditionally voted either UUP or SDLP in a terrible electoral dilemma. Ulster Unionists were forced to put DUP number one to keep out Sinn Fein, and moderate nationalists realised that voting for the Provisional IRA’s political wing could severely dent the DUP’s majority.
For some moderates in both camps, the decision was too painful given the years of internecine squabbling and they simply stayed at home. Moderate Unionism and nationalism still faces this voting dilemma with the crucial local government poll looming next year.
In the nationalist camp, to give SDLP voters some say, the party will either have to step aside, or merge with Fianna Fail to give moderate nationalism the much-needed all-Ireland identity to combat Sinn Fein. This will be especially true if Sinn Fein makes significant gains in the expected Dail General Election later this year and becomes a minority partner in the next Leinster House government.
Unionism is in an even bigger dilemma. For the pro-Union community to stay head of republicanism, there will have to be at least a pact between the DUP and UUP to save Unionist seats.
However, even if the respective leaderships of the UUP and DUP formally unveil an electoral pact to outgun republicanism, Unionist voters may repeat what they did in last year’s Westminster General Election and decide to only vote for the DUP tactically.
This saw the DUP return 10 MPs, with the UUP losing both its Commons seats. Based on the 2017 Westminster poll, the last thing the UUP needs or wants is another Assembly poll which could see the party’s current Stormont tally of 10 seats reduced by half to five MLAs.
Unionism has also got to face the electoral dilemma that liberal Unionists are not turning out for the UUP, but are defecting to Alliance.
While Alliance may use the forthcoming West Tyrone Westminster by-election to raise its profile west of the River Bann, the electoral reality is that Alliance will increase east of the Bann by focusing on traditionally Unionist constituencies. You need only look at who runs Alliance to see the strong influence of liberal Presbyterianism within the party.
What could save the UUP in the 2019 local government poll is the personal votes of councillors, namely, such people are not being elected because of their UUP ticket, but because of their personality profile among constituents. The real danger for Unionism is that it cannot mobilise its voters, that voters equally divide among a range of pro-Union candidates, that the ‘stay at home’ Unionism sector increases, and Alliance continues to grow in majority Unionist constituencies.
Such a scenario could then see the majority of Northern Ireland’s 11 so-called super councils turn politically green, fuelling speculation that Northern Ireland is part of an all-island structure in all but name.
Throw in any economic uncertainty with Brexit being implemented next March and Northern Ireland may be forced to stay afloat only if there is some form of Customs Union negotiated.
If the DUP cannot either agree an electoral pact with the UUP or obliterate the UUP at the polls, then the DUP must push the case for a merger with the UUP to simply form The Unionist Party.
Whatever strategy the DUP adopts, one bitter pill the DUP must swallow is that it must reinstate the community designation rule for a future Assembly poll as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement.
The DUP’s spin doctors will be burning the midnight oil to work out a communications strategy to sell to the traditional DUP voter base why the party wants to see one of the core principles of the Good Friday Agreement restored given the DUP’s clear commitment to the No Camp during the 1998 referendum on the Belfast Agreement.
The overwhelming danger for Unionism is that if it does not return to the largest designation concept, a future Stormont poll could see Sinn Fein finally pip the DUP as the largest party in the Assembly. Clearly, this would give Sinn Fein the coveted First Minister’s post.
Should Michelle O’Neill add the title of First Minister to her Northern Leader’s role, Sinn Fein will push for the posts of First and deputy First Ministers to be totally separate, just as Taoiseach and Tanaiste are separate posts in the Dail.
Could we see a situation as Northern Ireland prepares to celebrate the centenary of the founding of the state in the 1920s that Sinn Fein - as the largest party at Stormont - re-introduces the post of Northern Ireland Prime Minister?
For years, the post of Northern Ireland Prime Minister was the clear bastion of Unionism. Could we see a scenario where a future Northern Ireland centenary event sees Northern Ireland Prime Minister Michelle O’Neill along with Tanaiste Mary Lou McDonald meeting either Queen Elizabeth or King Charles at Buckingham Palace?
Don’t titter at this scenario. When I began my journalistic career in 1978, imagine the reaction if I had written opinion pieces suggesting that one day DUP leader and Free Presbyterian Church Moderator Rev Ian Paisley would sit in a power-sharing Executive at Stormont with the IRA’s political wing, or that Sinn Fein would support the police in Northern Ireland and even take its seats in a partitionist parliament? But these all happened, so don’t laugh when I predict that we could see a Sinn Fein Prime Minister at Stormont within a lifetime.
John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist.
John Coulter is also author of ‘An Sais Glas: (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism’, which is available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
If Unionism wants to regain the upper hand politically in any future devolved Assembly, indeed even kick-start the current stalled process, it must implement the original ethos of the Good Friday Agreement which stated that the largest designation - Unionism or nationalism - could lay claim to the coveted First Minister’s post.
The largest designation principle worked well for the Trimble-Mallon era because it took advantage of the splits within the pro-Union community. In 1998, in the first Assembly following the signing of the Belfast Agreement, several shades of Unionism were represented - Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists, Progressive Unionists, United Kingdom Unionists, and United Unionist Assembly Party.
And on at least one occasion, the centrist Alliance Party was called upon to redesignate as Unionist to save the Assembly in a key vote. But all this was to change for Unionism following the 2003 Assembly and 2005 General elections. By the latter, the DUP had overtaken the rival UUP as the lead party in Unionism and Sinn Fein had passed the moderate SDLP in terms of Assembly seats.
The DUP and Sinn Fein had stolen their rivals political clothes - and seats - by roaming into the respective electorally lucrative middle classes, while still retaining their traditional working class roots.
But it was to the advantage of both the DUP and Sinn Fein to change the designation rule established in the Belfast Agreement. In 2006, it was better to have First Minister and deputy First Minister decided by the largest parties.
While this new ruling at St Andrews was to herald in in 2007 the era of the so-called Chuckle Brothers between the late Rev Ian Paisley and the late Martin McGuinness, it has created a dangerous long-term future for Unionism.
A decade later, the snap Assembly poll in 2017 following the collapse of power-sharing that January saw the DUP finish just one seat ahead of Sinn Fein as Unionism and nationalism opted for the two-party system, namely - which single party could best represent both camps? This left many middle class Unionists and nationalists who traditionally voted either UUP or SDLP in a terrible electoral dilemma. Ulster Unionists were forced to put DUP number one to keep out Sinn Fein, and moderate nationalists realised that voting for the Provisional IRA’s political wing could severely dent the DUP’s majority.
For some moderates in both camps, the decision was too painful given the years of internecine squabbling and they simply stayed at home. Moderate Unionism and nationalism still faces this voting dilemma with the crucial local government poll looming next year.
In the nationalist camp, to give SDLP voters some say, the party will either have to step aside, or merge with Fianna Fail to give moderate nationalism the much-needed all-Ireland identity to combat Sinn Fein. This will be especially true if Sinn Fein makes significant gains in the expected Dail General Election later this year and becomes a minority partner in the next Leinster House government.
Unionism is in an even bigger dilemma. For the pro-Union community to stay head of republicanism, there will have to be at least a pact between the DUP and UUP to save Unionist seats.
However, even if the respective leaderships of the UUP and DUP formally unveil an electoral pact to outgun republicanism, Unionist voters may repeat what they did in last year’s Westminster General Election and decide to only vote for the DUP tactically.
This saw the DUP return 10 MPs, with the UUP losing both its Commons seats. Based on the 2017 Westminster poll, the last thing the UUP needs or wants is another Assembly poll which could see the party’s current Stormont tally of 10 seats reduced by half to five MLAs.
Unionism has also got to face the electoral dilemma that liberal Unionists are not turning out for the UUP, but are defecting to Alliance.
While Alliance may use the forthcoming West Tyrone Westminster by-election to raise its profile west of the River Bann, the electoral reality is that Alliance will increase east of the Bann by focusing on traditionally Unionist constituencies. You need only look at who runs Alliance to see the strong influence of liberal Presbyterianism within the party.
What could save the UUP in the 2019 local government poll is the personal votes of councillors, namely, such people are not being elected because of their UUP ticket, but because of their personality profile among constituents. The real danger for Unionism is that it cannot mobilise its voters, that voters equally divide among a range of pro-Union candidates, that the ‘stay at home’ Unionism sector increases, and Alliance continues to grow in majority Unionist constituencies.
Such a scenario could then see the majority of Northern Ireland’s 11 so-called super councils turn politically green, fuelling speculation that Northern Ireland is part of an all-island structure in all but name.
Throw in any economic uncertainty with Brexit being implemented next March and Northern Ireland may be forced to stay afloat only if there is some form of Customs Union negotiated.
If the DUP cannot either agree an electoral pact with the UUP or obliterate the UUP at the polls, then the DUP must push the case for a merger with the UUP to simply form The Unionist Party.
Whatever strategy the DUP adopts, one bitter pill the DUP must swallow is that it must reinstate the community designation rule for a future Assembly poll as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement.
The DUP’s spin doctors will be burning the midnight oil to work out a communications strategy to sell to the traditional DUP voter base why the party wants to see one of the core principles of the Good Friday Agreement restored given the DUP’s clear commitment to the No Camp during the 1998 referendum on the Belfast Agreement.
The overwhelming danger for Unionism is that if it does not return to the largest designation concept, a future Stormont poll could see Sinn Fein finally pip the DUP as the largest party in the Assembly. Clearly, this would give Sinn Fein the coveted First Minister’s post.
Should Michelle O’Neill add the title of First Minister to her Northern Leader’s role, Sinn Fein will push for the posts of First and deputy First Ministers to be totally separate, just as Taoiseach and Tanaiste are separate posts in the Dail.
Could we see a situation as Northern Ireland prepares to celebrate the centenary of the founding of the state in the 1920s that Sinn Fein - as the largest party at Stormont - re-introduces the post of Northern Ireland Prime Minister?
For years, the post of Northern Ireland Prime Minister was the clear bastion of Unionism. Could we see a scenario where a future Northern Ireland centenary event sees Northern Ireland Prime Minister Michelle O’Neill along with Tanaiste Mary Lou McDonald meeting either Queen Elizabeth or King Charles at Buckingham Palace?
Don’t titter at this scenario. When I began my journalistic career in 1978, imagine the reaction if I had written opinion pieces suggesting that one day DUP leader and Free Presbyterian Church Moderator Rev Ian Paisley would sit in a power-sharing Executive at Stormont with the IRA’s political wing, or that Sinn Fein would support the police in Northern Ireland and even take its seats in a partitionist parliament? But these all happened, so don’t laugh when I predict that we could see a Sinn Fein Prime Minister at Stormont within a lifetime.
John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist. John Coulter is also author of ‘An Sais Glas: (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism’, which is available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
April 15, 2018
Death Penalty For Reducing Abortions
Lena M writing in Atheist Republic opens a window on some right wing perspectives in the US regarding abortion.
Photo Credits: The Millions
A Republican candidate, Bob Nonini, who is running for lieutenant governor in Idaho, made the controversial statement on Monday as part of a conservative Christian podcast’s candidate forum.
“There should be no abortion and anyone who has an abortion should pay,” Nonini said.
Pressed by moderators on the nature of the punishment, Nonini nodded in agreement when asked if he supported the death penalty as a possible outcome for abortion.
Nonini, a three term state senator from Coeur d’Alene, confirmed that position in a phone interview with The Associated Press.
On Tuesday he softened his stance that women who get an abortion should be punished if it is ever criminalized in Idaho, by saying in a statement: “Prosecutions have always been focused on the abortionist.” “There is no way a woman would go to jail let alone face the death penalty. The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”
“I strongly support the overturning of Roe v. Wade,” Nonini said:
Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Making abortion illegal would only increase the number of unsafe procedures. Things that really help in reducing the number of abortions are comprehensive sex education and access to affordable contraception.
Five Republicans are running in the May primary election after incumbent GOP Lt. Gov. Brad Little announced he would run for governor. Only Nonini, Idaho Falls businesswoman Janice McGeachin and former Idaho Republican Party Chairman Steve Yates were invited to attend the forum in Moscow hosted by the conservative Christian podcast CrossPolitic.
According to Idaho Statesman, both McGeachin and Yates say abortion is murder, but stopped short of supporting charging women with first-degree murder for undergoing the procedure.
“No, I cannot support a woman facing the death penalty for having an abortion,” said McGeachin. “What we should do is prevent that.”
Yates downplayed that criminalizing abortion would result in fewer women seeking the procedure.
“In terms of criminalizing things, I have no problem with that except that doesn’t always solve the problem,” Yates said.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Photo Credits: The MillionsA Republican candidate, Bob Nonini, who is running for lieutenant governor in Idaho, made the controversial statement on Monday as part of a conservative Christian podcast’s candidate forum.
“There should be no abortion and anyone who has an abortion should pay,” Nonini said.
Pressed by moderators on the nature of the punishment, Nonini nodded in agreement when asked if he supported the death penalty as a possible outcome for abortion.
Nonini, a three term state senator from Coeur d’Alene, confirmed that position in a phone interview with The Associated Press.
On Tuesday he softened his stance that women who get an abortion should be punished if it is ever criminalized in Idaho, by saying in a statement: “Prosecutions have always been focused on the abortionist.” “There is no way a woman would go to jail let alone face the death penalty. The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”
“I strongly support the overturning of Roe v. Wade,” Nonini said:
That would allow states like Idaho to re-criminalize abortion as a deterrent. However, it is my understanding that in the history of the United States, long before Roe was foisted upon this country; no woman has ever been prosecuted for undergoing abortion. That is for practical reasons, as well as for reasons of compassion.
Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Making abortion illegal would only increase the number of unsafe procedures. Things that really help in reducing the number of abortions are comprehensive sex education and access to affordable contraception.
Five Republicans are running in the May primary election after incumbent GOP Lt. Gov. Brad Little announced he would run for governor. Only Nonini, Idaho Falls businesswoman Janice McGeachin and former Idaho Republican Party Chairman Steve Yates were invited to attend the forum in Moscow hosted by the conservative Christian podcast CrossPolitic.
According to Idaho Statesman, both McGeachin and Yates say abortion is murder, but stopped short of supporting charging women with first-degree murder for undergoing the procedure.
“No, I cannot support a woman facing the death penalty for having an abortion,” said McGeachin. “What we should do is prevent that.”
Yates downplayed that criminalizing abortion would result in fewer women seeking the procedure.
“In terms of criminalizing things, I have no problem with that except that doesn’t always solve the problem,” Yates said.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
April 14, 2018
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 14 April 2018
Martin Galvin with details of this weekend's broadcast from Radio Free Eireann.
Twenty years after the Good Friday agreement, architects including, George Mitchell, former President Clinton and Tony Blair gathered in Belfast for a week long series of celebratory events. Anthony McIntyre, author of Good Friday -The Death of Irish Republicanism will look back on his predictions at the time and give analysis of what the agreement and ceremonies mean today.
Goerge McLaughlin will recount the amazing story of American organized Catalpa escape and rescue of Irish Fenian prisoners from Australia in 1876 back to safety in the United States, and the successful campaign to put headstones on the graves of two of these rescued Fenians, Thomas Darragh and Robert Cranston which will be unveiled on May 5th in Philadelphia.
We will have another update information on the April 24th event in Albany, which will now include formal resolutions in the New York State Senate and Assembly honoring the centennial of Ireland's 1918 Vote for Freedom which gave a democratic mandate to the Easter Rising and Proclamation as well as announcements about other Easter Commemorations.
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.
Twenty years after the Good Friday agreement, architects including, George Mitchell, former President Clinton and Tony Blair gathered in Belfast for a week long series of celebratory events. Anthony McIntyre, author of Good Friday -The Death of Irish Republicanism will look back on his predictions at the time and give analysis of what the agreement and ceremonies mean today.
Goerge McLaughlin will recount the amazing story of American organized Catalpa escape and rescue of Irish Fenian prisoners from Australia in 1876 back to safety in the United States, and the successful campaign to put headstones on the graves of two of these rescued Fenians, Thomas Darragh and Robert Cranston which will be unveiled on May 5th in Philadelphia.
We will have another update information on the April 24th event in Albany, which will now include formal resolutions in the New York State Senate and Assembly honoring the centennial of Ireland's 1918 Vote for Freedom which gave a democratic mandate to the Easter Rising and Proclamation as well as announcements about other Easter Commemorations.
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.
April 13, 2018
Will The “West Brits” Win The Grand Slam?
Matt Treacy, writing just prior to Ireland's rugby success, raises issues about the use of flags and anthems in the world of sport.
As Ireland prepare to face England at Twickenham on St. Patrick’s Day, with a chance of winning the Grand Slam for only the third time, another culture war has erupted over the playing of anthems.
Some eagle eyed chap spotted that the Irish captain Rory Best does not sing Amhrán na bhFiann, the national anthem of the Republic of Ireland. Nor does he apparently sing along with Ireland’s Call, the dreadful ditty composed by Phil Coulter and first aired at the 1995 World Cup. It is played alongside Amhrán na bhFiann for Ireland’s home games at the Aviva, and is the only ‘anthem’ played when Ireland are away.
When asked about the reason Best does not join in the anthem, Coach Joe Schmidt rather implausibly claimed that it was because Best did not want to become too emotional prior to the game starting.
The explanation is actually far simpler. Rory Best is a Protestant from Poyntzpass in County Armagh, and is presumably a unionist of some description in politics. Not that that has anything to do with his rugby, no more than the politics of any other player.
The only Ulster player who lined out for Ireland to openly declare his allegiance was Davy Tweed who was a DUP councillor in Ballymena and one of the leading picketers of the Catholic Church at Harryville. He was later charged with sexual offences against young girls.
The likelihood of Best even knowing the words of The Soldier’s Song, let alone bashing it out with gusto are slim, to say the least. Why would anyone insist that he does? Any more than Northern Ireland soccer manager Michael O’Neill or any Catholic nationalist who plays for the northern team should be expected to join in with God Save the Queen. Indeed can you imagine the uproar if they did. and from some of the same people annoyed with Best.
Why exactly the NI soccer team does not have its own anthem, like Scotland and Wales, is another matter entirely. GSTQ is recognised as the anthem of English international teams and the GB teams that contest at the Olympics and so on.
Some have contrasted the ongoing communal tensions within soccer in Northern Ireland with the amicable manner in which rugby operates on an all Ireland basis. Soccer was partitioned when the island was divided politically, but even before that it had seen bitter disputes between Belfast and Dublin clubs like Linfield and Shelbourne, and violent sectarian conflict in Belfast itself. That led to Belfast Celtic leaving the league in 1949. Derry City followed suit in 1971.
Soccer remains the most popular sport among urban working class males in the north across the sectarian divide, and has an international, if hardly cosmopolitan, dimension with Catholics supporting Glasgow Celtic and Protestants supporting Rangers. Pious hopes for a 32 county international team will remain just that.
Rugby manages to transcend those sort of raw sectarian tensions because it is predominantly the preserve of the Protestant middle class. It barely exists in Catholic or Protestant working class communities. There is also the historical fact that rugby in the southern part of the country began with a similar demographic which was later extended into the Catholic middle class when it was adopted as their main game by Catholic teaching orders, many of whom banned GAA and soccer from their schools.
While GAA players and supporters including prominent county players and officials like Harry Boland from Dublin and Austin Stack from Kerry were also leading figures in the republican movement, the IRFU was clearly on the other side. The then President of the IRFU, Francis Browning, was shot dead at Mount Street Bridge on Easter Monday 1916 when his patrol of Training Corps British army auxiliaries encountered the Volunteer garrison there. I don’t think they did anything to commemorate this in 2016. Lansdowne Road also hosted a soccer international between Irish and Scottish regiments in 1917 and for several years the British army sports days took place there.
So is Dublin Sinn Féin Lord Mayor Micheál Mac Donncha correct in describing the rugby fraternity as “West Brits?” He had claimed that the non playing of Amhrán na bhFiann at the 2015 World Cup in South Africa reflected the “inferiority complex and anti-national attitude of the West Brits who still run Irish rugby.”
While such a depiction of the rugger chaps might have at one time been accurate, it is no longer the case. The sort of people who play rugby are little different from the sort of people who play hurling and football. Indeed, quite a number of professional rugby players have played gaelic games at inter county level.
If rugby remains a mainly middle class sport, especially in Dublin, that has to do with the schools in which it is played and the traditional lack of interest in even the international team among many Dubs for whom the gaelic football team and the international soccer team remain by far the most popular. But there is certainly no view of rugby as being “West Brit.”
Like any other sport, you either like it or you do not. The less anthems and flags have to do with it all, the better.
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
As Ireland prepare to face England at Twickenham on St. Patrick’s Day, with a chance of winning the Grand Slam for only the third time, another culture war has erupted over the playing of anthems. Some eagle eyed chap spotted that the Irish captain Rory Best does not sing Amhrán na bhFiann, the national anthem of the Republic of Ireland. Nor does he apparently sing along with Ireland’s Call, the dreadful ditty composed by Phil Coulter and first aired at the 1995 World Cup. It is played alongside Amhrán na bhFiann for Ireland’s home games at the Aviva, and is the only ‘anthem’ played when Ireland are away.
When asked about the reason Best does not join in the anthem, Coach Joe Schmidt rather implausibly claimed that it was because Best did not want to become too emotional prior to the game starting.
The explanation is actually far simpler. Rory Best is a Protestant from Poyntzpass in County Armagh, and is presumably a unionist of some description in politics. Not that that has anything to do with his rugby, no more than the politics of any other player.
The only Ulster player who lined out for Ireland to openly declare his allegiance was Davy Tweed who was a DUP councillor in Ballymena and one of the leading picketers of the Catholic Church at Harryville. He was later charged with sexual offences against young girls.
The likelihood of Best even knowing the words of The Soldier’s Song, let alone bashing it out with gusto are slim, to say the least. Why would anyone insist that he does? Any more than Northern Ireland soccer manager Michael O’Neill or any Catholic nationalist who plays for the northern team should be expected to join in with God Save the Queen. Indeed can you imagine the uproar if they did. and from some of the same people annoyed with Best.
Why exactly the NI soccer team does not have its own anthem, like Scotland and Wales, is another matter entirely. GSTQ is recognised as the anthem of English international teams and the GB teams that contest at the Olympics and so on.
Some have contrasted the ongoing communal tensions within soccer in Northern Ireland with the amicable manner in which rugby operates on an all Ireland basis. Soccer was partitioned when the island was divided politically, but even before that it had seen bitter disputes between Belfast and Dublin clubs like Linfield and Shelbourne, and violent sectarian conflict in Belfast itself. That led to Belfast Celtic leaving the league in 1949. Derry City followed suit in 1971.
Soccer remains the most popular sport among urban working class males in the north across the sectarian divide, and has an international, if hardly cosmopolitan, dimension with Catholics supporting Glasgow Celtic and Protestants supporting Rangers. Pious hopes for a 32 county international team will remain just that.
Rugby manages to transcend those sort of raw sectarian tensions because it is predominantly the preserve of the Protestant middle class. It barely exists in Catholic or Protestant working class communities. There is also the historical fact that rugby in the southern part of the country began with a similar demographic which was later extended into the Catholic middle class when it was adopted as their main game by Catholic teaching orders, many of whom banned GAA and soccer from their schools.
While GAA players and supporters including prominent county players and officials like Harry Boland from Dublin and Austin Stack from Kerry were also leading figures in the republican movement, the IRFU was clearly on the other side. The then President of the IRFU, Francis Browning, was shot dead at Mount Street Bridge on Easter Monday 1916 when his patrol of Training Corps British army auxiliaries encountered the Volunteer garrison there. I don’t think they did anything to commemorate this in 2016. Lansdowne Road also hosted a soccer international between Irish and Scottish regiments in 1917 and for several years the British army sports days took place there.
So is Dublin Sinn Féin Lord Mayor Micheál Mac Donncha correct in describing the rugby fraternity as “West Brits?” He had claimed that the non playing of Amhrán na bhFiann at the 2015 World Cup in South Africa reflected the “inferiority complex and anti-national attitude of the West Brits who still run Irish rugby.”
While such a depiction of the rugger chaps might have at one time been accurate, it is no longer the case. The sort of people who play rugby are little different from the sort of people who play hurling and football. Indeed, quite a number of professional rugby players have played gaelic games at inter county level.
If rugby remains a mainly middle class sport, especially in Dublin, that has to do with the schools in which it is played and the traditional lack of interest in even the international team among many Dubs for whom the gaelic football team and the international soccer team remain by far the most popular. But there is certainly no view of rugby as being “West Brit.”
Like any other sport, you either like it or you do not. The less anthems and flags have to do with it all, the better.
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
April 12, 2018
The Men Will Talk To Me
Ernie O'Malley's oral history interviews with IRA volunteers will be the focus of a book launch next week in Belfast. The Men Will Talk To Me: 'Ernie O'Malley's Interviews With The Northern Divisions
Síobhra Aiken, Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh,
Liam Ó Duibhir, Diarmuid Ó Tuama (eds)
Tuesday, 17 April at 7.30pm
Culturlann McAdam Ó Fiaich
216 Falls Road, Belfast BT12 6AH
Launch Speaker:
Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, MLA
Very Special Guest:
Cormac K. H. O'Malley
About the book
The Men Will Talk to Me is a collection of interviews conducted and recorded by famed Irish republican revolutionary Ernie O’Malley during the 1940s and 1950s. The interviews were carried out with survivors of the four Northern Divisions of the IRA, chief among them Frank Aiken, Peadar O’Donnell and Paddy McLogan, who offer fascinating insights into Ulster’s centrality in the War of Independence and the slide towards Civil War.
The title refers to the implicit trust that shadows these interviews, earned through Ernie O’Malley’s reputation as a fearsome military commander in the revolutionary movement – the veterans interviewed divulge details to O’Malley which they wouldn’t have disclosed to even their closest family members. Startlingly direct, the issues covered include the mobilization of the Dundalk Volunteers for the 1916 Rising, the events of Bloody Sunday (1920), the Belfast Pogroms, and the planning of historical escapes from the Curragh and Kilkenny Gaol.
The Men Will Talk to Me is an insightful and painstaking reflection of the horror of the Irish War of Independence and Civil War; in words resolute and faltering, the physical and psychological debts of the revolutionary mindset – those of hardened Pro- and Anti-Treaty veterans – are fiercely apparent.
________________________________________
Paperback • €19.99 • £16.99 • 282 pages • 226mm x 153mm • 9781785371646 • 16/04/2018
________________________________________
Síobhra Aiken is an Irish Research Council Postgraduate Scholar at the Centre for Irish Studies, NUI Galway, focusing on literary narratives of the Irish Civil War. She was formerly a Fulbright Scholar and is the great-granddaughter of Frank Aiken.
Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh is the author of Fenians and Ribbonmen (2011) and The Irish Revolution: Tyrone 1912–23 (2014). He teaches in Coláiste Feirste and at St Mary’s University College, Belfast.
Liam Ó Duibhir is the author of Prisoners of War: Ballykinlar Interment Camp, 1920–1921 (2013), Donegal & the Irish Civil War: The Untold Story (2011) and The Donegal Awakening: Donegal and the War of Independence (2010).
Diarmuid Ó Tuama is a former Principal of the first Gaelscoil in the north, Bunscoil Phobal Feirste, and author of Cogadh na gCarad (Ó Chonradh go Saorstát).
Publishing 16 April ~ €19.99
Síobhra Aiken, Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh,
Liam Ó Duibhir, Diarmuid Ó Tuama (eds)
Tuesday, 17 April at 7.30pm
Culturlann McAdam Ó Fiaich
216 Falls Road, Belfast BT12 6AH
Launch Speaker:
Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, MLA
Very Special Guest:
Cormac K. H. O'Malley
About the book
The Men Will Talk to Me is a collection of interviews conducted and recorded by famed Irish republican revolutionary Ernie O’Malley during the 1940s and 1950s. The interviews were carried out with survivors of the four Northern Divisions of the IRA, chief among them Frank Aiken, Peadar O’Donnell and Paddy McLogan, who offer fascinating insights into Ulster’s centrality in the War of Independence and the slide towards Civil War.
The title refers to the implicit trust that shadows these interviews, earned through Ernie O’Malley’s reputation as a fearsome military commander in the revolutionary movement – the veterans interviewed divulge details to O’Malley which they wouldn’t have disclosed to even their closest family members. Startlingly direct, the issues covered include the mobilization of the Dundalk Volunteers for the 1916 Rising, the events of Bloody Sunday (1920), the Belfast Pogroms, and the planning of historical escapes from the Curragh and Kilkenny Gaol.
The Men Will Talk to Me is an insightful and painstaking reflection of the horror of the Irish War of Independence and Civil War; in words resolute and faltering, the physical and psychological debts of the revolutionary mindset – those of hardened Pro- and Anti-Treaty veterans – are fiercely apparent.
________________________________________
Paperback • €19.99 • £16.99 • 282 pages • 226mm x 153mm • 9781785371646 • 16/04/2018
________________________________________
Síobhra Aiken is an Irish Research Council Postgraduate Scholar at the Centre for Irish Studies, NUI Galway, focusing on literary narratives of the Irish Civil War. She was formerly a Fulbright Scholar and is the great-granddaughter of Frank Aiken.
Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh is the author of Fenians and Ribbonmen (2011) and The Irish Revolution: Tyrone 1912–23 (2014). He teaches in Coláiste Feirste and at St Mary’s University College, Belfast.
Liam Ó Duibhir is the author of Prisoners of War: Ballykinlar Interment Camp, 1920–1921 (2013), Donegal & the Irish Civil War: The Untold Story (2011) and The Donegal Awakening: Donegal and the War of Independence (2010).
Diarmuid Ó Tuama is a former Principal of the first Gaelscoil in the north, Bunscoil Phobal Feirste, and author of Cogadh na gCarad (Ó Chonradh go Saorstát).
Publishing 16 April ~ €19.99
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.
