Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1152
April 9, 2018
Loyal Order Dilemma
What route do the Protestant Loyal Orders take if they are to have a continued relevance in Irish society? That’s the key issue which contentious commentator Dr John Coulter addresses in his Fearless Flying Column today.
What is the true purpose of the Loyal Orders within the pro-Union community and the wider Irish society? That’s the key dilemma which the leaderships of the various orders - the Orange Order, the Independent Orange Order, the Royal Black Institution and the Apprentice Boys - must pose if they are to become nothing more than an ageing society which commemorates a series of battles in the late 17th century.
It would appear as Ireland marks the actual 20th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement tomorrow that the Loyal Orders have either lost their way or been wrong-footed by republicans over the past two decades since the official start of the so-called peace process.
The bitter reality which the Loyal Orders must face is that they no longer enjoy the privileged position within the pro-Union community as they did in 1998 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed.
In April 1998, the Order had been able to walk down the predominantly nationalist Garvaghy Road in Portadown since the first contentious parade in 1995. Indeed, the Orange Order was fulfilling its traditional role as a vehicle of communication between the working class loyalists and the middle and upper class unionists.
This had always been the strength of the Loyal Orders since the formation of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1905, and especially since partition in the 1920s. The Loyal Orders were the cement which held together the various strands of the pro-Union community, involving the various classes - upper, middle and working , the marching band scene, the Unionist Party, and equally importantly, the Protestant Church denominations.
That link with the Protestant Churches was further cemented in the role of the Loyal Orders’ senior order, the Black - often dubbed the poor man’s Masonic. The Orange once had a very significant political role - for many years it had UUC delegates until the Yes/No rift in the Ulster Unionist Party over the Belfast Agreement saw the UUP cut Orange delegates adrift.
The Apprentice Boys movement was seen - along with the Independent Orange Order - as predominantly working class orders. Both were excellent communications tools between the Unionist political elite and working class Protestants. The Loyal Orders also played a vital role in mobilising Protestant voters at elections. However, as with many pro-Union and Protestant mobilisation movements since the start of the conflict in the late 1960s, the Loyal Orders suffered from the ‘luxury’ of internecine fighting and splits.
After the 1998 Drumcree parade was prevented from marching back from Drumcree Parish Church along Garvaghy Road, coupled with the deaths of the three Catholic Quinn brothers in Ballymoney in North Antrim and threats made against senior Orange chaplains who called for the Order to leave Drumcree hill as a mark of respect to the three brothers, the Unionist middle and upper classes began to distance themselves from the Order.
There were even scuffles and verbal exchanges from the militant Spirit of Drumcree pressure group within the Orange Order and pro-Agreement supporters at a couple of demonstration fields that 12 July in 1998.
Slowly, but surely, elements of political unionism began to walk away from supporting the Loyal Orders as republicans realised middle and upper class unionists did not want to be associated with parade confrontations.
Nationalist residents’ groups were formed to target what had previously been for decades traditional parade routes, putting further strains on the cohesion between the unionist parties and the Loyal Orders. Republicans always seemed to be a couple of political steps ahead of the Loyal Orders.
However, in areas where nationalist residents’ representatives and Loyal Order members would hold talks, agreements were generally implemented to allow parades to continue.
As well as disagreements between the pro-Union community and the Loyal Orders as to how contentious parades could be resolved, the Loyal Orders faced opposition from another two opposite ends - the growth of liberal Unionism and the increase in the number of Protestant fundamentalists who do not believe it is ‘Christian’ to be members of secret societies.
The formal break in the link between the UUP and Orange Order delegates to the Ulster Unionist Council marked the beginning of the slippery slope of Loyal Order influence within the pro-Union community.
As liberal Unionism increased its grip inside the UUP, the Loyal Orders became increasingly isolated. Likewise, an increasing number of young Protestants preferred to become involved with the marching band scene rather than join the ageing Loyal Orders.
Within the Protestant Church denominations, such as the Pentecostalists, Baptists and Brethren, the position took hold that once a person became a ‘born again’ or ‘saved’ Christian, they had to quit the organisations of the world under the banner of ‘come ye out from amongst them’. This included the Loyal Orders and other secret societies, such as the Freemasons.
Add all these situations together, and we have the Loyal Orders slipping substantially in influence within political Unionism. This has forced the Loyal Orders to rethink both image and strategy and focus on making the Twelfth a family fun day along the lines of the traditional Rossnowlagh demonstration in Co Donegal organised by the Southern border county lodges on the Saturday prior to 12 July, or Black Saturday - the last Saturday in August which is organised by the Royal Black Institution and marks the traditional end to the marching season.
Rather than politics, the Loyal Orders have been forced into a cultural corner where they have to justify their existence within Unionism.
The development of a liberal and secular middle class Protestantism - namely the growth of the so-called ‘Garden Centre Prods’ and ‘Latte Libs’ - has put the Loyal Orders under further pressure as to their roles within the pro-Union community.
In terms of propaganda and the media war, the Loyal Orders always played second fiddle to republicanism. In spite of the Stormont stalemate and Direct Rule from Westminster an almost foregone conclusion, the general perception is that the peace process is holding - so what ‘fear’ have the Loyal Orders to mobilise the Protestant voters against?
Republicans are now embarking on a cultural and literary war against the pro-Union traditions in Ireland. In the war of words, especially when it comes to revisionism, or the rewriting of history, the Loyal Orders are again losing the battle. How long will it be before republicans actually manage to spin the story that King James really won the Battle of the Boyne in 1690?
But the key question is - what is the future role for the Loyal Orders? Firstly, the Loyal Orders either have to make their peace with the Protestant Churches, or open a channel of dialogue with new Christian denominations to allow worshippers to belong to Loyal Orders.
In short, the Loyal Orders must return to their religious roots and encourage as many Protestants as possible to re-engage with their Reformed Faith. In this respect, the Loyal Orders have a key role in combatting the spread of the secular society in Ireland.
Similarly, the Loyal Orders must fight an educational war against republican revisionism. In the 1980s, I once covered the traditional Sham Fight at Scarva when I was a News Letter reporter. It is hosted by the Royal Black Institution and takes place on 13 July, including a re-enactment of the Battle of the Boyne. For a laugh, I filled the headline - ‘Shock Win For James!’. Needless to say, the newsdesk did not share my dark sense of humour!
The lesson from this is simple - how many other events in the conflict will be revised by republican writers and ‘historians’ to give a nationalist slant on those events?
Also, the Loyal Orders must mobilise their members within the Christian Churches to encourage Protestants to register as voters - and vote on polling days. How many republican and nationalist candidates have been elected because Unionists stayed at home? The Loyal Orders cannot moan about a dilution of Unionist civil rights if they will not adopt the same tactics as the Afro-American community in the 1960s Deep South of the United States and register people to vote.
The role of the Loyal Orders, therefore, will be found in future months and years in the Christian Churches. Hopefully, this will have a knock-on effect on the pro-Union political parties.
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
What is the true purpose of the Loyal Orders within the pro-Union community and the wider Irish society? That’s the key dilemma which the leaderships of the various orders - the Orange Order, the Independent Orange Order, the Royal Black Institution and the Apprentice Boys - must pose if they are to become nothing more than an ageing society which commemorates a series of battles in the late 17th century.
It would appear as Ireland marks the actual 20th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement tomorrow that the Loyal Orders have either lost their way or been wrong-footed by republicans over the past two decades since the official start of the so-called peace process.
The bitter reality which the Loyal Orders must face is that they no longer enjoy the privileged position within the pro-Union community as they did in 1998 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed.
In April 1998, the Order had been able to walk down the predominantly nationalist Garvaghy Road in Portadown since the first contentious parade in 1995. Indeed, the Orange Order was fulfilling its traditional role as a vehicle of communication between the working class loyalists and the middle and upper class unionists.
This had always been the strength of the Loyal Orders since the formation of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1905, and especially since partition in the 1920s. The Loyal Orders were the cement which held together the various strands of the pro-Union community, involving the various classes - upper, middle and working , the marching band scene, the Unionist Party, and equally importantly, the Protestant Church denominations.
That link with the Protestant Churches was further cemented in the role of the Loyal Orders’ senior order, the Black - often dubbed the poor man’s Masonic. The Orange once had a very significant political role - for many years it had UUC delegates until the Yes/No rift in the Ulster Unionist Party over the Belfast Agreement saw the UUP cut Orange delegates adrift.
The Apprentice Boys movement was seen - along with the Independent Orange Order - as predominantly working class orders. Both were excellent communications tools between the Unionist political elite and working class Protestants. The Loyal Orders also played a vital role in mobilising Protestant voters at elections. However, as with many pro-Union and Protestant mobilisation movements since the start of the conflict in the late 1960s, the Loyal Orders suffered from the ‘luxury’ of internecine fighting and splits.
After the 1998 Drumcree parade was prevented from marching back from Drumcree Parish Church along Garvaghy Road, coupled with the deaths of the three Catholic Quinn brothers in Ballymoney in North Antrim and threats made against senior Orange chaplains who called for the Order to leave Drumcree hill as a mark of respect to the three brothers, the Unionist middle and upper classes began to distance themselves from the Order.
There were even scuffles and verbal exchanges from the militant Spirit of Drumcree pressure group within the Orange Order and pro-Agreement supporters at a couple of demonstration fields that 12 July in 1998.
Slowly, but surely, elements of political unionism began to walk away from supporting the Loyal Orders as republicans realised middle and upper class unionists did not want to be associated with parade confrontations.
Nationalist residents’ groups were formed to target what had previously been for decades traditional parade routes, putting further strains on the cohesion between the unionist parties and the Loyal Orders. Republicans always seemed to be a couple of political steps ahead of the Loyal Orders.
However, in areas where nationalist residents’ representatives and Loyal Order members would hold talks, agreements were generally implemented to allow parades to continue.
As well as disagreements between the pro-Union community and the Loyal Orders as to how contentious parades could be resolved, the Loyal Orders faced opposition from another two opposite ends - the growth of liberal Unionism and the increase in the number of Protestant fundamentalists who do not believe it is ‘Christian’ to be members of secret societies.
The formal break in the link between the UUP and Orange Order delegates to the Ulster Unionist Council marked the beginning of the slippery slope of Loyal Order influence within the pro-Union community.
As liberal Unionism increased its grip inside the UUP, the Loyal Orders became increasingly isolated. Likewise, an increasing number of young Protestants preferred to become involved with the marching band scene rather than join the ageing Loyal Orders.
Within the Protestant Church denominations, such as the Pentecostalists, Baptists and Brethren, the position took hold that once a person became a ‘born again’ or ‘saved’ Christian, they had to quit the organisations of the world under the banner of ‘come ye out from amongst them’. This included the Loyal Orders and other secret societies, such as the Freemasons.
Add all these situations together, and we have the Loyal Orders slipping substantially in influence within political Unionism. This has forced the Loyal Orders to rethink both image and strategy and focus on making the Twelfth a family fun day along the lines of the traditional Rossnowlagh demonstration in Co Donegal organised by the Southern border county lodges on the Saturday prior to 12 July, or Black Saturday - the last Saturday in August which is organised by the Royal Black Institution and marks the traditional end to the marching season.
Rather than politics, the Loyal Orders have been forced into a cultural corner where they have to justify their existence within Unionism.
The development of a liberal and secular middle class Protestantism - namely the growth of the so-called ‘Garden Centre Prods’ and ‘Latte Libs’ - has put the Loyal Orders under further pressure as to their roles within the pro-Union community.
In terms of propaganda and the media war, the Loyal Orders always played second fiddle to republicanism. In spite of the Stormont stalemate and Direct Rule from Westminster an almost foregone conclusion, the general perception is that the peace process is holding - so what ‘fear’ have the Loyal Orders to mobilise the Protestant voters against?
Republicans are now embarking on a cultural and literary war against the pro-Union traditions in Ireland. In the war of words, especially when it comes to revisionism, or the rewriting of history, the Loyal Orders are again losing the battle. How long will it be before republicans actually manage to spin the story that King James really won the Battle of the Boyne in 1690?
But the key question is - what is the future role for the Loyal Orders? Firstly, the Loyal Orders either have to make their peace with the Protestant Churches, or open a channel of dialogue with new Christian denominations to allow worshippers to belong to Loyal Orders.
In short, the Loyal Orders must return to their religious roots and encourage as many Protestants as possible to re-engage with their Reformed Faith. In this respect, the Loyal Orders have a key role in combatting the spread of the secular society in Ireland.
Similarly, the Loyal Orders must fight an educational war against republican revisionism. In the 1980s, I once covered the traditional Sham Fight at Scarva when I was a News Letter reporter. It is hosted by the Royal Black Institution and takes place on 13 July, including a re-enactment of the Battle of the Boyne. For a laugh, I filled the headline - ‘Shock Win For James!’. Needless to say, the newsdesk did not share my dark sense of humour!
The lesson from this is simple - how many other events in the conflict will be revised by republican writers and ‘historians’ to give a nationalist slant on those events?
Also, the Loyal Orders must mobilise their members within the Christian Churches to encourage Protestants to register as voters - and vote on polling days. How many republican and nationalist candidates have been elected because Unionists stayed at home? The Loyal Orders cannot moan about a dilution of Unionist civil rights if they will not adopt the same tactics as the Afro-American community in the 1960s Deep South of the United States and register people to vote.
The role of the Loyal Orders, therefore, will be found in future months and years in the Christian Churches. Hopefully, this will have a knock-on effect on the pro-Union political parties.
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 8, 2018
Republicans Must Stand United In Defiance Of British Rule And All Its Vestiges
Last weekend British police attacked an Irish Republican parade in Lurgan. Cait Trainor responded at the time on her blog Damn Your Concessions.
In Ireland Republicans and anyone who assembles on the street must seek permission from the British State. Many Republicans in recent years have done this in order to avoid any kind of annoyance, for peace sake you may say. For many Republicans seeking permission from the British state stands in direct contradiction of being a republican. I am one such Republican. I stand by the Proclamation of 1916. I do not take it as a mild suggestion. Tto me it is the cornerstone of my faith and I abide by it as faithfully as I can. The Proclamation is not vague when it comes to this issue:
“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible”
If Republicans truly believe that we the people have the ownership of Ireland, asking permission of the British state stands in direct contradiction to this.
As normal, Republican Sinn Féin held their annual Easter commemoration in Lurgan. Those attending assembled at a Memorial Garden in Kilwilkee estate. Minutes after the commemoration had started, scores of armed RUC descended on the event and proceeded to aggressively arrest and drag the colour party away. Their actions were totally disproportionate and we are told that the justification is that no permission had been sought.
During the attack an elderly lady of 75 knocked into by a member of the crown forces who then proceeded to fall on top of her and appeared to drag others down with him. The result being an elderly lady has now been hospitalised due to her injuries.
This weekend up and down the country there are commemorations taking place for the 1916 Rising. Many of these commemorations are taking place solely in graveyards, with others having marches with bands, before proceeding to the grave-yard or monument. Many of these band led commemorations will be state approved having filled in a bar1-11 form. For those who do not give “notification” they are deemed illegal. Lurgan is one such commemoration. As part of giving “notification” you must read and abide by a code of conduct and sign off to this effect. The Code of conduct includes stewards co-operation with the Police and being prepared to identify any persons in the public procession who may be committing an offence.
For those who tell me it is “only notification” today proves it is so much more than that to the Brits. The response from the Brits today proves that it not merely a paper pushing exercise. They see it as defiance. Don’t give “notification” and this is the reaction you can expect.
The British state have for years tried to move Republicans into a state of normalisation, to interact with them and comply with their laws, as Republicans our main job is to defy British Rule and all its vestiges. The Brits are masters of occupation and imperialism. They have been doing it a long, long time. They know exactly what they are doing. There are no loopholes for us, and they have made sure of that. We either reject British rule in all its forms or we don’t. It’s that simple.
The whataboutery arguments about taking the dole or taxing your car in such a way as to justify seeking State Sanction for Republican Commemorations are hollow, designed to terminate rational Political thought. When we are acting in a political capacity as Republicans, we are duty bound to do just that! When we have state approved commemorations for men and women who died fighting that very state, it is utter hypocrisy. We are fooling no one.
It is a long time coming, but it is now time that Republicans accepted the fact that along with the British Army, RUC and Government the Parades Commission must be rejected, all members of the Parades commission are appointed by the British Secretary of state in Ireland. While we are divided on this issue and some commemorations are still complying with the Parades commission it leaves other Republican events open to this kind of attack. It sets a standard.
We must stand together and face this down. They can beat this one commemoration off the street, but together it is a whole lot harder. It is easy and comfortable to just tell yourself it’s only a piece of paper you are filling in, you can be assured of large numbers at events. But that is vacuous. That is not why we are here. There is nothing revolutionary about having your Commemoration State sanctioned no matter if there are thousands in attendance, when our primary objective is the removal of that state.
How can we as Republicans stand among the great revolutionaries of the world and hold our head high if we cannot resist the attempts from the Brits to make us comply with their demands? We the Republican people of Ireland must stand firm on this issue. Asking permission, notification or whatever you want to call it, is allowing ourselves to be normalised to British Rule. When we consider the very many lives laid down for Irish Independence and the rejection of British Rule, and that it is these people we are out commemorating, it is not much to ask us to do.
Defiance not Compliance.
In Ireland Republicans and anyone who assembles on the street must seek permission from the British State. Many Republicans in recent years have done this in order to avoid any kind of annoyance, for peace sake you may say. For many Republicans seeking permission from the British state stands in direct contradiction of being a republican. I am one such Republican. I stand by the Proclamation of 1916. I do not take it as a mild suggestion. Tto me it is the cornerstone of my faith and I abide by it as faithfully as I can. The Proclamation is not vague when it comes to this issue:
“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible”
If Republicans truly believe that we the people have the ownership of Ireland, asking permission of the British state stands in direct contradiction to this.
As normal, Republican Sinn Féin held their annual Easter commemoration in Lurgan. Those attending assembled at a Memorial Garden in Kilwilkee estate. Minutes after the commemoration had started, scores of armed RUC descended on the event and proceeded to aggressively arrest and drag the colour party away. Their actions were totally disproportionate and we are told that the justification is that no permission had been sought.
During the attack an elderly lady of 75 knocked into by a member of the crown forces who then proceeded to fall on top of her and appeared to drag others down with him. The result being an elderly lady has now been hospitalised due to her injuries.
This weekend up and down the country there are commemorations taking place for the 1916 Rising. Many of these commemorations are taking place solely in graveyards, with others having marches with bands, before proceeding to the grave-yard or monument. Many of these band led commemorations will be state approved having filled in a bar1-11 form. For those who do not give “notification” they are deemed illegal. Lurgan is one such commemoration. As part of giving “notification” you must read and abide by a code of conduct and sign off to this effect. The Code of conduct includes stewards co-operation with the Police and being prepared to identify any persons in the public procession who may be committing an offence.
For those who tell me it is “only notification” today proves it is so much more than that to the Brits. The response from the Brits today proves that it not merely a paper pushing exercise. They see it as defiance. Don’t give “notification” and this is the reaction you can expect.
The British state have for years tried to move Republicans into a state of normalisation, to interact with them and comply with their laws, as Republicans our main job is to defy British Rule and all its vestiges. The Brits are masters of occupation and imperialism. They have been doing it a long, long time. They know exactly what they are doing. There are no loopholes for us, and they have made sure of that. We either reject British rule in all its forms or we don’t. It’s that simple.
The whataboutery arguments about taking the dole or taxing your car in such a way as to justify seeking State Sanction for Republican Commemorations are hollow, designed to terminate rational Political thought. When we are acting in a political capacity as Republicans, we are duty bound to do just that! When we have state approved commemorations for men and women who died fighting that very state, it is utter hypocrisy. We are fooling no one.
It is a long time coming, but it is now time that Republicans accepted the fact that along with the British Army, RUC and Government the Parades Commission must be rejected, all members of the Parades commission are appointed by the British Secretary of state in Ireland. While we are divided on this issue and some commemorations are still complying with the Parades commission it leaves other Republican events open to this kind of attack. It sets a standard.
We must stand together and face this down. They can beat this one commemoration off the street, but together it is a whole lot harder. It is easy and comfortable to just tell yourself it’s only a piece of paper you are filling in, you can be assured of large numbers at events. But that is vacuous. That is not why we are here. There is nothing revolutionary about having your Commemoration State sanctioned no matter if there are thousands in attendance, when our primary objective is the removal of that state.
How can we as Republicans stand among the great revolutionaries of the world and hold our head high if we cannot resist the attempts from the Brits to make us comply with their demands? We the Republican people of Ireland must stand firm on this issue. Asking permission, notification or whatever you want to call it, is allowing ourselves to be normalised to British Rule. When we consider the very many lives laid down for Irish Independence and the rejection of British Rule, and that it is these people we are out commemorating, it is not much to ask us to do.
Defiance not Compliance.
Bishop Refused To Cooperate In Sexual Abuse Investigation
Lena M with a piece in Atheist Republic about more resistance to justice from within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Photo Credits: Church Militant
Some Saginaw Diocese parishioners are calling for Saginaw Bishop Joseph R. Cistone to step down after prosecutors say his diocese failed to cooperate in an ongoing sexual abuse investigation. Police executed the search warrants and raided his house because of his refusal to provide key details in their investigation. Rectory at the Cathedral and Catholic Diocese of Saginaw offices were also searched alongside bishop Cistone’s home, and documents and hard drives were removed.
Cistone was never prosecuted and he never faced criminal charges. Only one diocese priest has been criminally charged. Robert De Land was arrested on February 25 on accusations he sexually assaulted two males in his Saginaw Township condominium. Another diocese priest, Ronald J. Dombrowski, was suspended earlier in March by the diocese after they received a report he allegedly sexually assaulted a person when they were a minor. He has not been criminally charged, according to MLive Media Group.
This was not the first time Cistone had tried to protect priests who were accused of sexual abuse. Cistone was a high-ranking member of the Philadelphia Archdiocese when he was accused of protecting a priest known for his “predilection for naked children.” According to grand jury report Cistone was given several updates on efforts to silence a nun who tried informing parishioners about a priest’s past, particularly his “predilection for naked children,” as Patheos reports. In 2012, Cistone was accused of refusing to confirm that he witnessed the shredding of documents that contained information about the priests accused of child abuse.
Repeating involvement in situations where priests are accused of sexual abuse and suspicion that he protected the accused in two states is hardly only a coincidence. According to Mlive Media Group, some of the parishioners are insisting that he must step down from his position.
"He has no credibility," said Mary Ureche, a parishioner at St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Saginaw Township. "The reason he's here is because of the cover-up and shredding of documents in Philadelphia."
"The Diocese of Saginaw needs somebody who can fix this, and I don't think Bishop Cistone can," Nathan Medina, who grew up worshiping at Cathedral of Mary of the Assumption in Saginaw, said.
Maybe Cistone avoided criminal charges, but by protecting the accused and preventing the investigation he became an accomplice and is also responsible for the consequences that occurred. Especially because this is something that has already happened to Cistone while he performed his role as a member of the Philadelphia Archdiocese.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Photo Credits: Church MilitantSome Saginaw Diocese parishioners are calling for Saginaw Bishop Joseph R. Cistone to step down after prosecutors say his diocese failed to cooperate in an ongoing sexual abuse investigation. Police executed the search warrants and raided his house because of his refusal to provide key details in their investigation. Rectory at the Cathedral and Catholic Diocese of Saginaw offices were also searched alongside bishop Cistone’s home, and documents and hard drives were removed.
Cistone was never prosecuted and he never faced criminal charges. Only one diocese priest has been criminally charged. Robert De Land was arrested on February 25 on accusations he sexually assaulted two males in his Saginaw Township condominium. Another diocese priest, Ronald J. Dombrowski, was suspended earlier in March by the diocese after they received a report he allegedly sexually assaulted a person when they were a minor. He has not been criminally charged, according to MLive Media Group.
This was not the first time Cistone had tried to protect priests who were accused of sexual abuse. Cistone was a high-ranking member of the Philadelphia Archdiocese when he was accused of protecting a priest known for his “predilection for naked children.” According to grand jury report Cistone was given several updates on efforts to silence a nun who tried informing parishioners about a priest’s past, particularly his “predilection for naked children,” as Patheos reports. In 2012, Cistone was accused of refusing to confirm that he witnessed the shredding of documents that contained information about the priests accused of child abuse.
Repeating involvement in situations where priests are accused of sexual abuse and suspicion that he protected the accused in two states is hardly only a coincidence. According to Mlive Media Group, some of the parishioners are insisting that he must step down from his position.
"He has no credibility," said Mary Ureche, a parishioner at St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Saginaw Township. "The reason he's here is because of the cover-up and shredding of documents in Philadelphia."
"The Diocese of Saginaw needs somebody who can fix this, and I don't think Bishop Cistone can," Nathan Medina, who grew up worshiping at Cathedral of Mary of the Assumption in Saginaw, said.
Maybe Cistone avoided criminal charges, but by protecting the accused and preventing the investigation he became an accomplice and is also responsible for the consequences that occurred. Especially because this is something that has already happened to Cistone while he performed his role as a member of the Philadelphia Archdiocese.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
April 7, 2018
A Wrong Man Calls It Wrong ... Again
Anthony McIntyre thinks Danny Morrison is a veteran errorist and wonders what lies behind his latest demonstration of being wrong.
It is neither here nor there that I am one of those people who according to director Maurice Sweeney "definitely didn’t want to be interviewed" for the documentary. Suffice to say that my take on its provenance, among other things, led to my being resolutely opposed to it ever having been produced.
Ed Moloney, the project director for the Boston College oral history venture, is a co-producer of I Dolours. Employing the language of people used to handling spies and running agents of influence, Morrison referred to Moloney as a 'godfather' behind the Boston College oral history project. We may wonder how he learned to grow comfortable with that peculiar British term, contextually moulded as a weapon of smear for use against Irish republicans. In the prolonged republican battle against the British state policy of criminalisation, 'godfather' became the finger-word to poke republican legitimacy in the eye. There was a battle of wills and the British were up for using whatever discursive means at hand to force their opponents to blink first.
Morrison, ostensibly on the republican side, running point for republican PR, would be all too aware of this. To start using terms with a particular British state inflexion takes quite some leap for an authentic republican. But if the voice behind the words really had a British twang all along then the ground to cover is not all that great.
In his not altogether illogical piece, Morrison has claimed:
The one slight problem with that assertion is that it is demonstrably false. I simply did not say it. It might be a genuine mistake on Morrison's part, but with Morrison there is so little genuine about him: so the instinct is to always go with your instinct and assume it was an incident of mislead rather than mistake.
I Dolours resonates in an Ancient Rome way, drawing on the famed I Claudius. Much like Et Tu Danny would be a fitting title for a documentary about Morrison's role in the 1981 hunger strike.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.
Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
It is neither here nor there that I am one of those people who according to director Maurice Sweeney "definitely didn’t want to be interviewed" for the documentary. Suffice to say that my take on its provenance, among other things, led to my being resolutely opposed to it ever having been produced.
Ed Moloney, the project director for the Boston College oral history venture, is a co-producer of I Dolours. Employing the language of people used to handling spies and running agents of influence, Morrison referred to Moloney as a 'godfather' behind the Boston College oral history project. We may wonder how he learned to grow comfortable with that peculiar British term, contextually moulded as a weapon of smear for use against Irish republicans. In the prolonged republican battle against the British state policy of criminalisation, 'godfather' became the finger-word to poke republican legitimacy in the eye. There was a battle of wills and the British were up for using whatever discursive means at hand to force their opponents to blink first.
Morrison, ostensibly on the republican side, running point for republican PR, would be all too aware of this. To start using terms with a particular British state inflexion takes quite some leap for an authentic republican. But if the voice behind the words really had a British twang all along then the ground to cover is not all that great.
In his not altogether illogical piece, Morrison has claimed:
Anthony McIntyre said: “The Irish News journalist hardly covered herself in glory when she interviewed Dolours Price at a time when Price was undergoing psychiatric care at a Dublin hospital… As both a journalist and a human being, this was hardly an example of ethical behaviour.”
The one slight problem with that assertion is that it is demonstrably false. I simply did not say it. It might be a genuine mistake on Morrison's part, but with Morrison there is so little genuine about him: so the instinct is to always go with your instinct and assume it was an incident of mislead rather than mistake.
I Dolours resonates in an Ancient Rome way, drawing on the famed I Claudius. Much like Et Tu Danny would be a fitting title for a documentary about Morrison's role in the 1981 hunger strike.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 7 April 2018
Martin Galvin
with details of this weekend's broadcast from
Radio Free Eireann.
Radio Free Eireann will cover last week's British crackdown on Easter 1916 Commemorations, with reports from Lurgan and Derry including arrests, raids and assaults with analysis about what this means for future commemorations.
Twenty years after the Good Friday agreement, with no Stormont Assembly in the immediate future, we will look at what the agreement means today.
We will have more information about an 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, with no Stormont Assembly in the immediate future, we will look at what the agreement means today.
We will have more information about an 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 6, 2018
Stand Against Israeli Brutal Siege
Catherine Hutton, Derry Branch of Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, has issued a press release about a protest this weekend in Derry.
The rally will begin at the Diamond War Memorial at 3pm on Saturday 7th April proceeding via Shipquay Street to the Guildhall Square.
Speakers at the rally are Elisha McCallion, MP Sinn Fein. Fadl Mustapha, Palestinian Refugee and activist. Eamonn McCann, People Before Profit. Paul Gallagher, Independent Councillor Derry City & Strabane District Council. The leader of SDLP - Colum Eastwood has issued a statement in support of the aims of the Great March of Return. The SDLP party conference which is happening on the day of the rally prevents representatives from attending.
On Friday 30th March 2018, 10's of 1000's of Palestinians in Gaza gathered at the border fence for the beginning of the Great Return March home to the land and homes stolen from them and their forbears in 1948. They were met with lethal, accurate pinpoint brutality. Shoot-to-kill snipers, tanks with artillery, drones with teargas rained down upon peaceful unarmed protesters. 15 Palestinians lost their lives, murdered by Israeli Occupation Forces. 1400+ were injured, many seriously.
We call on the Irish & UK governments, the EU and the United Nations to take action against Israel's war crimes and total impunity. We demand the expulsion of Israeli diplomats from Ireland and for sanctions to be imposed. It is not enough to churn out pointless platitudes time after time while Israel continues to flout international law and conventions.
Palestinians in Gaza live under a brutal siege imposed by Israel and enforced by Egypt and the inaction of the International Community. They are exercising their legal right enshrined in UN Resolution 194 - the right of return. Please Come Out And Show Your Support For Palestine And Anger At The Brutality Of The Israeli Occupation Forces.
I Find That Offensive
Christopher Owens with a review of a book that advocates free speech.
Short books are vastly underrated.
A really great novel packs more of a punch in 200 odd pages than in 1000.
I Find that Offensive is one in a series of books from Biteback Publishing which come under the umbrella name of 'Provocations.' In this series, we've read the likes of Kevin Meagher argue that a United Ireland is inevitable, John Sutherland discussing the wars on young and old people, and even prime time scumbag Kelvin McKenzie articulating his enthusiasm on immigration.
And with them all being around the 200 page mark, there is enough in there to facilitate an argument while also being light enough to dip in and out of when needed.
With the recent conviction of YouTuber (and attention seeker) "Count Dankula" for making a video of a pug making a Nazi salute while he uses the phrase "gas the Jews," and the PSNI investigating Ellie Evans for holding a placard saying "Fuck the DUP", revisiting this book is a grim reminder of what we now face.
A former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Claire Fox has been a known figure in the media for quite a while with columns in the Times, being a panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze and appearing on Newsnight. Very much a fervent supporter of freedom of speech and the necessity for debate, this book should be a starting point for today's people.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hit the revolutionary zeal. But it gives it a good go.
She begins by discussing a talk she gave in a classroom made up of "90 per cent Muslim students" post Charlie Hebdo, in which she managed to offend students by not referring to Mohammed as the Prophet. She notes that "One young woman, her voice quivering explained that...seeing something like the Hebdo cartoons were...like being physically assaulted..." Quite a strong statement, I'm sure you'll agree.
Linking it with another school discussion she had centred around Ched Evans (then convicted of rape but subsequently found not guilty on retrial), Fox describes how her defence of due process, rehabilitation and (quoting Germaine Greer) informing these pupils that rape was not necessarily the worst thing that could happen to someone was the cue for inevitable outrage: "Girls were hugging each other for comfort...I was told that I was dangerous, irresponsible and offensive."
Of course, we know that teenagers are prone to melodrama and exaggeration. But Fox felt this was different: both sets of kids genuinely believed that such views are unacceptable and didn't want to hear them. This wasn't someone opting out of an argument, this was two groups of school kids demanding that the conversation be shut down.
It's both childish and disturbing, and it's filtered into everyday life. Fox reports it with an air of resignation and genuine bewilderment, even while trying to be sympathetic. This is the main problem of the book: trying to express an understanding tone when the words on the page don't match this.
Split into three parts, the first one sets the scene by looking into various examples in recent UK-US history of "offensiveness." Ranging from the stupid (clapping being banned because it could "retraumatise" people) to the insidious (the reaction to Erika Christaki's email about Halloween costumes), it's an infuriating read and the ever-growing list of absurdities makes it reminiscent of Monty Python recreating Kafka.
Interestingly, and this has been mentioned by other reviewers, when discussing the shameful episode where supposed "feminists" lashed out at Pretenders front woman Chrissie Hynde for her comments suggesting that the rape she suffered was partly her own fault, Fox uses the word "culpability" in relation to Hynde's actions.
Now, since Hynde is on record as saying she feels a certain amount of responsibility, the use of the word is legitimate in this context. However, earlier in the book, Fox castigates the people who felt the Charlie Hebdo staff were, in effect "asking for it." While that is understandable, there is a problem here. Surely, by publishing cartoons that some would consider blasphemous, there was always a chance that people who hold fanatical views about a religion would get wound up enough to attack the magazine? Does that make it right? Not at all. But it is a risk.
And this is where the concept of free speech can become tricky. I am of the opinion that people are perfectly entitled to say what they want. However, that does not mean there are no consequences. Someone might lash at you verbally or physically. Are they right to physically attack you for something you've said? No, because that is a form of shutting down debate. However, it is a fact of life that it can happen and is one of the risks you take when voicing opinions.
Of course, I'm aware that the format of the book will give rise to limitations in areas that could be discussed more thoroughly in a larger tome. However, it would have been less disingenuous of her to at least acknowledge that there are wider issues also up for debate, but that they remain outside the scope of I Find that Offensive.
Part two is a look at why teenagers and young adults hold such views. Somewhat predictably, Fox lays the blame at everyone from parents not letting their kids get scraped knees while playing, governmental health and safety issues (the fight against obesity, endless anti-bullying campaigns), schools for removing texts that could be considered "problematic" and universities for being so money driven, that students now call the shots by being customers of the university. And what business wants to lose customers? So they indulge students.
While there is undoubtedly an element of truth in all of this, it comes across as a bit "it were all green fields around here when I were a lass." Children have been mollycoddled by parents since the dawn of time, and anti bullying initiatives can actually be a good thing. Of course, the overabundance of policies (including "deliberately excluding others") may render the initiatives impotent (which is probably the point Fox is making) but maybe an extra run through Microsoft Word would have smoothed out the exasperation which can irritate.
Ending with two letters (one addressed to the "snowflakes" and the other to free speech advocates) is a succinct way of summing up her views. Unfortunately, the first letter is riddled with smugness and arrogance and is highly unlikely to win over anyone. However, the second one is genuinely motivating for free speech enthusiasts. Imploring them not to resort to shock tactics, she emphasises the need for conversation and allowing others to use their voice.
Overall, for a 200 odd page book, there's enough in here to pique the curiosity of someone who feels frustrated and worried by recent developments but is hamstrung by its hectoring tone, questionable attitude towards certain events and general "PC gone mad" rant of modern culture. But through it all is a clear desire to protect and defend the right of the individual to speak their mind, and that is rare in this day and age.
Footnote: I asked the people behind the #FuckTheDUP page if they wanted to comment on the case of "Count Dankula" and what that meant for freedom of speech. They did not respond to my query.
Claire Fox, 2016. I Find that Offensive. Biteback Publishing 2016 ISBN-13: 978-1849549813
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
Short books are vastly underrated.
A really great novel packs more of a punch in 200 odd pages than in 1000.
I Find that Offensive is one in a series of books from Biteback Publishing which come under the umbrella name of 'Provocations.' In this series, we've read the likes of Kevin Meagher argue that a United Ireland is inevitable, John Sutherland discussing the wars on young and old people, and even prime time scumbag Kelvin McKenzie articulating his enthusiasm on immigration.
And with them all being around the 200 page mark, there is enough in there to facilitate an argument while also being light enough to dip in and out of when needed.
With the recent conviction of YouTuber (and attention seeker) "Count Dankula" for making a video of a pug making a Nazi salute while he uses the phrase "gas the Jews," and the PSNI investigating Ellie Evans for holding a placard saying "Fuck the DUP", revisiting this book is a grim reminder of what we now face.
A former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Claire Fox has been a known figure in the media for quite a while with columns in the Times, being a panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze and appearing on Newsnight. Very much a fervent supporter of freedom of speech and the necessity for debate, this book should be a starting point for today's people.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hit the revolutionary zeal. But it gives it a good go.
She begins by discussing a talk she gave in a classroom made up of "90 per cent Muslim students" post Charlie Hebdo, in which she managed to offend students by not referring to Mohammed as the Prophet. She notes that "One young woman, her voice quivering explained that...seeing something like the Hebdo cartoons were...like being physically assaulted..." Quite a strong statement, I'm sure you'll agree.
Linking it with another school discussion she had centred around Ched Evans (then convicted of rape but subsequently found not guilty on retrial), Fox describes how her defence of due process, rehabilitation and (quoting Germaine Greer) informing these pupils that rape was not necessarily the worst thing that could happen to someone was the cue for inevitable outrage: "Girls were hugging each other for comfort...I was told that I was dangerous, irresponsible and offensive."
Of course, we know that teenagers are prone to melodrama and exaggeration. But Fox felt this was different: both sets of kids genuinely believed that such views are unacceptable and didn't want to hear them. This wasn't someone opting out of an argument, this was two groups of school kids demanding that the conversation be shut down.
It's both childish and disturbing, and it's filtered into everyday life. Fox reports it with an air of resignation and genuine bewilderment, even while trying to be sympathetic. This is the main problem of the book: trying to express an understanding tone when the words on the page don't match this.
Split into three parts, the first one sets the scene by looking into various examples in recent UK-US history of "offensiveness." Ranging from the stupid (clapping being banned because it could "retraumatise" people) to the insidious (the reaction to Erika Christaki's email about Halloween costumes), it's an infuriating read and the ever-growing list of absurdities makes it reminiscent of Monty Python recreating Kafka.
Interestingly, and this has been mentioned by other reviewers, when discussing the shameful episode where supposed "feminists" lashed out at Pretenders front woman Chrissie Hynde for her comments suggesting that the rape she suffered was partly her own fault, Fox uses the word "culpability" in relation to Hynde's actions.
Now, since Hynde is on record as saying she feels a certain amount of responsibility, the use of the word is legitimate in this context. However, earlier in the book, Fox castigates the people who felt the Charlie Hebdo staff were, in effect "asking for it." While that is understandable, there is a problem here. Surely, by publishing cartoons that some would consider blasphemous, there was always a chance that people who hold fanatical views about a religion would get wound up enough to attack the magazine? Does that make it right? Not at all. But it is a risk.
And this is where the concept of free speech can become tricky. I am of the opinion that people are perfectly entitled to say what they want. However, that does not mean there are no consequences. Someone might lash at you verbally or physically. Are they right to physically attack you for something you've said? No, because that is a form of shutting down debate. However, it is a fact of life that it can happen and is one of the risks you take when voicing opinions.
Of course, I'm aware that the format of the book will give rise to limitations in areas that could be discussed more thoroughly in a larger tome. However, it would have been less disingenuous of her to at least acknowledge that there are wider issues also up for debate, but that they remain outside the scope of I Find that Offensive.
Part two is a look at why teenagers and young adults hold such views. Somewhat predictably, Fox lays the blame at everyone from parents not letting their kids get scraped knees while playing, governmental health and safety issues (the fight against obesity, endless anti-bullying campaigns), schools for removing texts that could be considered "problematic" and universities for being so money driven, that students now call the shots by being customers of the university. And what business wants to lose customers? So they indulge students.
While there is undoubtedly an element of truth in all of this, it comes across as a bit "it were all green fields around here when I were a lass." Children have been mollycoddled by parents since the dawn of time, and anti bullying initiatives can actually be a good thing. Of course, the overabundance of policies (including "deliberately excluding others") may render the initiatives impotent (which is probably the point Fox is making) but maybe an extra run through Microsoft Word would have smoothed out the exasperation which can irritate.
Ending with two letters (one addressed to the "snowflakes" and the other to free speech advocates) is a succinct way of summing up her views. Unfortunately, the first letter is riddled with smugness and arrogance and is highly unlikely to win over anyone. However, the second one is genuinely motivating for free speech enthusiasts. Imploring them not to resort to shock tactics, she emphasises the need for conversation and allowing others to use their voice.
Overall, for a 200 odd page book, there's enough in here to pique the curiosity of someone who feels frustrated and worried by recent developments but is hamstrung by its hectoring tone, questionable attitude towards certain events and general "PC gone mad" rant of modern culture. But through it all is a clear desire to protect and defend the right of the individual to speak their mind, and that is rare in this day and age.
Footnote: I asked the people behind the #FuckTheDUP page if they wanted to comment on the case of "Count Dankula" and what that meant for freedom of speech. They did not respond to my query.
Claire Fox, 2016. I Find that Offensive. Biteback Publishing 2016 ISBN-13: 978-1849549813
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
I Find that Offensive
Christopher Owens with a review of a book that advocates free speech.
Short books are vastly underrated.
A really great novel packs more of a punch in 200 odd pages than in 1000.
I Find that Offensive is one in a series of books from Biteback Publishing which come under the umbrella name of 'Provocations.' In this series, we've read the likes of Kevin Meagher argue that a United Ireland is inevitable, John Sutherland discussing the wars on young and old people, and even prime time scumbag Kelvin McKenzie articulating his enthusiasm on immigration.
And with them all being around the 200 page mark, there is enough in there to facilitate an argument while also being light enough to dip in and out of when needed.
With the recent conviction of YouTuber (and attention seeker) "Count Dankula" for making a video of a pug making a Nazi salute while he uses the phrase "gas the Jews," and the PSNI investigating Ellie Evans for holding a placard saying "Fuck the DUP", revisiting this book is a grim reminder of what we now face.
A former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Claire Fox has been a known figure in the media for quite a while with columns in the Times, being a panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze and appearing on Newsnight. Very much a fervent supporter of freedom of speech and the necessity for debate, this book should be a starting point for today's people.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hit the revolutionary zeal. But it gives it a good go.
She begins by discussing a talk she gave in a classroom made up of "90 per cent Muslim students" post Charlie Hebdo, in which she managed to offend students by not referring to Mohammed as the Prophet. She notes that "One young woman, her voice quivering explained that...seeing something like the Hebdo cartoons were...like being physically assaulted..." Quite a strong statement, I'm sure you'll agree.
Linking it with another school discussion she had centred around Ched Evans (then convicted of rape but subsequently found not guilty on retrial), Fox describes how her defence of due process, rehabilitation and (quoting Germaine Greer) informing these pupils that rape was not necessarily the worst thing that could happen to someone was the cue for inevitable outrage: "Girls were hugging each other for comfort...I was told that I was dangerous, irresponsible and offensive."
Of course, we know that teenagers are prone to melodrama and exaggeration. But Fox felt this was different: both sets of kids genuinely believed that such views are unacceptable and didn't want to hear them. This wasn't someone opting out of an argument, this was two groups of school kids demanding that the conversation be shut down.
It's both childish and disturbing, and it's filtered into everyday life. Fox reports it with an air of resignation and genuine bewilderment, even while trying to be sympathetic. This is the main problem of the book: trying to express an understanding tone when the words on the page don't match this.
Split into three parts, the first one sets the scene by looking into various examples in recent UK-US history of "offensiveness." Ranging from the stupid (clapping being banned because it could "retraumatise" people) to the insidious (the reaction to Erika Christaki's email about Halloween costumes), it's an infuriating read and the ever-growing list of absurdities makes it reminiscent of Monty Python recreating Kafka.
Interestingly, and this has been mentioned by other reviewers, when discussing the shameful episode where supposed "feminists" lashed out at Pretenders front woman Chrissie Hynde for her comments suggesting that the rape she suffered was partly her own fault, Fox uses the word "culpability" in relation to Hynde's actions.
Now, since Hynde is on record as saying she feels a certain amount of responsibility, the use of the word is legitimate in this context. However, earlier in the book, Fox castigates the people who felt the Charlie Hebdo staff were, in effect "asking for it." While that is understandable, there is a problem here. Surely, by publishing cartoons that some would consider blasphemous, there was always a chance that people who hold fanatical views about a religion would get wound up enough to attack the magazine? Does that make it right? Not at all. But it is a risk.
And this is where the concept of free speech can become tricky. I am of the opinion that people are perfectly entitled to say what they want. However, that does not mean there are no consequences. Someone might lash at you verbally or physically. Are they right to physically attack you for something you've said? No, because that is a form of shutting down debate. However, it is a fact of life that it can happen and is one of the risks you take when voicing opinions.
Of course, I'm aware that the format of the book will give rise to limitations in areas that could be discussed more thoroughly in a larger tome. However, it would have been less disingenuous of her to at least acknowledge that there are wider issues also up for debate, but that they remain outside the scope of I Find that Offensive.
Part two is a look at why teenagers and young adults hold such views. Somewhat predictably, Fox lays the blame at everyone from parents not letting their kids get scraped knees while playing, governmental health and safety issues (the fight against obesity, endless anti-bullying campaigns), schools for removing texts that could be considered "problematic" and universities for being so money driven, that students now call the shots by being customers of the university. And what business wants to lose customers? So they indulge students.
While there is undoubtedly an element of truth in all of this, it comes across as a bit "it were all green fields around here when I were a lass." Children have been mollycoddled by parents since the dawn of time, and anti bullying initiatives can actually be a good thing. Of course, the overabundance of policies (including "deliberately excluding others") may render the initiatives impotent (which is probably the point Fox is making) but maybe an extra run through Microsoft Word would have smoothed out the exasperation which can irritate.
Ending with two letters (one addressed to the "snowflakes" and the other to free speech advocates) is a succinct way of summing up her views. Unfortunately, the first letter is riddled with smugness and arrogance and is highly unlikely to win over anyone. However, the second one is genuinely motivating for free speech enthusiasts. Imploring them not to resort to shock tactics, she emphasises the need for conversation and allowing others to use their voice.
Overall, for a 200 odd page book, there's enough in here to pique the curiosity of someone who feels frustrated and worried by recent developments but is hamstrung by its hectoring tone, questionable attitude towards certain events and general "PC gone mad" rant of modern culture. But through it all is a clear desire to protect and defend the right of the individual to speak their mind, and that is rare in this day and age.
Footnote: I asked the people behind the #FuckTheDUP page if they wanted to comment on the case of "Count Dankula" and what that meant for freedom of speech. They did not respond to my query.
Claire Fox, 2016. I Find that Offensive. Biteback Publishing 2016 ISBN-13: 978-1849549813
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
Short books are vastly underrated.
A really great novel packs more of a punch in 200 odd pages than in 1000.
I Find that Offensive is one in a series of books from Biteback Publishing which come under the umbrella name of 'Provocations.' In this series, we've read the likes of Kevin Meagher argue that a United Ireland is inevitable, John Sutherland discussing the wars on young and old people, and even prime time scumbag Kelvin McKenzie articulating his enthusiasm on immigration.
And with them all being around the 200 page mark, there is enough in there to facilitate an argument while also being light enough to dip in and out of when needed.
With the recent conviction of YouTuber (and attention seeker) "Count Dankula" for making a video of a pug making a Nazi salute while he uses the phrase "gas the Jews," and the PSNI investigating Ellie Evans for holding a placard saying "Fuck the DUP", revisiting this book is a grim reminder of what we now face.
A former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Claire Fox has been a known figure in the media for quite a while with columns in the Times, being a panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze and appearing on Newsnight. Very much a fervent supporter of freedom of speech and the necessity for debate, this book should be a starting point for today's people.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hit the revolutionary zeal. But it gives it a good go.
She begins by discussing a talk she gave in a classroom made up of "90 per cent Muslim students" post Charlie Hebdo, in which she managed to offend students by not referring to Mohammed as the Prophet. She notes that "One young woman, her voice quivering explained that...seeing something like the Hebdo cartoons were...like being physically assaulted..." Quite a strong statement, I'm sure you'll agree.
Linking it with another school discussion she had centred around Ched Evans (then convicted of rape but subsequently found not guilty on retrial), Fox describes how her defence of due process, rehabilitation and (quoting Germaine Greer) informing these pupils that rape was not necessarily the worst thing that could happen to someone was the cue for inevitable outrage: "Girls were hugging each other for comfort...I was told that I was dangerous, irresponsible and offensive."
Of course, we know that teenagers are prone to melodrama and exaggeration. But Fox felt this was different: both sets of kids genuinely believed that such views are unacceptable and didn't want to hear them. This wasn't someone opting out of an argument, this was two groups of school kids demanding that the conversation be shut down.
It's both childish and disturbing, and it's filtered into everyday life. Fox reports it with an air of resignation and genuine bewilderment, even while trying to be sympathetic. This is the main problem of the book: trying to express an understanding tone when the words on the page don't match this.
Split into three parts, the first one sets the scene by looking into various examples in recent UK-US history of "offensiveness." Ranging from the stupid (clapping being banned because it could "retraumatise" people) to the insidious (the reaction to Erika Christaki's email about Halloween costumes), it's an infuriating read and the ever-growing list of absurdities makes it reminiscent of Monty Python recreating Kafka.
Interestingly, and this has been mentioned by other reviewers, when discussing the shameful episode where supposed "feminists" lashed out at Pretenders front woman Chrissie Hynde for her comments suggesting that the rape she suffered was partly her own fault, Fox uses the word "culpability" in relation to Hynde's actions.
Now, since Hynde is on record as saying she feels a certain amount of responsibility, the use of the word is legitimate in this context. However, earlier in the book, Fox castigates the people who felt the Charlie Hebdo staff were, in effect "asking for it." While that is understandable, there is a problem here. Surely, by publishing cartoons that some would consider blasphemous, there was always a chance that people who hold fanatical views about a religion would get wound up enough to attack the magazine? Does that make it right? Not at all. But it is a risk.
And this is where the concept of free speech can become tricky. I am of the opinion that people are perfectly entitled to say what they want. However, that does not mean there are no consequences. Someone might lash at you verbally or physically. Are they right to physically attack you for something you've said? No, because that is a form of shutting down debate. However, it is a fact of life that it can happen and is one of the risks you take when voicing opinions.
Of course, I'm aware that the format of the book will give rise to limitations in areas that could be discussed more thoroughly in a larger tome. However, it would have been less disingenuous of her to at least acknowledge that there are wider issues also up for debate, but that they remain outside the scope of I Find that Offensive.
Part two is a look at why teenagers and young adults hold such views. Somewhat predictably, Fox lays the blame at everyone from parents not letting their kids get scraped knees while playing, governmental health and safety issues (the fight against obesity, endless anti-bullying campaigns), schools for removing texts that could be considered "problematic" and universities for being so money driven, that students now call the shots by being customers of the university. And what business wants to lose customers? So they indulge students.
While there is undoubtedly an element of truth in all of this, it comes across as a bit "it were all green fields around here when I were a lass." Children have been mollycoddled by parents since the dawn of time, and anti bullying initiatives can actually be a good thing. Of course, the overabundance of policies (including "deliberately excluding others") may render the initiatives impotent (which is probably the point Fox is making) but maybe an extra run through Microsoft Word would have smoothed out the exasperation which can irritate.
Ending with two letters (one addressed to the "snowflakes" and the other to free speech advocates) is a succinct way of summing up her views. Unfortunately, the first letter is riddled with smugness and arrogance and is highly unlikely to win over anyone. However, the second one is genuinely motivating for free speech enthusiasts. Imploring them not to resort to shock tactics, she emphasises the need for conversation and allowing others to use their voice.
Overall, for a 200 odd page book, there's enough in here to pique the curiosity of someone who feels frustrated and worried by recent developments but is hamstrung by its hectoring tone, questionable attitude towards certain events and general "PC gone mad" rant of modern culture. But through it all is a clear desire to protect and defend the right of the individual to speak their mind, and that is rare in this day and age.
Footnote: I asked the people behind the #FuckTheDUP page if they wanted to comment on the case of "Count Dankula" and what that meant for freedom of speech. They did not respond to my query.
Claire Fox, 2016. I Find that Offensive. Biteback Publishing 2016 ISBN-13: 978-1849549813
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
April 5, 2018
Will Labour’s Climate Policy Rely On Monstrous Techno-Fixes Like BECCS?
Gabriel Levy discusses some issues raised at a recent environmental conference.
This question was raised – by implication, anyway – at the Campaign Against Climate Change conference in London on Saturday. The 200 people present heard essentially opposing answers from Barry Gardiner, Labour’s front-bench spokesman on climate change, and Asad Rehman, chief executive of War on Want.
Photo by Garry Knight under a Creative Commons Licence
The contrasting approaches were starkly evident when a question was asked from the floor about Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – an untried technology on which the world’s most powerful governments are relying heavily to claim they are on course to meet their climate targets.
Basically, BECCS would involve growing plants, burning them in power stations, and then capturing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted and storing it somewhere. (See also “Quick technological catch-up” below).
Despite the fact that BECCS has never been used anywhere yet, the latest (fifth) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has included huge amounts of it in its scenarios that plot how the world economy could move away from dangerous global warming. To make the numbers add up, the IPCC has also assumed huge amounts of afforestation (because trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere). These dodgy scenarios underpinned the decisions of the 2015 Paris climate summit.
Scientists have spoken out vehemently against the IPCC scenarios, arguing that nothing has been said about where land would be found to grow the enormous number of crops needed, and where the water would be found to feed them. And not enough has been said about the logistical problems of storing vast quantities of captured CO2.
Development campaigners say that BECCS could easily become a way of heaping more suffering on the global south – by taking land and water that could be better used for farming – to protect the global north’s carbon-heavy economic life style.
But when the issue was raised at Saturday’s conference, Labour’s Barry Gardiner insisted that the 2015 Paris climate summit – that adopted plans for tackling global warming that rely heavily on BECCS and other untested “negative emissions” technologies – had shown the way forward.
He underlined the role of “negative emissions”, and particularly afforestation (an issue on which he has worked for many years) – and highlighted the danger of continuing deforestation in Brazil.
Gardiner also argued that the Paris summit, by abandoning the idea of legally-binding emissions reduction targets, and instead collecting (inadequate) voluntary targets from nations, was an important step forward. He claimed that at Paris the world’s governments had moved from a “top down” to a “bottom up” approach.
Asad Rehman of War on Want said that the Paris summit had reflected the unequal and exploitative relationship between rich countries and the global south.
“The global north didn’t want to do its fair share to reduce emissions”, he said. “This is the reality of weak, ineffectual economic architecture.” And it was “not about Trump [who was elected in 2016, after Paris] – it was about Obama”. (I agree that Paris solved nothing, and wrote about it in the run-up to the talks.)
Professor Joanna Haigh, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who was also on the panel, acknowledged that “negative emissions” technologies such as BECCS are used in all the IPCC’s scenarios that lead to zero carbon. She said she was “very worried” about the complex resources issues raised by BECCS.
Of all the discussions at the well-attended, well-organised conference, this was in my view the most revealing.
It made me wonder: if Labour is elected, is it going to support the rich-world fiction that the economy can trundle along, and massage the greenhouse gas emissions figures with “market mechanisms”? Is it going to join other rich country governments and focus on trying to protect themselves from the volatile weather, rising sea levels and other effects of climate change? Or is it going to tell the truth about the failure of the international climate talks to find a solution, and urge more radical strategies?
If Barry Gardiner’s approach – that the Paris agreement “really does change everything” and “negative emissions” technologies can help – prevails, the UK under Labour will remain in the ranks of the rich countries that keep pushing the global warming problem on to the backs of people in the global south.
If by contrast a future Labour government is to take seriously Jeremy Corbyn’s assertion that climate change is “the single most important issue facing humanity”, it would need strong action outside parliament, to push it further.
I am not expecting or asking that a future Labour government “solves” the climate crisis. That would be stupid. But there’s nothing to stop Labour politicians telling the truth to their supporters, and to people all over the world who stand to suffer due to global warming. Would a Labour government adopt an uncritical attitude to the international climate agreements, their neoliberal underpinning, and the “negative emissions” fiction at their centre?
Throwing out these illusions might give some teeth to some of the more radical proposals for moving away from fossil fuels under discussion in the party.
Discussions about curtailing billions of pounds worth of subsidies to fossil fuel industries, or nationalising the “big six” in electricity generation and starting the move towards a decentralised, renewables-centred system will not get far if they are mired in the context of a Paris-talks-type “green new deal”.
Let’s hope there are more scientists at future labour movement events on climate policy. Some of them would soon put Barry Gardiner straight about the Paris summit and its reliance on “negative emissions”. Warnings have been sounded, for example, by:
■ Philip Williamson of the University of East Anglia, science coordinator at the Natural Environment Research Council, who warns in an article in Nature that the IPCC’s five-thousand-page fifth assessment report relies heavily on BECCS in its climate policy scenarios, but says not a word about “the environmental impacts of large-scale CO2 removal”.
Planting the necessary number of trees could involve “more release than uptake of greenhouse gases, at least initially”, due to land clearance, fertiliser use and so on. It could take up a land area about half the size of the USA. Such a huge land-use change would “vastly accelerate the loss of primary forest and natural grassland”.
Williamson concludes: “For now, action should focus on urgent emissions reductions and not on an unproven ‘emit now, remove later’ strategy.”
■ The head of Oxford University’s geoengineering programme, and a couple of other high-flying colleagues, who – despite supporting the idea of “negative emissions” in principle – derided the Paris summit’s reliance on BECCS in its scenarios. It is “hazardous to rely on science fiction in the development of scenarios used to inform policymakers”, they argued. Scenarios that “employ entirely speculative approaches”, such as large-scale BECCS, seem “reckless in the extreme”.
They added: “For a technology to be deployable it needs not only to work, but also to possess a social licence to operate.” The use of land for BECCS would “restrict agriculture” and drive up food prices. “Politically, the issue seems so toxic that the Paris Agreement carefully avoided mentioning negative emissions at all.”
■ A team at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that tested the IPCC’s scenarios and concluded that planting trees or grasses “on a grand scale” for BECCS “would push the planet beyond ecological limits in other dimensions”, and specifically, stresses on “biodiversity, biogeochemical flows, water resources and land use”.
Dieter Garten, one of the researchers, said: “Our work substantiates that it would be highly risky to play only this card as a strategy for achieving the climate targets”. Vera Heck, who led the research, warned that if all-round “ecological guidelines”, including those for land and water use, are taken into account, “the potential for biomass and CCS is very small”.
How many different ways do they have to say it before some politicians get the message?
Quick technological catch-up
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) works like this: crops grown for the purpose are burned in power stations to provide energy, and the carbon dioxide produced is captured for secure long-term storage.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can also (supposedly) be used on power stations burning coal, oil or gas.
CCS has yet to be operated at scale anywhere. Power companies regard it as “uneconomic” and say they will fit it when the numbers add up. Meanwhile they are building hundreds of coal-fired stations without the CCS fig-leaf.
According to the Global CCS Institute, an industry association, at the end of 2017 there were 17 CCS facilities in existence. The Institute described these as “large scale”, but the power stations at which they are deployed are smaller than average.
The Institute says that CCS is removing 37 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, i.e. about one-thousandth of the quantity emitted by fossil fuel use.
If CCS was ever to be operated at large scale, one of the big technological headaches would be finding places to store the CO2. (Trade Unions for Energy Democracy made a strong case for rethinking union support for CCS. Highly recommended.)
On top of these problems that apply to all CCS, the big additional problem for BECCS is the vast quantities of land and water that would have to be used.
If you haven’t heard of BECCS until now, don’t worry, it’s not you. Not long ago, no-one had heard of it. Carbon Brief have published a fascinating history of the concept, showing that it went from being floated as an untested hypothesis in 2001 to being included in climate scientists’ scenarios for the future a few years later.
From 2005 onwards, climate policy forecasters started to include it in scenarios, “often to the point that they grew reliant on it”, Leo Hickman of Carbon Brief writes. “In little more than a decade, BECCS had gone from being a highly theoretical proposal for Sweden’s paper mills to earn carbon credits, to being a key negative emissions technology underpinning the modelling, promoted by the IPCC, showing how the world could avoid dangerous climate change this century.”
Michael Obersteiner, who wrote the first scientific paper on BECCS, told Carbon Brief that some people have misinterpreted his work. The concept was “unfortunately misused for regular [emissions pathway] scenarios and not in a risk management sense”. His argument had been to use BECCS “as a backstop technology in case we got bad news from the climate system”, not as a substitute for a strategy “to plan climate mitigation”.
■ Philip Williamson’s article in Nature is a good primer for non-scientists on some of the controversies around BECCS. A primer from Biofuelwatch is useful too.
About the cartoon. It appeared on the front cover of a pamphlet, Global Warming in an Unequal World, published in 1991 by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India. The pamphlet was an angry response to US-based environmentalist NGOs who, in the run-up to the first international climate conference at Rio de Janiero, had exaggerated deforestation as a cause of global warming. A quarter of a century later, the political divide persists. Northern governments, and some northern NGOs, try to deflect the conversation away from reducing fossil fuel use and towards afforestation. Those who seek solutions that embrace both opposition to global warming and social justice fight back. GL, 12 March 2018.
More on People & Nature
■ Let’s take Corbyn’s climate proposals seriously (September 2016)
■ Let’s face it. Melting ice has past the point of no return (November 2015)
■ Site contents
➽ Gabriel Levy blogs @ People And Nature
This question was raised – by implication, anyway – at the Campaign Against Climate Change conference in London on Saturday. The 200 people present heard essentially opposing answers from Barry Gardiner, Labour’s front-bench spokesman on climate change, and Asad Rehman, chief executive of War on Want.
Photo by Garry Knight under a Creative Commons Licence The contrasting approaches were starkly evident when a question was asked from the floor about Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – an untried technology on which the world’s most powerful governments are relying heavily to claim they are on course to meet their climate targets.
Basically, BECCS would involve growing plants, burning them in power stations, and then capturing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted and storing it somewhere. (See also “Quick technological catch-up” below).
Despite the fact that BECCS has never been used anywhere yet, the latest (fifth) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has included huge amounts of it in its scenarios that plot how the world economy could move away from dangerous global warming. To make the numbers add up, the IPCC has also assumed huge amounts of afforestation (because trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere). These dodgy scenarios underpinned the decisions of the 2015 Paris climate summit.
Scientists have spoken out vehemently against the IPCC scenarios, arguing that nothing has been said about where land would be found to grow the enormous number of crops needed, and where the water would be found to feed them. And not enough has been said about the logistical problems of storing vast quantities of captured CO2.
Development campaigners say that BECCS could easily become a way of heaping more suffering on the global south – by taking land and water that could be better used for farming – to protect the global north’s carbon-heavy economic life style.
But when the issue was raised at Saturday’s conference, Labour’s Barry Gardiner insisted that the 2015 Paris climate summit – that adopted plans for tackling global warming that rely heavily on BECCS and other untested “negative emissions” technologies – had shown the way forward.
He underlined the role of “negative emissions”, and particularly afforestation (an issue on which he has worked for many years) – and highlighted the danger of continuing deforestation in Brazil.
Gardiner also argued that the Paris summit, by abandoning the idea of legally-binding emissions reduction targets, and instead collecting (inadequate) voluntary targets from nations, was an important step forward. He claimed that at Paris the world’s governments had moved from a “top down” to a “bottom up” approach.
Asad Rehman of War on Want said that the Paris summit had reflected the unequal and exploitative relationship between rich countries and the global south.
“The global north didn’t want to do its fair share to reduce emissions”, he said. “This is the reality of weak, ineffectual economic architecture.” And it was “not about Trump [who was elected in 2016, after Paris] – it was about Obama”. (I agree that Paris solved nothing, and wrote about it in the run-up to the talks.)
Professor Joanna Haigh, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who was also on the panel, acknowledged that “negative emissions” technologies such as BECCS are used in all the IPCC’s scenarios that lead to zero carbon. She said she was “very worried” about the complex resources issues raised by BECCS.
Of all the discussions at the well-attended, well-organised conference, this was in my view the most revealing.
It made me wonder: if Labour is elected, is it going to support the rich-world fiction that the economy can trundle along, and massage the greenhouse gas emissions figures with “market mechanisms”? Is it going to join other rich country governments and focus on trying to protect themselves from the volatile weather, rising sea levels and other effects of climate change? Or is it going to tell the truth about the failure of the international climate talks to find a solution, and urge more radical strategies?
If Barry Gardiner’s approach – that the Paris agreement “really does change everything” and “negative emissions” technologies can help – prevails, the UK under Labour will remain in the ranks of the rich countries that keep pushing the global warming problem on to the backs of people in the global south.
If by contrast a future Labour government is to take seriously Jeremy Corbyn’s assertion that climate change is “the single most important issue facing humanity”, it would need strong action outside parliament, to push it further.
I am not expecting or asking that a future Labour government “solves” the climate crisis. That would be stupid. But there’s nothing to stop Labour politicians telling the truth to their supporters, and to people all over the world who stand to suffer due to global warming. Would a Labour government adopt an uncritical attitude to the international climate agreements, their neoliberal underpinning, and the “negative emissions” fiction at their centre?
Throwing out these illusions might give some teeth to some of the more radical proposals for moving away from fossil fuels under discussion in the party.
Discussions about curtailing billions of pounds worth of subsidies to fossil fuel industries, or nationalising the “big six” in electricity generation and starting the move towards a decentralised, renewables-centred system will not get far if they are mired in the context of a Paris-talks-type “green new deal”.
Let’s hope there are more scientists at future labour movement events on climate policy. Some of them would soon put Barry Gardiner straight about the Paris summit and its reliance on “negative emissions”. Warnings have been sounded, for example, by:
■ Philip Williamson of the University of East Anglia, science coordinator at the Natural Environment Research Council, who warns in an article in Nature that the IPCC’s five-thousand-page fifth assessment report relies heavily on BECCS in its climate policy scenarios, but says not a word about “the environmental impacts of large-scale CO2 removal”.
Planting the necessary number of trees could involve “more release than uptake of greenhouse gases, at least initially”, due to land clearance, fertiliser use and so on. It could take up a land area about half the size of the USA. Such a huge land-use change would “vastly accelerate the loss of primary forest and natural grassland”.
Williamson concludes: “For now, action should focus on urgent emissions reductions and not on an unproven ‘emit now, remove later’ strategy.”
■ The head of Oxford University’s geoengineering programme, and a couple of other high-flying colleagues, who – despite supporting the idea of “negative emissions” in principle – derided the Paris summit’s reliance on BECCS in its scenarios. It is “hazardous to rely on science fiction in the development of scenarios used to inform policymakers”, they argued. Scenarios that “employ entirely speculative approaches”, such as large-scale BECCS, seem “reckless in the extreme”.
They added: “For a technology to be deployable it needs not only to work, but also to possess a social licence to operate.” The use of land for BECCS would “restrict agriculture” and drive up food prices. “Politically, the issue seems so toxic that the Paris Agreement carefully avoided mentioning negative emissions at all.”
■ A team at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that tested the IPCC’s scenarios and concluded that planting trees or grasses “on a grand scale” for BECCS “would push the planet beyond ecological limits in other dimensions”, and specifically, stresses on “biodiversity, biogeochemical flows, water resources and land use”.
Dieter Garten, one of the researchers, said: “Our work substantiates that it would be highly risky to play only this card as a strategy for achieving the climate targets”. Vera Heck, who led the research, warned that if all-round “ecological guidelines”, including those for land and water use, are taken into account, “the potential for biomass and CCS is very small”.
How many different ways do they have to say it before some politicians get the message?
Quick technological catch-up
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) works like this: crops grown for the purpose are burned in power stations to provide energy, and the carbon dioxide produced is captured for secure long-term storage.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can also (supposedly) be used on power stations burning coal, oil or gas.
CCS has yet to be operated at scale anywhere. Power companies regard it as “uneconomic” and say they will fit it when the numbers add up. Meanwhile they are building hundreds of coal-fired stations without the CCS fig-leaf.
According to the Global CCS Institute, an industry association, at the end of 2017 there were 17 CCS facilities in existence. The Institute described these as “large scale”, but the power stations at which they are deployed are smaller than average.
The Institute says that CCS is removing 37 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, i.e. about one-thousandth of the quantity emitted by fossil fuel use.
If CCS was ever to be operated at large scale, one of the big technological headaches would be finding places to store the CO2. (Trade Unions for Energy Democracy made a strong case for rethinking union support for CCS. Highly recommended.)
On top of these problems that apply to all CCS, the big additional problem for BECCS is the vast quantities of land and water that would have to be used.
If you haven’t heard of BECCS until now, don’t worry, it’s not you. Not long ago, no-one had heard of it. Carbon Brief have published a fascinating history of the concept, showing that it went from being floated as an untested hypothesis in 2001 to being included in climate scientists’ scenarios for the future a few years later.
From 2005 onwards, climate policy forecasters started to include it in scenarios, “often to the point that they grew reliant on it”, Leo Hickman of Carbon Brief writes. “In little more than a decade, BECCS had gone from being a highly theoretical proposal for Sweden’s paper mills to earn carbon credits, to being a key negative emissions technology underpinning the modelling, promoted by the IPCC, showing how the world could avoid dangerous climate change this century.”
Michael Obersteiner, who wrote the first scientific paper on BECCS, told Carbon Brief that some people have misinterpreted his work. The concept was “unfortunately misused for regular [emissions pathway] scenarios and not in a risk management sense”. His argument had been to use BECCS “as a backstop technology in case we got bad news from the climate system”, not as a substitute for a strategy “to plan climate mitigation”.
■ Philip Williamson’s article in Nature is a good primer for non-scientists on some of the controversies around BECCS. A primer from Biofuelwatch is useful too.
About the cartoon. It appeared on the front cover of a pamphlet, Global Warming in an Unequal World, published in 1991 by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India. The pamphlet was an angry response to US-based environmentalist NGOs who, in the run-up to the first international climate conference at Rio de Janiero, had exaggerated deforestation as a cause of global warming. A quarter of a century later, the political divide persists. Northern governments, and some northern NGOs, try to deflect the conversation away from reducing fossil fuel use and towards afforestation. Those who seek solutions that embrace both opposition to global warming and social justice fight back. GL, 12 March 2018.
More on People & Nature
■ Let’s take Corbyn’s climate proposals seriously (September 2016)
■ Let’s face it. Melting ice has past the point of no return (November 2015)
■ Site contents
➽ Gabriel Levy blogs @ People And Nature
Myths And Lies About Abortion Must Be Debunked
David Robert Grimes in a persuasive piece from the Irish Times dismisses what he regards as the dishonesty of the anti-choice campaign. Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist, cancer researcher and science writer at Queen’s University Belfast and University of Oxford. We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs – but not our own facts “It’s worth noting the sanctimonious gloat that ‘Ireland is abortion-free’ is a sinister fiction. It ignores the fact that roughly 12 women travel to the UK for abortions daily, while others procure abortificants online.”
Abortion has long been a contentious issue in Ireland, replete with emotive and frequently dubious rhetoric. This was recently exemplified by Save the Eighth billboard campaign featuring an abortion nurse detailing the horrors he had witnessed.
This testimony was somewhat undermined by the revelation it had been fabricated, leading to the unedifying sight of campaign manager John McGuirk rapidly pivoting from legal threats to grudging acceptance, a volte-face hard to distinguish from surrealist performance art. As the referendum looms ever closer, it is inevitable campaigning will become more charged, both online and off.
Previous abortion referendums have been ugly affairs, characterised by vicious campaigning. The stellar work of the Citizens’ Assembly has shown us this needn’t be the case ...
Continue Reading
Abortion has long been a contentious issue in Ireland, replete with emotive and frequently dubious rhetoric. This was recently exemplified by Save the Eighth billboard campaign featuring an abortion nurse detailing the horrors he had witnessed.
This testimony was somewhat undermined by the revelation it had been fabricated, leading to the unedifying sight of campaign manager John McGuirk rapidly pivoting from legal threats to grudging acceptance, a volte-face hard to distinguish from surrealist performance art. As the referendum looms ever closer, it is inevitable campaigning will become more charged, both online and off.
Previous abortion referendums have been ugly affairs, characterised by vicious campaigning. The stellar work of the Citizens’ Assembly has shown us this needn’t be the case ...
Continue Reading
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.
