Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1156
March 13, 2018
Can Of Worms
Writing shortly after the arrest of a top British agent and senior IRA security figure Mick Hall said:For both British army intelligence and the IRA the arrest of Scappaticci would open a can of worms, it's unlikely he will end up in a court of law.
Freddie Scappaticci.
Earlier this week it was reported Freddie Scappaticci had been arrested. Codenamed Stakeknife by his handlers in the army intelligence corps, he was one of the British state's most important informer's within the IRA.
A statement was issued by Operation Kenova, a task force led by Chief Constable Jon Boucher of Bedfordshire Police confirming “a 72-year-old man has been arrested.”
Boucher went on to say:
The Army’s former Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland, General Sir John Wilsey in a phone conversation with Martin Ingram (real name Martin Hurst) once described Scappaticci as:
“Our most important secret, he was a golden egg, something that was very important to the Army. We were terribly cagey about Fred.” Indeed they were cagey as the British security forces in Ireland colluded with "Fred" when he committed crimes up to and including murder.
The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Jon Boutcher, the man who is heading the investigation into Scappaticci has JFC Chicksands on his patch, it's home to the Joint Intelligence Training Group, the Headquarters of the Intelligence Corps, several operational units and elements of the Reserve Forces.
As Scappaticci was, and in all probability still is, an important asset of the Intelligence Corps it's unlikely they would have allowed him to be questioned outside their jurisdiction. Thus the army base at Chicksands which is just up the road from the chief constables office would be regarded as the ideal place for old friends and new to chat over a cup of tea.
Forgive my cynicism but the fact Scappaticci was later released on bail even though he is allegedly being investigated for upwards of 40 murders sums up which section of the UK's hard state is actually controlling this investigation.
Senior members of the Provisional IRA from Scappaticci's day must have hoped they had heard the last of him, as his arrest may raise fresh questions not only about the possibility of more informers within the upper echelons of the IRA, [and Sinn Féin] but also why it's Army Council left Scappaticci in place for so long.
Given it was inevitable a volunteer in such a position would have been a priority target of the RUC and the British intelligence services, not least because Scappaticci as a long time member, and later head of the IRA internal security unit had access to information from individuals with closely guarded secrets. The unit were also tasked with verifying the credibility of new recruits. The names of which he would have passed on to his British handlers in the Force Reaction Unit.
➽ Ed Moloney looks at the British army base at Chicksands in Bedfordshire where Scappaticci was debriefed after being first exposed as a tout.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Freddie Scappaticci. Earlier this week it was reported Freddie Scappaticci had been arrested. Codenamed Stakeknife by his handlers in the army intelligence corps, he was one of the British state's most important informer's within the IRA.
A statement was issued by Operation Kenova, a task force led by Chief Constable Jon Boucher of Bedfordshire Police confirming “a 72-year-old man has been arrested.”
Boucher went on to say:
He is currently in custody at an undisclosed location and will be interviewed in relation to the investigation. No further details of the place of arrest or where he is being held will be released due to security reasons.
The Army’s former Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland, General Sir John Wilsey in a phone conversation with Martin Ingram (real name Martin Hurst) once described Scappaticci as:
“Our most important secret, he was a golden egg, something that was very important to the Army. We were terribly cagey about Fred.” Indeed they were cagey as the British security forces in Ireland colluded with "Fred" when he committed crimes up to and including murder.
The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Jon Boutcher, the man who is heading the investigation into Scappaticci has JFC Chicksands on his patch, it's home to the Joint Intelligence Training Group, the Headquarters of the Intelligence Corps, several operational units and elements of the Reserve Forces.
As Scappaticci was, and in all probability still is, an important asset of the Intelligence Corps it's unlikely they would have allowed him to be questioned outside their jurisdiction. Thus the army base at Chicksands which is just up the road from the chief constables office would be regarded as the ideal place for old friends and new to chat over a cup of tea.
Forgive my cynicism but the fact Scappaticci was later released on bail even though he is allegedly being investigated for upwards of 40 murders sums up which section of the UK's hard state is actually controlling this investigation.
Senior members of the Provisional IRA from Scappaticci's day must have hoped they had heard the last of him, as his arrest may raise fresh questions not only about the possibility of more informers within the upper echelons of the IRA, [and Sinn Féin] but also why it's Army Council left Scappaticci in place for so long.
Given it was inevitable a volunteer in such a position would have been a priority target of the RUC and the British intelligence services, not least because Scappaticci as a long time member, and later head of the IRA internal security unit had access to information from individuals with closely guarded secrets. The unit were also tasked with verifying the credibility of new recruits. The names of which he would have passed on to his British handlers in the Force Reaction Unit.
➽ Ed Moloney looks at the British army base at Chicksands in Bedfordshire where Scappaticci was debriefed after being first exposed as a tout.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Britain Must Stand — And Fall — By Agreements Of Her Own Making
Sean Bresnahan shares observations on republican strategy.
It should be noted that this treaty is a binding international agreement between two supposedly sovereign powers. It is also stand alone and will continue in force no matter what becomes of the Good Friday Agreement or its structures, which are currently threatened by the ‘Brexit’ withdrawal of Britain from the European Union.
None of this is without consequence for Irish Republicanism. For regardless our views as to the legitimacy of the above, it is this which will likely dictate whether a future United Ireland — our core objective — is to emerge. This is the current political reality.
In this sense, while the national rights of the Irish people should in no way depend on majority consent from the rank of a contrived gerrymander, in the event such a majority were arrived upon — something more likely at this point than previously imagined — it would be remiss, on our part, not to insist that Britain stand by what she has signed up to.
Whether agreeable to ourselves or not, this is the most likely path towards constitutional change at this time. It is important in this regard, then, that we be aware of as much and seek in turn to impact how all of this shapes and plays out. This need not require us to internalise the legitimacy of the process, its terms or parameters. Indeed we must ensure never to do so, as this is precisely what Britain has long hoped us to do.
Instead, while cognisant, yes, of political agreements that act upon constitutional realities, we must stand over the premise — to hold fast independent of the border poll process or anything further as yet to be concocted — that Britain has no democratic title to Ireland and should leave, allowing all of the Irish people to determine their own affairs — as is their basic right.
We must likewise be aware, though, that should a border poll be held and won it would give increased succour to the argument for a British withdrawal. While that does not mean we sign up to its virtue, or even that this is what will pass in such an event, this need not prevent us from acknowledging that reality.
In this sense, Republican strategy should be tied into a wider process than a mere border poll — one that sets out what is to unfold in the event of Irish Unity, rather than to arbitrate its underlying merit. This can run alongside any initiative that sets towards unity, coming to pass regardless of what political instrument gives rise to the same.
Critical here is not how unity is achieved but what form, in turn, it will take, with who will be authorised to determine that form being of paramount concern. Should Irish Unity be realised, the Irish people, freely and of themselves, should determine the Ireland they wish to live in. This should be so whether it proceeds via the terms of existing agreements or should it be effected by some other mechanism.
Should that be the position Republicanism stands over, we would avoid the internalising of Britain’s constitutional constraints while maintaining a capacity to adapt to changing circumstances — utilising such to better effect our fundamental aims and objectives, themselves found ultimately in the Irish Republic.
We must, though, deal in reality. Republicanism in its current state cannot hope to dictate the process of change. Rather, what we must aim toward is to exert maximal influence on those who will. Reaching the people through a direct campaign on Irish Unity is the best means before us in this regard. For if THEY want a Republic, as the one we imagine, then political decision-makers — at least in Ireland — will be forced to respond accordingly.
With Britain in the throes of a constitutional crisis, twinning with changes to the demographic fabric of the North, Republicanism needs to up its game. The damage that Brexit is certain to do Ireland renews the imperative that unity proceed. It is here at this critical time where the Republican effort must focus, with all means to advance as much on the table for consideration.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
It should be noted that this treaty is a binding international agreement between two supposedly sovereign powers. It is also stand alone and will continue in force no matter what becomes of the Good Friday Agreement or its structures, which are currently threatened by the ‘Brexit’ withdrawal of Britain from the European Union.
None of this is without consequence for Irish Republicanism. For regardless our views as to the legitimacy of the above, it is this which will likely dictate whether a future United Ireland — our core objective — is to emerge. This is the current political reality.
In this sense, while the national rights of the Irish people should in no way depend on majority consent from the rank of a contrived gerrymander, in the event such a majority were arrived upon — something more likely at this point than previously imagined — it would be remiss, on our part, not to insist that Britain stand by what she has signed up to.
Whether agreeable to ourselves or not, this is the most likely path towards constitutional change at this time. It is important in this regard, then, that we be aware of as much and seek in turn to impact how all of this shapes and plays out. This need not require us to internalise the legitimacy of the process, its terms or parameters. Indeed we must ensure never to do so, as this is precisely what Britain has long hoped us to do.
Instead, while cognisant, yes, of political agreements that act upon constitutional realities, we must stand over the premise — to hold fast independent of the border poll process or anything further as yet to be concocted — that Britain has no democratic title to Ireland and should leave, allowing all of the Irish people to determine their own affairs — as is their basic right.
We must likewise be aware, though, that should a border poll be held and won it would give increased succour to the argument for a British withdrawal. While that does not mean we sign up to its virtue, or even that this is what will pass in such an event, this need not prevent us from acknowledging that reality.
In this sense, Republican strategy should be tied into a wider process than a mere border poll — one that sets out what is to unfold in the event of Irish Unity, rather than to arbitrate its underlying merit. This can run alongside any initiative that sets towards unity, coming to pass regardless of what political instrument gives rise to the same.
Critical here is not how unity is achieved but what form, in turn, it will take, with who will be authorised to determine that form being of paramount concern. Should Irish Unity be realised, the Irish people, freely and of themselves, should determine the Ireland they wish to live in. This should be so whether it proceeds via the terms of existing agreements or should it be effected by some other mechanism.
Should that be the position Republicanism stands over, we would avoid the internalising of Britain’s constitutional constraints while maintaining a capacity to adapt to changing circumstances — utilising such to better effect our fundamental aims and objectives, themselves found ultimately in the Irish Republic.
We must, though, deal in reality. Republicanism in its current state cannot hope to dictate the process of change. Rather, what we must aim toward is to exert maximal influence on those who will. Reaching the people through a direct campaign on Irish Unity is the best means before us in this regard. For if THEY want a Republic, as the one we imagine, then political decision-makers — at least in Ireland — will be forced to respond accordingly.
With Britain in the throes of a constitutional crisis, twinning with changes to the demographic fabric of the North, Republicanism needs to up its game. The damage that Brexit is certain to do Ireland renews the imperative that unity proceed. It is here at this critical time where the Republican effort must focus, with all means to advance as much on the table for consideration.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
March 12, 2018
Pity The Almond Tree
The Uri Avnery Column looks at how Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to deflect attention away from the bribery charges Israeli police are recommending against him.
Pity The almond tree, especially when it is in full bloom.
The bloom of the almond is, in German, Mandelblüt. That is also the name of Israel's chief legal official, called "the Legal Advisor of the Government".
The Legal Advisor is appointed by the government, but is supposed to be completely independent. He is in practice the Attorney General, the person who has the final say about indicting people, especially the prime minister. That is now his unhappy lot.
Now Mandelblit (as we pronounce his name in Hebrew) is in an impossible position. The prime minister has been officially accused by the police on two counts of bribery. Now Mandelblit must decide whether to put him on trial.
But Binyamin Netanyahu has been his benefactor for a long time, pushing his career to the top. Do you bite the hand that has fed you? Or do you shirk your duty?
An awful choice.
Avichai Mandelblit was born in Tel Aviv into a right-wing family. His father was a member of the Irgun and a rightist party stalwart. Avichai ("My Father Lives", meaning God) adopted religion at the age of 25 and put a kippah on his head.
After studying law, he served in the army as a military judge in the occupied Gaza Strip and other military jobs, until he became the chief legal officer of the army. From there it was but a short jump to the job of "government secretary", the right-hand man of the Prime Minister, who happened to be Binyamin Netanyahu.
When the office of "Legal Adviser of the Government", an official with immense power, became free, Netanyahu looked around for a candidate. And who did he see? Yea, quite right – the good, loyal Mandelblit.
On the horizon there were looming already all kinds of criminal suspicions. The crucial position of Legal Advisor was becoming very important. So, choosing the religious, right-wing lawyer was a clever move.
How clever? Well, we will soon know.
Netanyahu Has not always made the cleverest choices.
Almost at the same time as he chose the Chief Legal Advisor, he also chose a new Chief of Police.
His choice was a total surprise. He did not pick one of the senior policemen, each of whom had years of experience behind him, but a completely anonymous person. And not anonymous by accident: he was the No. 2 of the internal security service (Shin Bet).
Roni Alsheich did not want the job. He wanted to be the chief of the Shin Bet. But Netanyahu almost compelled him. He promised to appoint him Shin Bet chief if he – Netanyahu - were still Prime Minister in four years time. That was a not-so-subtle hint: you help me keep my job, and I give you the job you desire.
The new police chief was an enigma. He is of Yemenite descent, rather unusual for Israel's elite. He does not look like a police officer. A joker once called him "a barrel with a mustache". He does not talk in public – as befits a person who has spent most of his life in the secret service.
With these two loyalists in place, Netanyahu had nothing to fear. A number of criminal suspicions popped up, but nobody believed that anything would come of them. Netanyahu was just too clever.
What were the suspicions about?
A billionaire with large business interests in Israel for ten years provided him with Cuban cigars of the most expensive kind, as well as "pink" champagne and some jewelry for the lady, all in all about a quarter of a million dollars. An Australian billionaire chipped in.
There was a deal with the boss of the second largest newspaper in Israel to enact a law clipping the circulation of the No. 1, in return for favorable coverage. The adoring coverage of newspaper No. 1 was assured anyhow. It belongs to Sheldon Adelson, an American casino billionaire, and its sole purpose is – quite openly - to glorify Netanyahu.
The third matter concerns suspicions of bribes from a German shipbuilder, which produces submarines for Israel's atomic weapons. It's a multi-billion deal. Suspicions run high but have not yet been aired publicly.
No serious person in Israel expected anything to come of any of these affairs. With the hand-picked chief legal officer and the chief of police safely in place, how could it?
And then, two weeks ago, a bomb exploded. The taciturn policeman suddenly appeared on TV, and hinted that the police were about to publish recommendations to indict Netanyahu for bribery in the first two affairs.
What? The chief of police a man of integrity? What is the world coming to?! This is a moral problem: if Netanyahu appointed him in the belief that he is a man of no conscience, and then it turns out that he is a man of conscience – does this mean that he only pretended to have no integrity, which might be an act of no integrity? Work it out.
Can a similar terrible thing happen now with the Legal Adviser? Can he suddenly turn out to be a man of integrity too? Sooner or later he must decide whether to indict Netanyahu or not.
Poor man.
When The police chief hinted on TV about the coming police decision to recommend indictment, my first impulse was to rush and clean the air-raid shelter at my home.
When you are Prime Minister and in deep domestic trouble, the first thing you think about is a military crisis. Nothing like a military emergency to divert attention from your misdeeds towards the national interest.
And lo and behold – two days after the TV announcement about the police recommendations, the Iranians were so kind as to provoke a crisis.
An Iranian spy drone entered Israeli airspace from Syria and was promptly shot down. In response, the Israeli Air force sent its planes to bomb Iranian positions in Syria. An Israeli plane was shot down – a very rare occurrence Indeed, and fell near a kibbutz. Both crewmen bailed out and one was severely injured.
The criminal business was swept off the table. Everybody spoke about the coming war. But then Vladimir Putin intervened and put an end to that nonsense.
No war this time. The police published their findings and recommended that Netanyahu be put on trial on two counts of bribery. The entire country was glued to their TV sets. Everything else was forgotten.
Netanyahu did what he does best. He made a live statement on TV. He accused his accusers of all kinds of misconduct. These scoundrels, he more than intimated, were ready to risk the very existence of Israel, just out of spite against him. But not to worry, he has no intention of resigning, even temporarily.
Looking us straight in the eye, shining with honesty, he promised us that he will not forsake us. Since he is the only person on Earth able to ensure our safety, he will remain at his post and protect us, come what may.
This made me very afraid indeed. Far be it from me to insinuate that he might start a war just to divert attention from his indictments. In a war, people get killed. Jewish boys (and girls) of Jewish mothers. Would a patriot like Netanyahu do such a dastardly thing as starting an unnecessary war just to divert attention?
Surely not. But when he has to make a fateful decision in a crisis, between two meetings with his lawyers, will his head be completely clear?
How long can this go on? Experts assess that Mandelblit, in his desperation, can draw his decision out for a year. He must think. Thinking takes time.
There Was this Polish nobleman who called his Jew and told him: "I love my dog dearly. Jews are clever people. You can teach my dog to speak. Do it. Otherwise I shall kill you!
"No problem," the Jew answered. "But teaching a dog to speak is a very difficult task, It takes time. I need two years."
"Good," the nobleman said. But if you don't do it, I shall kill you!"
When the Jew's wife heard this, she started to wail. "You know you can't teach the dog to speak!" she cried.
"Don't worry," he told her. "Two years is a long time. In two years the dog will be dead, or the nobleman will be dead, or I shall be dead."
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Pity The almond tree, especially when it is in full bloom.
The bloom of the almond is, in German, Mandelblüt. That is also the name of Israel's chief legal official, called "the Legal Advisor of the Government".
The Legal Advisor is appointed by the government, but is supposed to be completely independent. He is in practice the Attorney General, the person who has the final say about indicting people, especially the prime minister. That is now his unhappy lot.
Now Mandelblit (as we pronounce his name in Hebrew) is in an impossible position. The prime minister has been officially accused by the police on two counts of bribery. Now Mandelblit must decide whether to put him on trial.
But Binyamin Netanyahu has been his benefactor for a long time, pushing his career to the top. Do you bite the hand that has fed you? Or do you shirk your duty?
An awful choice.
Avichai Mandelblit was born in Tel Aviv into a right-wing family. His father was a member of the Irgun and a rightist party stalwart. Avichai ("My Father Lives", meaning God) adopted religion at the age of 25 and put a kippah on his head.
After studying law, he served in the army as a military judge in the occupied Gaza Strip and other military jobs, until he became the chief legal officer of the army. From there it was but a short jump to the job of "government secretary", the right-hand man of the Prime Minister, who happened to be Binyamin Netanyahu.
When the office of "Legal Adviser of the Government", an official with immense power, became free, Netanyahu looked around for a candidate. And who did he see? Yea, quite right – the good, loyal Mandelblit.
On the horizon there were looming already all kinds of criminal suspicions. The crucial position of Legal Advisor was becoming very important. So, choosing the religious, right-wing lawyer was a clever move.
How clever? Well, we will soon know.
Netanyahu Has not always made the cleverest choices.
Almost at the same time as he chose the Chief Legal Advisor, he also chose a new Chief of Police.
His choice was a total surprise. He did not pick one of the senior policemen, each of whom had years of experience behind him, but a completely anonymous person. And not anonymous by accident: he was the No. 2 of the internal security service (Shin Bet).
Roni Alsheich did not want the job. He wanted to be the chief of the Shin Bet. But Netanyahu almost compelled him. He promised to appoint him Shin Bet chief if he – Netanyahu - were still Prime Minister in four years time. That was a not-so-subtle hint: you help me keep my job, and I give you the job you desire.
The new police chief was an enigma. He is of Yemenite descent, rather unusual for Israel's elite. He does not look like a police officer. A joker once called him "a barrel with a mustache". He does not talk in public – as befits a person who has spent most of his life in the secret service.
With these two loyalists in place, Netanyahu had nothing to fear. A number of criminal suspicions popped up, but nobody believed that anything would come of them. Netanyahu was just too clever.
What were the suspicions about?
A billionaire with large business interests in Israel for ten years provided him with Cuban cigars of the most expensive kind, as well as "pink" champagne and some jewelry for the lady, all in all about a quarter of a million dollars. An Australian billionaire chipped in.
There was a deal with the boss of the second largest newspaper in Israel to enact a law clipping the circulation of the No. 1, in return for favorable coverage. The adoring coverage of newspaper No. 1 was assured anyhow. It belongs to Sheldon Adelson, an American casino billionaire, and its sole purpose is – quite openly - to glorify Netanyahu.
The third matter concerns suspicions of bribes from a German shipbuilder, which produces submarines for Israel's atomic weapons. It's a multi-billion deal. Suspicions run high but have not yet been aired publicly.
No serious person in Israel expected anything to come of any of these affairs. With the hand-picked chief legal officer and the chief of police safely in place, how could it?
And then, two weeks ago, a bomb exploded. The taciturn policeman suddenly appeared on TV, and hinted that the police were about to publish recommendations to indict Netanyahu for bribery in the first two affairs.
What? The chief of police a man of integrity? What is the world coming to?! This is a moral problem: if Netanyahu appointed him in the belief that he is a man of no conscience, and then it turns out that he is a man of conscience – does this mean that he only pretended to have no integrity, which might be an act of no integrity? Work it out.
Can a similar terrible thing happen now with the Legal Adviser? Can he suddenly turn out to be a man of integrity too? Sooner or later he must decide whether to indict Netanyahu or not.
Poor man.
When The police chief hinted on TV about the coming police decision to recommend indictment, my first impulse was to rush and clean the air-raid shelter at my home.
When you are Prime Minister and in deep domestic trouble, the first thing you think about is a military crisis. Nothing like a military emergency to divert attention from your misdeeds towards the national interest.
And lo and behold – two days after the TV announcement about the police recommendations, the Iranians were so kind as to provoke a crisis.
An Iranian spy drone entered Israeli airspace from Syria and was promptly shot down. In response, the Israeli Air force sent its planes to bomb Iranian positions in Syria. An Israeli plane was shot down – a very rare occurrence Indeed, and fell near a kibbutz. Both crewmen bailed out and one was severely injured.
The criminal business was swept off the table. Everybody spoke about the coming war. But then Vladimir Putin intervened and put an end to that nonsense.
No war this time. The police published their findings and recommended that Netanyahu be put on trial on two counts of bribery. The entire country was glued to their TV sets. Everything else was forgotten.
Netanyahu did what he does best. He made a live statement on TV. He accused his accusers of all kinds of misconduct. These scoundrels, he more than intimated, were ready to risk the very existence of Israel, just out of spite against him. But not to worry, he has no intention of resigning, even temporarily.
Looking us straight in the eye, shining with honesty, he promised us that he will not forsake us. Since he is the only person on Earth able to ensure our safety, he will remain at his post and protect us, come what may.
This made me very afraid indeed. Far be it from me to insinuate that he might start a war just to divert attention from his indictments. In a war, people get killed. Jewish boys (and girls) of Jewish mothers. Would a patriot like Netanyahu do such a dastardly thing as starting an unnecessary war just to divert attention?
Surely not. But when he has to make a fateful decision in a crisis, between two meetings with his lawyers, will his head be completely clear?
How long can this go on? Experts assess that Mandelblit, in his desperation, can draw his decision out for a year. He must think. Thinking takes time.
There Was this Polish nobleman who called his Jew and told him: "I love my dog dearly. Jews are clever people. You can teach my dog to speak. Do it. Otherwise I shall kill you!
"No problem," the Jew answered. "But teaching a dog to speak is a very difficult task, It takes time. I need two years."
"Good," the nobleman said. But if you don't do it, I shall kill you!"
When the Jew's wife heard this, she started to wail. "You know you can't teach the dog to speak!" she cried.
"Don't worry," he told her. "Two years is a long time. In two years the dog will be dead, or the nobleman will be dead, or I shall be dead."
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
One Unionist Party
One party to represent the entire pro-Union community! Like it or lump it, the Unionist community in Ireland needs to understand that the only way forward to develop an all-island economy which will survive the financial challenges of Brexit is to form one single Unionist Party. That’s the case which controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, argues today in his latest Fearless Flying Column.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The real power of The Unionist Party was that it was a single movement representing the broad spectrum of pro-Union thinking. If Unionism is to survive in a post-Brexit island of Ireland, it will have to return to its founding roots when the Ulster Unionist Council was launched in 1905.
That UUC evolved into The Unionist Party, and a single movement with a structure of pressure groups is what is needed for Northern Ireland’s pro-Union family.
For a start, the DUP needs to merge with the election-battered UUP before the latter is pushed off the political map. The pro-Union voting community has shown that it wants unity given the clear success of the DUP in a post Paisley era.
It is very clear, too, that the Unionist family has learned nothing from the fate of the once powerful Vanguard movement. Its influence was that it was a grassroots pressure group. Once Vanguard relaunched itself as a separate political party, its days were eventually numbered.
Okay, it had a brief flurry of electoral success in the mid Seventies, but by 1979, it was fully on the wane. Unionist parties tend to perform like squibs - a big blast for a while, then rapidly fade out.
The original Unionist Party built its success on the pressure group system, but at elections, there was generally just the one Unionist Party on the ballot paper.
The Loyal Orders played a major function in getting the pro-Union community out to vote. The Orange/Unionist relationship was very effective. The Order could select working class candidates to run in urban Protestant heartlands, but could also ensure middle class farmers and landed gentry were selected in aristocratic rural communities.
The UUP’s decision to turn its back on the Orange and formally break the link signalled the formal demise of Ulster Unionism. Orange delegates once held the balance of power in the party.
The equally influential Right-wing of the UUP was able to rally behind the Ulster Monday Club pressure group, which was aligned to the once powerful National Monday Club within the Conservative Party.
Left-leaning Unionists had their own pressure group - Unionist Labour, which was a major factor in ensuring the old Northern Ireland Labour Party never became a significant force in pro-Union politics.
The youth had the Young Unionists, the females the Women’s Unionist Council, and Unionists west of the River Bann enjoyed the success of the West Ulster Unionist Council.
Liberals were even tolerated within the Unionist Party before many of them left for the fledgling Alliance movement in the early Seventies. The Orange Order delegates also cemented the link between the Unionist Party and the Protestant Churches on one hand, and the Party and the marching band scene on the other.
The bitter medicine which Unionism must swallow is that the post Brexit all island political era will require a single pro-Union movement, simply known by its original title - The Unionist Party.
Direct Rule will signal the death knell of the existing UUP, unless it can rebuild a Right-wing grassroots movement in next year’s expected local government elections. Given the one-seat majority between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the current collapsed Assembly, another Stormont poll is the last thing the UUP wants or needs.
However, to suggest a merger in the near future between the DUP and UUP could be a step too far for many in the UUP who have been life-long Ulster Unionists. A lot of bitter words have been exchanged between the two factions in Unionism since the Rev Ian Paisley first contested the old Bannside constituency at Stormont as a Protestant Unionist candidate in the late 1960s.
After winning both Bannside and North Antrim in 1970, the DUP was formally launched the following year - and so began decades of internecine fighting. The danger for those who want Unionist unity and see a UUP/DUP merger as a key step in that process is that many UUP stalwarts may just stay at home and become ‘garden centre Prods’ by ignoring the ballot box.
What the DUP must also face is that a significant number of UUP voters still exist - so how does a new Unionist movement accommodate them? These UUP voters will not support a merged DUP/UUP, but they could back a new movement known as The Unionist Party. Perhaps what is left of the UUP should become an Ulster Unionist Association pressure group within a new look single Unionist Party.
This new look single movement will require a number of pressure groups to mobilise pro-Union opinion across Ireland. There will have to be a Loyal Order Group to re-engage with the Loyal Orders - Orange, Black and Apprentice Boys - and the marching band scene. The new Unionist Party will have to go back to its grassroots basis and forget the crazy liberalism which has bedevilled Unionism since 1998.
Mainstream Unionism must face the equally bitter reality that it has lost the liberal battle with the Alliance Party. Liberal Presbyterianism is in the ascendancy within Alliance as it recognises that political growth will come east of the Bann.
The relaunching of the Ulster Monday Club will ensure that those who back the Traditional Unionist Voice party will be brought into the new Unionist Party fold. More importantly, the new Unionist Party must rebuild its relationship with the Christian Churches.
Unionism’s trend to embrace secularism and pluralism has been seriously damaging. While the mainstream Protestant denominations may be witnessing a slip in the numbers in the pews on Sundays, Unionism cannot ignore the tens of thousands who belong to the two dozen and more smaller denominations and numerous other independent Christian churches, particularly in the Pentecostal movement.
It has been this recognition which led me to launch my Revolutionary Unionist ideology under the banner of ‘one faith, one party, one Commonwealth.’
The think-tank associated with this ideology is the Revolutionary Unionist Convention. This RUC will always remain a pressure group, urging Unionists to think on an all-island basis. If a single Unionist Party did emerge from these writings, it should also contest elections in the Republic.
I’m sure Fine Gael and Fianna Fail would rather do business and form a coalition government in Leinster House with half a dozen Unionist TDs from the border counties than any group from Sinn Fein, no matter how many SF TDs Mary Lou McDonald brings home following the next Dail general election.
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 @JohnAHCoul
Nothing could be further from the truth. The real power of The Unionist Party was that it was a single movement representing the broad spectrum of pro-Union thinking. If Unionism is to survive in a post-Brexit island of Ireland, it will have to return to its founding roots when the Ulster Unionist Council was launched in 1905.
That UUC evolved into The Unionist Party, and a single movement with a structure of pressure groups is what is needed for Northern Ireland’s pro-Union family.
For a start, the DUP needs to merge with the election-battered UUP before the latter is pushed off the political map. The pro-Union voting community has shown that it wants unity given the clear success of the DUP in a post Paisley era.
It is very clear, too, that the Unionist family has learned nothing from the fate of the once powerful Vanguard movement. Its influence was that it was a grassroots pressure group. Once Vanguard relaunched itself as a separate political party, its days were eventually numbered.
Okay, it had a brief flurry of electoral success in the mid Seventies, but by 1979, it was fully on the wane. Unionist parties tend to perform like squibs - a big blast for a while, then rapidly fade out.
The original Unionist Party built its success on the pressure group system, but at elections, there was generally just the one Unionist Party on the ballot paper.
The Loyal Orders played a major function in getting the pro-Union community out to vote. The Orange/Unionist relationship was very effective. The Order could select working class candidates to run in urban Protestant heartlands, but could also ensure middle class farmers and landed gentry were selected in aristocratic rural communities.
The UUP’s decision to turn its back on the Orange and formally break the link signalled the formal demise of Ulster Unionism. Orange delegates once held the balance of power in the party.
The equally influential Right-wing of the UUP was able to rally behind the Ulster Monday Club pressure group, which was aligned to the once powerful National Monday Club within the Conservative Party.
Left-leaning Unionists had their own pressure group - Unionist Labour, which was a major factor in ensuring the old Northern Ireland Labour Party never became a significant force in pro-Union politics.
The youth had the Young Unionists, the females the Women’s Unionist Council, and Unionists west of the River Bann enjoyed the success of the West Ulster Unionist Council.
Liberals were even tolerated within the Unionist Party before many of them left for the fledgling Alliance movement in the early Seventies. The Orange Order delegates also cemented the link between the Unionist Party and the Protestant Churches on one hand, and the Party and the marching band scene on the other.
The bitter medicine which Unionism must swallow is that the post Brexit all island political era will require a single pro-Union movement, simply known by its original title - The Unionist Party.
Direct Rule will signal the death knell of the existing UUP, unless it can rebuild a Right-wing grassroots movement in next year’s expected local government elections. Given the one-seat majority between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the current collapsed Assembly, another Stormont poll is the last thing the UUP wants or needs.
However, to suggest a merger in the near future between the DUP and UUP could be a step too far for many in the UUP who have been life-long Ulster Unionists. A lot of bitter words have been exchanged between the two factions in Unionism since the Rev Ian Paisley first contested the old Bannside constituency at Stormont as a Protestant Unionist candidate in the late 1960s.
After winning both Bannside and North Antrim in 1970, the DUP was formally launched the following year - and so began decades of internecine fighting. The danger for those who want Unionist unity and see a UUP/DUP merger as a key step in that process is that many UUP stalwarts may just stay at home and become ‘garden centre Prods’ by ignoring the ballot box.
What the DUP must also face is that a significant number of UUP voters still exist - so how does a new Unionist movement accommodate them? These UUP voters will not support a merged DUP/UUP, but they could back a new movement known as The Unionist Party. Perhaps what is left of the UUP should become an Ulster Unionist Association pressure group within a new look single Unionist Party.
This new look single movement will require a number of pressure groups to mobilise pro-Union opinion across Ireland. There will have to be a Loyal Order Group to re-engage with the Loyal Orders - Orange, Black and Apprentice Boys - and the marching band scene. The new Unionist Party will have to go back to its grassroots basis and forget the crazy liberalism which has bedevilled Unionism since 1998.
Mainstream Unionism must face the equally bitter reality that it has lost the liberal battle with the Alliance Party. Liberal Presbyterianism is in the ascendancy within Alliance as it recognises that political growth will come east of the Bann.
The relaunching of the Ulster Monday Club will ensure that those who back the Traditional Unionist Voice party will be brought into the new Unionist Party fold. More importantly, the new Unionist Party must rebuild its relationship with the Christian Churches.
Unionism’s trend to embrace secularism and pluralism has been seriously damaging. While the mainstream Protestant denominations may be witnessing a slip in the numbers in the pews on Sundays, Unionism cannot ignore the tens of thousands who belong to the two dozen and more smaller denominations and numerous other independent Christian churches, particularly in the Pentecostal movement.
It has been this recognition which led me to launch my Revolutionary Unionist ideology under the banner of ‘one faith, one party, one Commonwealth.’
The think-tank associated with this ideology is the Revolutionary Unionist Convention. This RUC will always remain a pressure group, urging Unionists to think on an all-island basis. If a single Unionist Party did emerge from these writings, it should also contest elections in the Republic.
I’m sure Fine Gael and Fianna Fail would rather do business and form a coalition government in Leinster House with half a dozen Unionist TDs from the border counties than any group from Sinn Fein, no matter how many SF TDs Mary Lou McDonald brings home following the next Dail general election.
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 @JohnAHCoul
March 11, 2018
Opportunistically Wiping The Slate Clean
Mick Hall asks:
All seventeen of Thurrock's UKIP councillors have allegedly resigned en masse to form a new party called the Thurrock Independent Party. (Tip)
The 'former' group Leader of Ukip on Thurrock council Cllr Graham Snell issued the following statement about the Tip:
People before politics part of the new party's timeline is a catchy phrase but what does it mean? If asked almost all politicians would claim to put people before politics. The problem is few of them actually do, and the history of the 17 former Ukip councillors in Thurrock makes me feel the Tip will not be an exception..
One former Ukip councillor posted this on Facebook after the new party was launched:
Oh really some might ask, then how come one of the seventeen is councillor Kevin Wheeler, who a few months ago subjected a Tilbury resident to a torrent of verbal abuse after they disagreed in the council chamber? After she lodged a complaint, a four month investigation was carried out, and a meeting between both parties recently took place at Thurrock Council's offices in the hope of drawing a line under the incident. Instead of showing respect for their opponents and a new kinder politics the meeting turned into yet another slagging match with Graham Snell, the new group leader of Tip claiming the whole furore was politically motivated.
It seems for the leader of the Tip a newer, kinder politics is still a work in progress.
The Tip looks more like an act of desperation than a real attempt to search out some bright sunny political uplands. Most of the seventeen have been around for years as long standing members of Ukip. Yet not once in his statement does Graham Snell mention why the 17 councillors decided to resign from the party. Nor as far as I can see have any of the other councillors, whether it was crass opportunism, a major political difference, or a ruse, we the electorate have a right to know.
Interestingly not one senior member of Ukip's national EC have criticised them for deserting what many regard as a sinking ship. The national spokesperson said he hoped the group would "continue to serve their constituents as well as they have."
Given internal debate within Ukip's upper echelons is known to be very robust to say the least, in which smears, personal attacks and mud slinging are often the meat and drink, makes the establishment of the Tip look more like a tactical move, more a decree nisi rather than a decree absolute.
Indeed a senior Ukip member within Thurrock, Tim Aker MEP, said as much when he told Westmonster, a new pro-Brexit right-wing website, "he would continue to sit as a Ukip MEP in the European parliament while being a member of the Tip locally."
Dual membership raises questions about whether this is a new organisation or a party within a party.
With local elections in Thurrock due in May and a revitalised Labour Party campaigning on the doorstep most weekends, could it be the Ukip councillors were running scared of defeat? With their party having gone through six leader's since September 2016 and currently in the midst of yet another omnishambles had they concluded standing under the Ukip banner was a kiss of death?
Thus this sorry charade has been stitched together in the hope they will deceive the electorate and retain council seats in May?
What is clear this group of councillors appear to have the same aims as Ukip, and a mish mash of similar policies to those which were firmly rejected in the 2017 general election.
While there are undoubtedly a few decent councillors amongst the seventeen, the overwhelming majority will be no great loss to Thurrock residents.
An independent councillor is just that, he/she acts as a non party individual in the interest of their constituents, to form a party is a negation of the meaning of that term, a sham, a deceit.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
All seventeen of Thurrock's UKIP councillors have allegedly resigned en masse to form a new party called the Thurrock Independent Party. (Tip)
The 'former' group Leader of Ukip on Thurrock council Cllr Graham Snell issued the following statement about the Tip:
Thurrock Independents have the only councillors in Thurrock whose prime concern will be Thurrock residents. They are not compromised by a slavish attachment to a national party. The party will only be standing in local elections. Our entire group joined Thurrock Independents as we have had enough of the aggressive and bitter reality of party politics. Our councillors have won widespread admiration for their hard work even from residents across the political spectrum. We hope that these admirers will now be able to support Thurrock Independents. Our logo represents the ethos of our party; hard graft, working together towards common goals, sacrifice and the importance of the protection of our environment.
People before politics part of the new party's timeline is a catchy phrase but what does it mean? If asked almost all politicians would claim to put people before politics. The problem is few of them actually do, and the history of the 17 former Ukip councillors in Thurrock makes me feel the Tip will not be an exception..
One former Ukip councillor posted this on Facebook after the new party was launched:
We will respect our opponents and never engage in negative campaigning. Instead we will concentrate solely on policy and ideas. A new kinder politics if you like.
Oh really some might ask, then how come one of the seventeen is councillor Kevin Wheeler, who a few months ago subjected a Tilbury resident to a torrent of verbal abuse after they disagreed in the council chamber? After she lodged a complaint, a four month investigation was carried out, and a meeting between both parties recently took place at Thurrock Council's offices in the hope of drawing a line under the incident. Instead of showing respect for their opponents and a new kinder politics the meeting turned into yet another slagging match with Graham Snell, the new group leader of Tip claiming the whole furore was politically motivated.
It seems for the leader of the Tip a newer, kinder politics is still a work in progress.
The Tip looks more like an act of desperation than a real attempt to search out some bright sunny political uplands. Most of the seventeen have been around for years as long standing members of Ukip. Yet not once in his statement does Graham Snell mention why the 17 councillors decided to resign from the party. Nor as far as I can see have any of the other councillors, whether it was crass opportunism, a major political difference, or a ruse, we the electorate have a right to know.
Interestingly not one senior member of Ukip's national EC have criticised them for deserting what many regard as a sinking ship. The national spokesperson said he hoped the group would "continue to serve their constituents as well as they have."
Given internal debate within Ukip's upper echelons is known to be very robust to say the least, in which smears, personal attacks and mud slinging are often the meat and drink, makes the establishment of the Tip look more like a tactical move, more a decree nisi rather than a decree absolute.
Indeed a senior Ukip member within Thurrock, Tim Aker MEP, said as much when he told Westmonster, a new pro-Brexit right-wing website, "he would continue to sit as a Ukip MEP in the European parliament while being a member of the Tip locally."
Dual membership raises questions about whether this is a new organisation or a party within a party.
With local elections in Thurrock due in May and a revitalised Labour Party campaigning on the doorstep most weekends, could it be the Ukip councillors were running scared of defeat? With their party having gone through six leader's since September 2016 and currently in the midst of yet another omnishambles had they concluded standing under the Ukip banner was a kiss of death?
Thus this sorry charade has been stitched together in the hope they will deceive the electorate and retain council seats in May?
What is clear this group of councillors appear to have the same aims as Ukip, and a mish mash of similar policies to those which were firmly rejected in the 2017 general election.
While there are undoubtedly a few decent councillors amongst the seventeen, the overwhelming majority will be no great loss to Thurrock residents.
An independent councillor is just that, he/she acts as a non party individual in the interest of their constituents, to form a party is a negation of the meaning of that term, a sham, a deceit.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
A Pastor Assaulted Her When She Was 17 - Watch Her React To His Pseudo-Apology
Hemant Mehta from Friendly Atheist on the attitude of a megachurch congregation to the admission by a pastor to the rape of a 17 year old girl.
Or, as he now refers to the whole encounter, that “incident.”
Savage finally came clean to the entire Highpoint Church congregation in January — without going into any of the details — and the members gave him a standing ovation for it. His colleagues subsequently announced that Savage would be taking a “leave of absence” while they investigated the situation. Savage is still on that leave.
In the meantime, his church took down the video of his “apology,” perhaps hoping no one would have evidence of that pathetic speech or the enthusiastic applause from the congregation. They must not realize that the internet doesn’t forget.
The New York Times, which saved a copy of the video before it was taken down, recently showed it to Jules Woodson, the woman Savage assaulted all those years ago.
Her commentary about how her church minimized the assault, her reaction to seeing Savage celebrated for his supposed courage, and her plea for churches to take sexual assault more seriously deserve a few minutes of your time.
The whole thing is disturbing to watch. It’s even worse at the end when you realize plenty of people are still harassing her online for having the courage to tell her story — one, it should be stated, that Savage himself has admitted to even as he tries to play it down.
This is what the evangelical moral high ground looks like in the age of Donald Trump. Assault gets a pass. Victims get condemnation. The Times headline puts it perfectly: “I Was Assaulted. He Was Applauded.”
Or, as he now refers to the whole encounter, that “incident.”
Savage finally came clean to the entire Highpoint Church congregation in January — without going into any of the details — and the members gave him a standing ovation for it. His colleagues subsequently announced that Savage would be taking a “leave of absence” while they investigated the situation. Savage is still on that leave.
In the meantime, his church took down the video of his “apology,” perhaps hoping no one would have evidence of that pathetic speech or the enthusiastic applause from the congregation. They must not realize that the internet doesn’t forget.
The New York Times, which saved a copy of the video before it was taken down, recently showed it to Jules Woodson, the woman Savage assaulted all those years ago.
Her commentary about how her church minimized the assault, her reaction to seeing Savage celebrated for his supposed courage, and her plea for churches to take sexual assault more seriously deserve a few minutes of your time.
The whole thing is disturbing to watch. It’s even worse at the end when you realize plenty of people are still harassing her online for having the courage to tell her story — one, it should be stated, that Savage himself has admitted to even as he tries to play it down.
This is what the evangelical moral high ground looks like in the age of Donald Trump. Assault gets a pass. Victims get condemnation. The Times headline puts it perfectly: “I Was Assaulted. He Was Applauded.”
March 10, 2018
Sinn Féin Blunders On Repeal Of 8th
Matt Treacy thinks Sinn Fein made a faux pas in its handling of the 8th Amendment issue.
Sinn Féin seldom make too many tactical errors. Its leadership, not necessarily the one you see on the media, usually comes up with a formula to ensure that all eyes are kept on the prize of power, and all that goes with it. Dissenters are pulled into line or isolated.
Which begs the question whether their decision to take a hard line on the issue of the Repeal of the 8th amendment may have been a significant blunder. Unlike Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael who have allowed a free vote in the Oireachtas, Sinn Féin elected representatives, including TDs Peadar Tóibín and Carol Nolan will face expulsion if they vote against the .party line in the Dáil.
Other prominent Sinn Féin elected representatives, members and supporters have also indicated their opposition. Former Derry MLA and author of the famous ballad in support of the republican prisoners on the H Block blanket protest Francie Brolly recently resigned from Sinn Féin over its support for abortion. Will members who take a similar stance, or who are actively involved in campaigning against be expected to speak in favour of, or to canvass for, abortion? Will they too face sanctions?
The key issue in all of this relates to the gestation limitations that will be placed on abortion. The Oireachtas Committee voted in favour of legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, but the Sinn Féin members abstained on the motion proposing this, which was carried. That was included in the report which they voted in favour of, so the abstention meant nothing.
Jonathan O’Brien, who once purported to be opposed to abortion, proposed an amendment to one motion that effectively supports the decriminalisation of abortion where it was procured “regardless of circumstances,” and that this be legislated for. As Senator Mullen pointed out the motion as amended allows for “no gestation limit.” O’Brien speaking on the report in the Dáil on January 18 declared that he was in favour of allowing abortion up to 12 weeks.
So despite the abstention for internal and media consumption, the Sinn Féin committee members had voted for 12 weeks before any Ard Fheis that was supposed to debate and decide on that. O’Brien had proceeded from being opposed to abortion to not only supporting the 12 weeks provision but tabling an amendment that would appear to allow for legislation to decriminalise abortion “regardless of circumstances.”
I know from my time in Leinster House that other TDs were opposed to abortion. All of them who were there when I was working in the place, with the exception of Peadar Tóibín, are now committed not only to supporting repeal of the 8th, but also in the light of Sinn Féin’s support for the Committee report, to abortion up to 12 weeks.
Perhaps some of them have been persuaded to change their minds through open debate, which is no shame, if honestly done. It would certainly be preferable to anyone voting for something they claimed to be opposed to because the “party” told them, under threat, to do so.
I am also reminded of one Senator who now professes to be “pro-choice” who attempted to have a staff member in his office disciplined, effectively wanting her to be sacked, because she had written a piece for a journal in a personal capacity expressing her support for abortion, as she is entitled to do. Such hypocritical go by the wall sneakiness does not surprise me, but it is worth recalling.
It is apparent now; from the Committee report, the comments on it by Varadkar and other leading members of every party in the Dáil, and the statement made by Simon Harris when introducing the referendum bill, that legislation will be framed to allow for abortion up to 12 weeks, should the referendum carry.
Sinn Féin had promised to hold a special Ard Fheis prior to the referendum to allow the membership to debate the 12 weeks limit, but now that is impossible for “logistical reasons.” Instead they are going to hold such a conference after the referendum. It will be all academic by then, as they have clearly made up their minds and if the referendum is passed they will issue another diktat, under threat of disciplinary action, in support of legislation setting gestation limits.
In the debate on the wording of the Bill on March 9, McDonald again welcomed the fact that the referendum would be held on the single issue of repeal rather than the exact circumstances under which it would be permitted. While she referred to the “debate” within the party as though it were something that might change her mind, O Broin let the cat out of the bag by saying that he and others would be persuading the delegates to an Ard Fheis to support a 12 week term.
Like the other parties in the Dáil, and this was clearly evident during the Committee hearings, Sinn Féin wants the referendum to be on the single issue of removing the 8th amendment because its leadership is afraid of what might happen if the actual terms under which abortion will be made available becomes part of the debate.
One suspects that the “logistical reasons” for not holding the Ard Fheis have to do similar motivations along with the evidence of increasing unease within the republican support base for such a proposal. Sinn Féin’s slump to 14% in a recent opinion poll despite the much heralded change of front stage leadership is probably not unrelated to that.
Of course they could have avoided all of that by allowing a free vote, but that is not in the nature of the beast. Dissent cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. No-one I have known in over 30 vears ever joined the republican movement because of their position on abortion.
Allowing a free vote, in reflection of the differences among republicans would also conflict with the self-perception of the ideological liberals who make up the public face of Sinn Féin and the vast majority of staffers. They are more concerned with impressing their mirror images in the other parties and among the NGO sector and media, than allowing democratic debate on the issue within Sinn Féin itself.
From a political perspective the enthusiastic support for abortion is also a part of trying to colonise what used to be the Labour constituency, especially in Dublin where the NGOs and media are still top heavy with people whose image of the Shinners was once of some dreadful Ralph C. Nesbitt character in a Celtic or Dublin jersey.
Now the Care Bears see Sinn Féin as being like them. They even get, like Jonathan Powell setting out how the IRA could be gotten rid of through the voice of Gerry Adams, to write key policies for them. As for the less exalted members and voters, they have never really had to worry about them. They will just go along with it all, or even be lied barefacedly to as did one prominent northern member who spoke trenchantly in favour of abortion at meetings in Dublin and then went home to tell republicans in his own area that there was no way he would support abortion. Voting for it was to be taken no more seriously than when he had told the same people that the IRA would never disband, that there would be no decommissioning, that Sinn Féin would never enter Stormont, and so on.
Had they had the cop on to allow a free vote Sinn Féin would have been able for another while to ride several horses at the one time, as they have successfully done – particularly on their attitudes to “austerity” north and south – in the recent past. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil realise that there is no party line on abortion; and that attempting to impose one would only lead to needless internal tensions.
Have Sinn Féin misjudged this one?
Matt Treacy’s book A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish Republican Army is also available @ Amazon.
Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
Sinn Féin seldom make too many tactical errors. Its leadership, not necessarily the one you see on the media, usually comes up with a formula to ensure that all eyes are kept on the prize of power, and all that goes with it. Dissenters are pulled into line or isolated.
Which begs the question whether their decision to take a hard line on the issue of the Repeal of the 8th amendment may have been a significant blunder. Unlike Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael who have allowed a free vote in the Oireachtas, Sinn Féin elected representatives, including TDs Peadar Tóibín and Carol Nolan will face expulsion if they vote against the .party line in the Dáil.
Other prominent Sinn Féin elected representatives, members and supporters have also indicated their opposition. Former Derry MLA and author of the famous ballad in support of the republican prisoners on the H Block blanket protest Francie Brolly recently resigned from Sinn Féin over its support for abortion. Will members who take a similar stance, or who are actively involved in campaigning against be expected to speak in favour of, or to canvass for, abortion? Will they too face sanctions?
The key issue in all of this relates to the gestation limitations that will be placed on abortion. The Oireachtas Committee voted in favour of legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, but the Sinn Féin members abstained on the motion proposing this, which was carried. That was included in the report which they voted in favour of, so the abstention meant nothing.
Jonathan O’Brien, who once purported to be opposed to abortion, proposed an amendment to one motion that effectively supports the decriminalisation of abortion where it was procured “regardless of circumstances,” and that this be legislated for. As Senator Mullen pointed out the motion as amended allows for “no gestation limit.” O’Brien speaking on the report in the Dáil on January 18 declared that he was in favour of allowing abortion up to 12 weeks.
So despite the abstention for internal and media consumption, the Sinn Féin committee members had voted for 12 weeks before any Ard Fheis that was supposed to debate and decide on that. O’Brien had proceeded from being opposed to abortion to not only supporting the 12 weeks provision but tabling an amendment that would appear to allow for legislation to decriminalise abortion “regardless of circumstances.”
I know from my time in Leinster House that other TDs were opposed to abortion. All of them who were there when I was working in the place, with the exception of Peadar Tóibín, are now committed not only to supporting repeal of the 8th, but also in the light of Sinn Féin’s support for the Committee report, to abortion up to 12 weeks.
Perhaps some of them have been persuaded to change their minds through open debate, which is no shame, if honestly done. It would certainly be preferable to anyone voting for something they claimed to be opposed to because the “party” told them, under threat, to do so.
I am also reminded of one Senator who now professes to be “pro-choice” who attempted to have a staff member in his office disciplined, effectively wanting her to be sacked, because she had written a piece for a journal in a personal capacity expressing her support for abortion, as she is entitled to do. Such hypocritical go by the wall sneakiness does not surprise me, but it is worth recalling.
It is apparent now; from the Committee report, the comments on it by Varadkar and other leading members of every party in the Dáil, and the statement made by Simon Harris when introducing the referendum bill, that legislation will be framed to allow for abortion up to 12 weeks, should the referendum carry.
Sinn Féin had promised to hold a special Ard Fheis prior to the referendum to allow the membership to debate the 12 weeks limit, but now that is impossible for “logistical reasons.” Instead they are going to hold such a conference after the referendum. It will be all academic by then, as they have clearly made up their minds and if the referendum is passed they will issue another diktat, under threat of disciplinary action, in support of legislation setting gestation limits.
In the debate on the wording of the Bill on March 9, McDonald again welcomed the fact that the referendum would be held on the single issue of repeal rather than the exact circumstances under which it would be permitted. While she referred to the “debate” within the party as though it were something that might change her mind, O Broin let the cat out of the bag by saying that he and others would be persuading the delegates to an Ard Fheis to support a 12 week term.
Like the other parties in the Dáil, and this was clearly evident during the Committee hearings, Sinn Féin wants the referendum to be on the single issue of removing the 8th amendment because its leadership is afraid of what might happen if the actual terms under which abortion will be made available becomes part of the debate.
One suspects that the “logistical reasons” for not holding the Ard Fheis have to do similar motivations along with the evidence of increasing unease within the republican support base for such a proposal. Sinn Féin’s slump to 14% in a recent opinion poll despite the much heralded change of front stage leadership is probably not unrelated to that.
Of course they could have avoided all of that by allowing a free vote, but that is not in the nature of the beast. Dissent cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. No-one I have known in over 30 vears ever joined the republican movement because of their position on abortion.
Allowing a free vote, in reflection of the differences among republicans would also conflict with the self-perception of the ideological liberals who make up the public face of Sinn Féin and the vast majority of staffers. They are more concerned with impressing their mirror images in the other parties and among the NGO sector and media, than allowing democratic debate on the issue within Sinn Féin itself.
From a political perspective the enthusiastic support for abortion is also a part of trying to colonise what used to be the Labour constituency, especially in Dublin where the NGOs and media are still top heavy with people whose image of the Shinners was once of some dreadful Ralph C. Nesbitt character in a Celtic or Dublin jersey.
Now the Care Bears see Sinn Féin as being like them. They even get, like Jonathan Powell setting out how the IRA could be gotten rid of through the voice of Gerry Adams, to write key policies for them. As for the less exalted members and voters, they have never really had to worry about them. They will just go along with it all, or even be lied barefacedly to as did one prominent northern member who spoke trenchantly in favour of abortion at meetings in Dublin and then went home to tell republicans in his own area that there was no way he would support abortion. Voting for it was to be taken no more seriously than when he had told the same people that the IRA would never disband, that there would be no decommissioning, that Sinn Féin would never enter Stormont, and so on.
Had they had the cop on to allow a free vote Sinn Féin would have been able for another while to ride several horses at the one time, as they have successfully done – particularly on their attitudes to “austerity” north and south – in the recent past. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil realise that there is no party line on abortion; and that attempting to impose one would only lead to needless internal tensions.
Have Sinn Féin misjudged this one?
Matt Treacy’s book A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish Republican Army is also available @ Amazon.
Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
If Pigs Might Fly
Sean Mallory responds to a recent letter from civic unionism.
A bizarre stance by Unionism, given that they rely and retain inequality for their very existence. What the letter has highlighted to Nationalism is the complete lack of Unionist understanding of what equality is about.
As one Nationalist pointed out: “It's akin to Martin Luther King's assassin demanding that he stand still!"
A final thought for the Unionist signatories demanding a share of the equality agenda to ponder:
Let us consider - all those years ago, Rosa Parks sat defiantly on her seat in the segregated section of the bus, against James F Blake’s virulent demands for her to vacate her seat for a white passenger as the Whites Only section was full. I’m sure if Mr Blake had just taken a moment to explain to Ms Parks that ownership of the equality agenda was not hers or the black people's alone, she would have been more understanding and perhaps even compliant towards his earnest request.
But then again if pigs might fly!
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
A bizarre stance by Unionism, given that they rely and retain inequality for their very existence. What the letter has highlighted to Nationalism is the complete lack of Unionist understanding of what equality is about.
As one Nationalist pointed out: “It's akin to Martin Luther King's assassin demanding that he stand still!"
A final thought for the Unionist signatories demanding a share of the equality agenda to ponder:
Let us consider - all those years ago, Rosa Parks sat defiantly on her seat in the segregated section of the bus, against James F Blake’s virulent demands for her to vacate her seat for a white passenger as the Whites Only section was full. I’m sure if Mr Blake had just taken a moment to explain to Ms Parks that ownership of the equality agenda was not hers or the black people's alone, she would have been more understanding and perhaps even compliant towards his earnest request.
But then again if pigs might fly!
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
March 9, 2018
We Refuse To Support Julian Assange At Our Own Peril
Mick Hall is backing Julian Assange.
Add caption
The Guardian published an interesting piece about the two most famous whistleblowers in modern history Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden discussing Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, about Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the personal cost of what they did – and if they’d advise anybody to follow in their footsteps.
For me the most important part is when the two men discuss the fate of Julian Assange and what they say highlights the shameful way the liberal glitterati deserted Assange when he came under the most ferocious attack from the enemies of freedom.
While some deserted the field, others to their everlasting shame joined the howling pack who were determined to see Julian end up in a US prison cell.
Snowden and Ellsberg are made of stronger stuff as is shown in the following exchange:
Ewen MacAskill:
Edward Snowden:
Daniel Ellsberg:
Ellsberg and Snowden both agreed when asked what motivated them to take the final step in becoming a whistleblower?
Ellsberg:
Snowden:
If Julian Assange is imprisoned for life within a US maximum security jail it's bound to demotivate future generations of whistleblowers.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Add captionThe Guardian published an interesting piece about the two most famous whistleblowers in modern history Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden discussing Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, about Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the personal cost of what they did – and if they’d advise anybody to follow in their footsteps.
For me the most important part is when the two men discuss the fate of Julian Assange and what they say highlights the shameful way the liberal glitterati deserted Assange when he came under the most ferocious attack from the enemies of freedom.
While some deserted the field, others to their everlasting shame joined the howling pack who were determined to see Julian end up in a US prison cell.
Snowden and Ellsberg are made of stronger stuff as is shown in the following exchange:
Ewen MacAskill:
Is the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and fearful of extradition to the US, one of those at risk?
Edward Snowden:
Julian’s best defence, perhaps his only enduring defence, is that he is a publisher and has never even tried, as far as we are aware, to publish something untruthful. There are lots of criticisms, many of which are legitimate, to be said about his political views or his personal expressions or the way he put things or his agenda. But ultimately the truth speaks for itself.
Daniel Ellsberg:
Assange is in danger. There are those who say that Julian does not have to fear extradition if he came out of the embassy and served a brief sentence, if anything at all, for violating the rules. I think that is absurd. I think Britain would ship him over here [to the US] in a minute and we would never see or hear from him again … under Trump, he may well be the first journalist in this country to be indicted. We owe a great debt to these two men, and the other men and women who put their own lives on the line to ensure our freedom to know what is done by our government's in our name. Julian Assange also falls into this category and we refuse to support him at our own peril.
Ellsberg and Snowden both agreed when asked what motivated them to take the final step in becoming a whistleblower?
Ellsberg:
I would not have thought of doing what I did, which I knew would risk prison for life, without the public example of young Americans going to prison to make a strong statement that the Vietnam war was wrong and they would not participate, even at the cost of their own freedom. Without them, there would have been no Pentagon Papers. Courage is contagious. I have heard you say, Ed, that The Most Dangerous Man in America was a factor in encouraging you to do what you did.
Snowden:
That is absolutely true. While I was weighing up whether to come forward or not – and this was an agonising process because it was certainly life-changing – I watched that documentary. Dan’s example, hearing the arguments from someone who has lived through this, it helps prepare someone to make that jump themselves.
If Julian Assange is imprisoned for life within a US maximum security jail it's bound to demotivate future generations of whistleblowers.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Gun Violence As State Sponsored Domestic Terrorism
Henry A. Giroux writing in Tikkun confronts US gun culture.
President Trump listened recently to the impassioned testimony of parents and children who have seen their children and friends killed in gun shootings. He responded by advocating that teachers be armed and trained to have concealed weapons.
Instead of confronting the roots of violence in America, he followed the NRA line of addressing the issue of mass violence, shootings, and the ongoing carnage with a call to arm more people, putting more guns into play, and stating that violence can be met with more violence. This logic is breathtaking in its insanity, moral depravity, refusal to get to the root of the problem, and even advocate minor reforms such as banning assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and expanding background checks.
There are 300 million guns in the United States and since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School of 20 young children and 6 teachers a decade ago, 11,000 more children have died of gun violence.
There is no defense for putting the policies of the NRA ahead of the lives of children. Criminal acts often pass for legislative policies. How else to explain the Florida legislature refusing to even debate outlawing assault weapons while students from Majory Stoneman Douglas High School sat in the galleys and watched this wretched and irresponsible act take place. How else to explain that the House of Representatives – reduced to an adjunct of the NRA – voted to pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R.38) which would allow individuals to carry concealed weapons across state lines. These are the people who have the blood of thousands on their hands.
The power of money in politics has morphed into a form of barbarism in which financial gain and power have become more important than protecting the lives of America’s children.
I find it extremely difficult to watch the debates about gun violence on the mainstream media. The call for reform is so limited as to be useless. Instead of banning assault rifles, they celebrate Trump for suggesting that he raise the age to 21 in order for people to buy a weapon of war. Instead of preventing violence from engulfing the country and schools, he calls for arming teachers and the press celebrates his willingness to entertain this issue. Instead of speaking about justice and allowing people to speak who are against deregulating laws restricting or abolishing the merchants of death, the media allows an NRA hawk to speak at the town meeting and rather than calling her out for being a spokesperson for violence rather than justice, they congratulate themselves on promoting balance.
The corporate media has become a normalizing force for violence because they lack the courage to challenge the corporations that control them. They also benefit by peddling extreme violence as a spectacle. They refuse to begin with the issue of money in politics and start instead with what one parent called non-starters. Guns disappear from the conversation and appeals to fear and security take over. Young people have to lead this conversation and move beyond the mainstream media. And when they do appear they have to flip the script and ask the questions they think are important.
Children no longer have a safe space in America, a country saturated in violence as a spectacle, sport, and deadly acts of domestic terrorism. Any defense for the proliferation of guns, especially those designed for war, is criminal. This is the discourse of political corruption, a government in the hands of the gun lobbies, and a country that trades in violence at every turn in order to accrue profits at the expense of the lives of innocent children.
This debate is not simply about gun violence, it is about the rule of capital and how the architects of violence accrue enough power to turn machineries of death and destruction into profits while selling violence as a commodity. Violence is both a source of profits and a cherished national ideal. It is also the defining feature of a toxic masculinity. Gun reform is no substitute for real justice and the necessary abolition of a death-dealing and cruel economic and political system that is the antithesis of democracy.
What are we to make of a society in which young children have a greater sense of moral courage and social responsibility than the zombie adults who make the laws that fail to invest in and protect the lives of present and future generations. First step, expose their lies, make their faces public, use the new media to organize across state lines, and work like hell to vote them out of office in 2018. Hold these ruthless walking dead responsible and then banish them to the gutter where they belong. At the same time, imagine and fight for not a reform of American society but a restructuring along the lines of a democratic socialist order.
Henry Giroux is a contributing editor to Tikkun Magazine
President Trump listened recently to the impassioned testimony of parents and children who have seen their children and friends killed in gun shootings. He responded by advocating that teachers be armed and trained to have concealed weapons.
Instead of confronting the roots of violence in America, he followed the NRA line of addressing the issue of mass violence, shootings, and the ongoing carnage with a call to arm more people, putting more guns into play, and stating that violence can be met with more violence. This logic is breathtaking in its insanity, moral depravity, refusal to get to the root of the problem, and even advocate minor reforms such as banning assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and expanding background checks.
There are 300 million guns in the United States and since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School of 20 young children and 6 teachers a decade ago, 11,000 more children have died of gun violence.
There is no defense for putting the policies of the NRA ahead of the lives of children. Criminal acts often pass for legislative policies. How else to explain the Florida legislature refusing to even debate outlawing assault weapons while students from Majory Stoneman Douglas High School sat in the galleys and watched this wretched and irresponsible act take place. How else to explain that the House of Representatives – reduced to an adjunct of the NRA – voted to pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R.38) which would allow individuals to carry concealed weapons across state lines. These are the people who have the blood of thousands on their hands.
The power of money in politics has morphed into a form of barbarism in which financial gain and power have become more important than protecting the lives of America’s children.
I find it extremely difficult to watch the debates about gun violence on the mainstream media. The call for reform is so limited as to be useless. Instead of banning assault rifles, they celebrate Trump for suggesting that he raise the age to 21 in order for people to buy a weapon of war. Instead of preventing violence from engulfing the country and schools, he calls for arming teachers and the press celebrates his willingness to entertain this issue. Instead of speaking about justice and allowing people to speak who are against deregulating laws restricting or abolishing the merchants of death, the media allows an NRA hawk to speak at the town meeting and rather than calling her out for being a spokesperson for violence rather than justice, they congratulate themselves on promoting balance.
The corporate media has become a normalizing force for violence because they lack the courage to challenge the corporations that control them. They also benefit by peddling extreme violence as a spectacle. They refuse to begin with the issue of money in politics and start instead with what one parent called non-starters. Guns disappear from the conversation and appeals to fear and security take over. Young people have to lead this conversation and move beyond the mainstream media. And when they do appear they have to flip the script and ask the questions they think are important.
Children no longer have a safe space in America, a country saturated in violence as a spectacle, sport, and deadly acts of domestic terrorism. Any defense for the proliferation of guns, especially those designed for war, is criminal. This is the discourse of political corruption, a government in the hands of the gun lobbies, and a country that trades in violence at every turn in order to accrue profits at the expense of the lives of innocent children.
This debate is not simply about gun violence, it is about the rule of capital and how the architects of violence accrue enough power to turn machineries of death and destruction into profits while selling violence as a commodity. Violence is both a source of profits and a cherished national ideal. It is also the defining feature of a toxic masculinity. Gun reform is no substitute for real justice and the necessary abolition of a death-dealing and cruel economic and political system that is the antithesis of democracy.
What are we to make of a society in which young children have a greater sense of moral courage and social responsibility than the zombie adults who make the laws that fail to invest in and protect the lives of present and future generations. First step, expose their lies, make their faces public, use the new media to organize across state lines, and work like hell to vote them out of office in 2018. Hold these ruthless walking dead responsible and then banish them to the gutter where they belong. At the same time, imagine and fight for not a reform of American society but a restructuring along the lines of a democratic socialist order.
Henry Giroux is a contributing editor to Tikkun Magazine
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.
