Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1158
March 3, 2018
A Lesson On Immigration From Pablo Neruda
Ariel Dorfman looks at immigration through the eyes of Pablo Neruda. The article featured in Tikkun.
The poet Pablo Neruda in 1952: He persuaded Chile’s president to offer asylum to some of the mistreated Spanish patriots rotting in French internment camps. Credit Gamma-Keystone, via Getty Images
Chile, like numerous other countries, has been debating whether to welcome migrants — mostly from Haiti, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela — or to keep them out. Although only half a million immigrants live in this nation of 17.7 million, right-wing politicians have stoked anti-immigrant sentiment, opposed the increased rates of immigration in the past decade and directed bile especially against Haitian immigrants.
Immigration was a major issue in elections here in November and December. The winner was Sebastián Piñera, a 68-year-old center-right billionaire who was president from 2010 to 2014 and will take over in March. Mr. Piñera blamed immigrants for delinquency, drug trafficking and organized crime. He benefited from the support of José Antonio Kast, a far-right politician who has been campaigning to build physical barriers along the borders with Peru and Bolivia to stop immigrants.
Chileans aren’t alone in witnessing growing xenophobia and nativism, but we would do well to remember our own history, which offers a model for how to act when we are confronted with strangers seeking sanctuary.
On Aug. 4, 1939, the Winnipeg set sail for Chile from the French port of Pauillac with more than 2,000 refugees who had fled their Spanish homeland.
A few months earlier, Gen. Francisco Franco — aided by Mussolini and Hitler — had defeated the forces of the democratically elected government of Spain. The fascists unleashed a wave of violence and murder.
Women and children aboard the Winnipeg, bound for the Chilean port of Valparaíso
Among the hundreds of thousands of desperate supporters of the Spanish Republic who had crossed the Pyrenees to escape that onslaught were the men, women and children who would board the Winnipeg and arrive a month later at the Chilean port of Valparaíso.
The person responsible for their miraculous escape was Pablo Neruda, who, at the age of 34, was already considered Chile’s greatest poet. His prestige in 1939 was indeed significant enough for him to be able to persuade Chile’s president, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, that it was imperative for their small country to offer asylum to some of the mistreated Spanish patriots rotting in French internment camps.
Not only would this set a humanitarian example, Neruda said, but it would also provide Chile with much needed foreign expertise and talent for its own development. The president agreed to authorize some visas, but the poet himself would have to find the funds for the costly fares of those émigrés as well as for food and lodging during their first six months in the country. And Neruda, once he was in France coordinating the operation, needed to vet the émigrés to ensure they possessed the best technical skills and unimpeachable moral character.
It took considerable courage for President Aguirre Cerda to welcome the Spanish refugees to Chile. The country was poor, still reeling from the long-term effects of the Depression, with a high rate of unemployment — and had just suffered a devastating earthquake in Chillán that had killed28,000 people and left many more injured and homeless.
An unrelenting nativist campaign by right-wing parties and their media, sensing a chance to attack the president’s Popular Front government, painted the prospective asylum seekers as “undesirables”: rapists, criminals, anti-Christian agitators whose presence, according to one chauvinistic editorial in Chile’s leading conservative paper, would be “incompatible with social tranquility and the best manners.”
Neruda realized that it would be cheaper to charter a ship and fill it up with the refugees than to send them, one family at a time, to Chile. The Winnipeg was available but since it was a cargo boat it had to be refurbished to accommodate some 2,000 passengers with berths, canteens for meals, an infirmary, a nursery for the very young and, of course, latrines.
While volunteers from the French Communist Party worked around the clock to ready the vessel, Neruda was gathering donations from all over Latin America — and from friends like Pablo Picasso — to finance the increasingly exorbitant enterprise. Time was short: Europe was bracing for war, and bureaucrats in Santiago and Paris were sabotaging the effort. With only half the cash in hand one month before the ship was set to sail, a group of American Quakers unexpectedly offered to supply the rest of the required funds.
Through it all, Neruda was fueled by his love for Spain and his compassion for the victims of fascism, including one of his best friends, the poet Federico García Lorca, who had been murdered by a fascist death squad in 1936.
As Chile’s consul during the early years of the Spanish Republic, Neruda had witnessed the bombardment of Madrid. The destruction of that city he loved and the assault upon culture and freedom were to mark him for the rest of his life and drastically change his literary priorities.
After the fall of the Republic, he declared, “I swear to defend until my death what has been murdered in Spain: the right to happiness.” No wonder he proclaimed the Winnipeg to have been his “most beautiful poem” as it steamed away — without him or his wife, as they did not want to occupy space that was better occupied by those whose lives were in danger.
And when that magnificent, gigantic, floating “poem” of his, after a hazardous voyage, finally reached Valparaíso, its passengers — despite the protests of right-wing nationalists and Nazi sympathizers — were given a welcome befitting heroes.
Awaiting the penniless survivors of Franco’s legions was President Aguirre Cerda’s personal representative — his health minister, a young doctor named Salvador Allende. Cheering crowds amassed on the dock, singing Spanish songs of resistance, gathered to greet the refugees, some of whom already had jobs lined up. And at each train station on the way to Santiago, they were met by multitudes offering them flowers and food, shouting that Spain was in their hearts.
The refugees who came ashore on the Winnipeg would go on to help fashion a more prosperous, open and inventive Chile. They included the historian Leopoldo Castedo, the book designer Mauricio Amster, the playwright and essayist José Ricardo Morales and the painters Roser Bru and José Balmes, whose benevolent influence – and often friendship – would touch me and my wife personally in the decades to come.
Almost 80 years later, those undesirables pose disturbing questions for us, both in Chile and elsewhere. Where are the presidents who welcome destitute refugees with open arms despite the most virulent slander against them? Where are the Nerudas of yesteryear, ready to launch ships like poems to defend the right to happiness, to food and flowers?
It comes down to one desolate question that the men and women who were greeted like brothers and sisters by the inhabitants of a land they had never seen before, ask us today: Where on earth and on our many seas are the Winnipegs of the twenty-first century?
Ariel Dorfman is the author of the book of essays Homeland Security Ate My Speech and the novel Darwin’s Ghosts. His article A Letter for Lord Ganesha will appear in the Summer, 2018 issue of Tikkun magazine.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on February 22, 2018, on Page A10 of the National edition with the headline: A harsher turn on immigration in Chile.
The poet Pablo Neruda in 1952: He persuaded Chile’s president to offer asylum to some of the mistreated Spanish patriots rotting in French internment camps. Credit Gamma-Keystone, via Getty ImagesChile, like numerous other countries, has been debating whether to welcome migrants — mostly from Haiti, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela — or to keep them out. Although only half a million immigrants live in this nation of 17.7 million, right-wing politicians have stoked anti-immigrant sentiment, opposed the increased rates of immigration in the past decade and directed bile especially against Haitian immigrants.
Immigration was a major issue in elections here in November and December. The winner was Sebastián Piñera, a 68-year-old center-right billionaire who was president from 2010 to 2014 and will take over in March. Mr. Piñera blamed immigrants for delinquency, drug trafficking and organized crime. He benefited from the support of José Antonio Kast, a far-right politician who has been campaigning to build physical barriers along the borders with Peru and Bolivia to stop immigrants.
Chileans aren’t alone in witnessing growing xenophobia and nativism, but we would do well to remember our own history, which offers a model for how to act when we are confronted with strangers seeking sanctuary.
On Aug. 4, 1939, the Winnipeg set sail for Chile from the French port of Pauillac with more than 2,000 refugees who had fled their Spanish homeland.
A few months earlier, Gen. Francisco Franco — aided by Mussolini and Hitler — had defeated the forces of the democratically elected government of Spain. The fascists unleashed a wave of violence and murder.
Women and children aboard the Winnipeg, bound for the Chilean port of ValparaísoAmong the hundreds of thousands of desperate supporters of the Spanish Republic who had crossed the Pyrenees to escape that onslaught were the men, women and children who would board the Winnipeg and arrive a month later at the Chilean port of Valparaíso.
The person responsible for their miraculous escape was Pablo Neruda, who, at the age of 34, was already considered Chile’s greatest poet. His prestige in 1939 was indeed significant enough for him to be able to persuade Chile’s president, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, that it was imperative for their small country to offer asylum to some of the mistreated Spanish patriots rotting in French internment camps.
Not only would this set a humanitarian example, Neruda said, but it would also provide Chile with much needed foreign expertise and talent for its own development. The president agreed to authorize some visas, but the poet himself would have to find the funds for the costly fares of those émigrés as well as for food and lodging during their first six months in the country. And Neruda, once he was in France coordinating the operation, needed to vet the émigrés to ensure they possessed the best technical skills and unimpeachable moral character.
It took considerable courage for President Aguirre Cerda to welcome the Spanish refugees to Chile. The country was poor, still reeling from the long-term effects of the Depression, with a high rate of unemployment — and had just suffered a devastating earthquake in Chillán that had killed28,000 people and left many more injured and homeless.
An unrelenting nativist campaign by right-wing parties and their media, sensing a chance to attack the president’s Popular Front government, painted the prospective asylum seekers as “undesirables”: rapists, criminals, anti-Christian agitators whose presence, according to one chauvinistic editorial in Chile’s leading conservative paper, would be “incompatible with social tranquility and the best manners.”
Neruda realized that it would be cheaper to charter a ship and fill it up with the refugees than to send them, one family at a time, to Chile. The Winnipeg was available but since it was a cargo boat it had to be refurbished to accommodate some 2,000 passengers with berths, canteens for meals, an infirmary, a nursery for the very young and, of course, latrines.
While volunteers from the French Communist Party worked around the clock to ready the vessel, Neruda was gathering donations from all over Latin America — and from friends like Pablo Picasso — to finance the increasingly exorbitant enterprise. Time was short: Europe was bracing for war, and bureaucrats in Santiago and Paris were sabotaging the effort. With only half the cash in hand one month before the ship was set to sail, a group of American Quakers unexpectedly offered to supply the rest of the required funds.
Through it all, Neruda was fueled by his love for Spain and his compassion for the victims of fascism, including one of his best friends, the poet Federico García Lorca, who had been murdered by a fascist death squad in 1936.
As Chile’s consul during the early years of the Spanish Republic, Neruda had witnessed the bombardment of Madrid. The destruction of that city he loved and the assault upon culture and freedom were to mark him for the rest of his life and drastically change his literary priorities.
After the fall of the Republic, he declared, “I swear to defend until my death what has been murdered in Spain: the right to happiness.” No wonder he proclaimed the Winnipeg to have been his “most beautiful poem” as it steamed away — without him or his wife, as they did not want to occupy space that was better occupied by those whose lives were in danger.
And when that magnificent, gigantic, floating “poem” of his, after a hazardous voyage, finally reached Valparaíso, its passengers — despite the protests of right-wing nationalists and Nazi sympathizers — were given a welcome befitting heroes.
Awaiting the penniless survivors of Franco’s legions was President Aguirre Cerda’s personal representative — his health minister, a young doctor named Salvador Allende. Cheering crowds amassed on the dock, singing Spanish songs of resistance, gathered to greet the refugees, some of whom already had jobs lined up. And at each train station on the way to Santiago, they were met by multitudes offering them flowers and food, shouting that Spain was in their hearts.
The refugees who came ashore on the Winnipeg would go on to help fashion a more prosperous, open and inventive Chile. They included the historian Leopoldo Castedo, the book designer Mauricio Amster, the playwright and essayist José Ricardo Morales and the painters Roser Bru and José Balmes, whose benevolent influence – and often friendship – would touch me and my wife personally in the decades to come.
Almost 80 years later, those undesirables pose disturbing questions for us, both in Chile and elsewhere. Where are the presidents who welcome destitute refugees with open arms despite the most virulent slander against them? Where are the Nerudas of yesteryear, ready to launch ships like poems to defend the right to happiness, to food and flowers?
It comes down to one desolate question that the men and women who were greeted like brothers and sisters by the inhabitants of a land they had never seen before, ask us today: Where on earth and on our many seas are the Winnipegs of the twenty-first century?
Ariel Dorfman is the author of the book of essays Homeland Security Ate My Speech and the novel Darwin’s Ghosts. His article A Letter for Lord Ganesha will appear in the Summer, 2018 issue of Tikkun magazine.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on February 22, 2018, on Page A10 of the National edition with the headline: A harsher turn on immigration in Chile.
Batman: Venom
Christopher Owens in his latest review delves into a wholly different genre.
Never underestimate the power of the medium of comics.
Alan Grant, one of the legends that came out of 2000AD, once said on Newsnight:
Don't believe me? Pick up any issue of 2000AD and read about the Judges in Mega City One banning smacking, smoking, refined white sugar, caffeine and making it illegal to have more than one job. Not a million miles from the society we find ourselves in today. Hell, I'm sure El Presidente Trump had this in mind when he talked about arming teachers.
That's the power of comics.
For those of you who this may be news to you, here's some back story.
By the mid 1980's, American comic books had reached a crescendo. The heydays of the colourful 60's had given way to a darker strand of story telling in the 70's. The collapse of the traditional newsstand distribution network at the end of the decade coincided with the opening of specialist comic book stores, which led to the rise of indie publishers, and mainstream titles becoming much more adult and experimental in response to the challenges from these indie publishers.
And the title that is most associated with this new found freedom is Frank Miller's 1986 masterpiece Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.
It was a landmark in that here was, quite clearly, a comic throwing off the traditional shackles of comicdom and allowing itself to be influenced from other sources. Featuring the complexity of a novel, the bleakness of Ted Hughes and the urban squalor of 1980's America, it was a smack in the face to readers and a wake up call for those who still believed that comics were for children. The collected issues, now known as a graphic novel, spent 40 weeks on the UK bestsellers chart, and was a factor in the likes of Maus: A Survivor's Tale and Watchmen becoming massive successes and legendary in their own right.
It made sense that it was Batman who led this reinvention. Although still associated with the campiness of the 60's TV series (great in it's own right), the 70's had seen various writers like Dennis O'Neil bring the character back to it's roots as a night stalking vigilante. Although the character remained a pop cultural icon, regularly beating out Superman and Spiderman in 'best hero' lists, sales had slumped dramatically by the mid 80's. The Dark Knight Returns would change all of that.
This tale, first published in 1991, carries on in a similar vein to The Dark Knight Returns. Although nowhere near as iconoclastic as that story, this is a tale of insecurity and addiction that nearly destroys the Dark Knight.
It begins with Batman attempting to rescue a young girl by the name of Sissy Porter, who is trapped in a mineshaft slowly filling with water. Despite promising to save her, he is unable to remove all the boulders that block his way and she drowns. Despondent and filled with self loathing, he informs her dad, a scientist. Although seemingly dejected, he offers Batman some pills that he's been working on. Named Venom, they increase the strength of the user.
After trying them, Batman has the power of ten men and uses this newfound brute strength to fight criminals with more vigour and hate than normal. Slowly, he finds himself addicted to the pills and finds himself at the mercy of Dr. Porter and military man Timothy Slaycroft. Both want to design the ubermensch, and (although it's never explicitly stated) set up Sissy to die in order to entrap Batman and use him for their own ends.
Although a fairly conventional story in that it has a three act structure and ends on a fairly conclusive note, it's notable for portraying Batman not as a monolithic beast obsessed with revenge, but as a mere mortal who beats himself up for failing to save the life of a child, giving an added poignancy to the theme of drug addiction: no one ever seeks to become an active drug addict, but people are looking for a way to 'improve' themselves, and drugs often seem attractive to such people. Then they're caught in a spiral.
What has always attracted people to Batman was his humanity. He was never an indestructible, Superman/Captain Marvel type hero. He remained a tortured soul who never forgave himself for asking his parents to take him to the theatre and this guilt, coupled with the obsession for revenge, means that he's a highly emotional character who will go to ridiculous lengths for redemption. As he says in The Dark Knight Returns:
So, seeing the Dark Knight manipulated, humbled and riddled with self hatred totally debunks the notion of the incorruptible, indestructible hero. Locking himself in the Batcave for thirty days to go cold turkey is the ultimate act of self flagellation for him. Forced to face his demons and addictions, he tortures himself for being so weak, but redeems himself when he is forced to rely on his core strengths later on.
As a stand alone Batman tale, it's neat and concise. The artwork does the job without being inspiring, nor outstanding. And, as a precursor to the infamous Knightfall saga, it's the first real chink in the armour of Barman.
Those looking something short to dip into without having to worry about continuity would do well with this. It will make you look at the Caped Crusader in a different light.
Dennis O'Neil, José Luis García-López, Russell Braun, Batman: Venom DC Comics ISBN-13: 978-1401233839
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
Never underestimate the power of the medium of comics.
Alan Grant, one of the legends that came out of 2000AD, once said on Newsnight:
...comics are one of the most subversive forms of literature that you can get. Nobody wants to ban television, because television doesn't make you think, it just entertains you. Nobody wants to ban books, because you read books in a logical, linear fashion. Comics force you to use both sides of your brain at once, which is why they were banned in repressive societies like the USSR.
Don't believe me? Pick up any issue of 2000AD and read about the Judges in Mega City One banning smacking, smoking, refined white sugar, caffeine and making it illegal to have more than one job. Not a million miles from the society we find ourselves in today. Hell, I'm sure El Presidente Trump had this in mind when he talked about arming teachers.
That's the power of comics.
For those of you who this may be news to you, here's some back story.
By the mid 1980's, American comic books had reached a crescendo. The heydays of the colourful 60's had given way to a darker strand of story telling in the 70's. The collapse of the traditional newsstand distribution network at the end of the decade coincided with the opening of specialist comic book stores, which led to the rise of indie publishers, and mainstream titles becoming much more adult and experimental in response to the challenges from these indie publishers.
And the title that is most associated with this new found freedom is Frank Miller's 1986 masterpiece Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.
It was a landmark in that here was, quite clearly, a comic throwing off the traditional shackles of comicdom and allowing itself to be influenced from other sources. Featuring the complexity of a novel, the bleakness of Ted Hughes and the urban squalor of 1980's America, it was a smack in the face to readers and a wake up call for those who still believed that comics were for children. The collected issues, now known as a graphic novel, spent 40 weeks on the UK bestsellers chart, and was a factor in the likes of Maus: A Survivor's Tale and Watchmen becoming massive successes and legendary in their own right.
It made sense that it was Batman who led this reinvention. Although still associated with the campiness of the 60's TV series (great in it's own right), the 70's had seen various writers like Dennis O'Neil bring the character back to it's roots as a night stalking vigilante. Although the character remained a pop cultural icon, regularly beating out Superman and Spiderman in 'best hero' lists, sales had slumped dramatically by the mid 80's. The Dark Knight Returns would change all of that.
This tale, first published in 1991, carries on in a similar vein to The Dark Knight Returns. Although nowhere near as iconoclastic as that story, this is a tale of insecurity and addiction that nearly destroys the Dark Knight.
It begins with Batman attempting to rescue a young girl by the name of Sissy Porter, who is trapped in a mineshaft slowly filling with water. Despite promising to save her, he is unable to remove all the boulders that block his way and she drowns. Despondent and filled with self loathing, he informs her dad, a scientist. Although seemingly dejected, he offers Batman some pills that he's been working on. Named Venom, they increase the strength of the user.
After trying them, Batman has the power of ten men and uses this newfound brute strength to fight criminals with more vigour and hate than normal. Slowly, he finds himself addicted to the pills and finds himself at the mercy of Dr. Porter and military man Timothy Slaycroft. Both want to design the ubermensch, and (although it's never explicitly stated) set up Sissy to die in order to entrap Batman and use him for their own ends.
Although a fairly conventional story in that it has a three act structure and ends on a fairly conclusive note, it's notable for portraying Batman not as a monolithic beast obsessed with revenge, but as a mere mortal who beats himself up for failing to save the life of a child, giving an added poignancy to the theme of drug addiction: no one ever seeks to become an active drug addict, but people are looking for a way to 'improve' themselves, and drugs often seem attractive to such people. Then they're caught in a spiral.
What has always attracted people to Batman was his humanity. He was never an indestructible, Superman/Captain Marvel type hero. He remained a tortured soul who never forgave himself for asking his parents to take him to the theatre and this guilt, coupled with the obsession for revenge, means that he's a highly emotional character who will go to ridiculous lengths for redemption. As he says in The Dark Knight Returns:
My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on this street... shaking in deep shock... dying for no reason at all. They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to.
So, seeing the Dark Knight manipulated, humbled and riddled with self hatred totally debunks the notion of the incorruptible, indestructible hero. Locking himself in the Batcave for thirty days to go cold turkey is the ultimate act of self flagellation for him. Forced to face his demons and addictions, he tortures himself for being so weak, but redeems himself when he is forced to rely on his core strengths later on.
As a stand alone Batman tale, it's neat and concise. The artwork does the job without being inspiring, nor outstanding. And, as a precursor to the infamous Knightfall saga, it's the first real chink in the armour of Barman.
Those looking something short to dip into without having to worry about continuity would do well with this. It will make you look at the Caped Crusader in a different light.
Dennis O'Neil, José Luis García-López, Russell Braun, Batman: Venom DC Comics ISBN-13: 978-1401233839
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
March 2, 2018
The Trials And Tribulations Of Moving House ➽ Part 3
Sean Mallory concludes his story on moving house.
The Move
What we didn’t realise was that our chain hadn’t just been yanked with the first potential purchase but it had become increasingly longer due to an increase in the number of links. Our Vendors were in turn hoping to purchase a house in another area altogether and were also sale agreed. That house was also part of a chain in that area and so we had inadvertently joined two chains. The actual number involved in the sale was never fully made known but we heard that it was 7+ and we were second from the bottom.
Firstly our purchaser had gone and completed his sale against the advice of his solicitor because he didn’t want to lose his own house sale and without mentioning this to anyone else in the chain, especially ourselves and was now homeless.
While in our Vendor role we had mentioned to him that we could move out and stay with my better half's mother if it came down to it. What he interpreted from that was that we would move out even if we didn’t have a house so as he could move in. What he didn’t fully grasp was that that idea was a short-term idea of 7 -10 days max and not for an unknown number of months and I mention months for the following reason.
Our Vendor who was in sale agreed with the house in another area was hoping to complete well before Christmas but just found out that the Vendor of that house had no intention of moving out before Christmas as being retail owners, that was their busiest time and most profitable and they couldn’t possibly move in the middle of that and that the house they were after, which was their family home, had fallen through and they had nowhere to go. The family had all fallen out and I’ll get to the why in a minute. They were still willing to sell but would need time to look for rented accommodation and that would mean they wouldn’t be out before mid-January to early February. Hence the more illuminating definition of the length of time we were willing to stay with the mother-in-law!
So now our purchaser wants in asap as he has to vacate his property very soon because it isn’t his anymore and is threatening to pull the plug on purchasing ours and we really want into our new house but the vendors being from Dublin and also a family, have nowhere to go temporarily up here while they wait on the retailers moving out.
We don't want the move to turn sour or turf a family out on the street either but if it comes down to it what can we do?
After much telephoning it is agreed by all parties involved that the 12th January is D-Day. We have a date.
Now back to the retailers and the reason for their purchase of their family home having fallen through. Word has it that the daughter, who was intending to purchase the family home was having an affair with the estate agent in charge of the sale and supposedly representing the rest of the family's interests.
They in turn had made a Faustian pact whereby the estate agent would place the family home on the market well below market value but not too low to raise suspicion, sell it to her, split the profits and then resell it to a developer to build houses on the very large property and they would get a share of that transaction also.
Unknown to them, the family found out about the affair and had the property discretely re-valued. When they found out the ‘conflict of interest’ discrepancy involved they called a halt to the proceedings.
Plus later we found out that the purchaser didn’t want to move before Christmas not just for the reasons already stated but also mainly because the 22 year ‘kid’ who was at college in Dublin, would be too upset to move before Christmas.....like WTF, he's 22 for God’s sake, it's not as if he’s in fuck’n kindergarten!
And to top it all off, my better half develops an illness that requires an operation but with our health system in the state it is, that will not be for at least 11 months so she is in agony and taking pain killers daily. Which reduces her ability to help with the packing!
So as the days roll around to the glorious 12th, other subtle little nuances pop up like in our potential new house the searches have unearthed an area of the property, the size of a back door, that isn’t registered in the deeds lodged at the Land & Registry office which means the bank will not release the mortgage as we wouldn’t own the full property, the Vendor hasn’t supplied the correct property certification for his building work and there is an outstanding court order that is basically demanding he knock down his extension as it doesn’t comply with the conservation area the house is in....this is the first we discover that the house is in a conservation area. Also, neither has his gas conversion safety certification arrived.
Also, to cap it all off and send anxiety levels through the roof, his purchase has fallen through the floor because the retailer’s mother of the house he was hoping to purchase has up and died, the inconsiderate bitch!
She, owned a part of the daughters house that was up for sale and now that she has died it will have to go to probate...that can take 6 to 8 months to complete so that sale has fallen through!
More frantic phone calls with pressure levels going through the roof and a hardening of sentiments that ring fence our own needs and he agrees to move out anyway as he doesn’t want to lose our purchase. His better half's sister has agreed to move out of her house and give it to them for two months until they can find a house to move in to permanently...no idea where the sister lives or where she is going to live nor could we care!
As the day draws closer we seek advice from our solicitor as to whether the move is going to go ahead what with everything outstanding, and should we bother packing and ordering a removal company? His advice is to proceed but be aware that it may not complete in time and that it could run on in to the following week(s) before it all finally completes.
I firmly make it known to him and our estate agent that we can’t afford to over-run the deadline for one we don’t want to lose our purchaser and we have no budget for temporary storage and if it doesn’t go ahead on the 12th then it isn’t going ahead at all. They both contact the Vendor's solicitor and estate agent and make this very clear to them to get their skates on. There is no over-run in to the following week(s). We’ll simply walk away and look elsewhere.
And so, we half-heartedly begin packing. It is only when you start this part that you realise just how much crap that you gather up in life.
For instance, my man cave, the garage, had various lengths of copper piping, copper piping for God's sake, that I had kept just in case of a leak. These we believe had been in there for well over 10 years along with half empty tins of paint and other paraphernalia that proved useless. Several runs to the re-cycling soon cleared that all out. In the house, we discovered that we all had quite a number of coats of which most were never worn.....it bordered on greed of a sorts. So we continued to pack and the house filled up with boxes and space quickly became a premium. We reduced our necessities such as cups and plates down to one each so if you happen to break your cup or plate, it was too bad!
The removal company came and did a site visit and decided to load up the garage contents the day before to save time on the actual day. This was an excellent idea. Before leaving they enquired if the move was still going ahead and I responded that we really didn’t know but to turn up tomorrow anyway. I also enquired if they provided storage in case it didn’t and they said yes and bid us adieu and left.
The certificates and the court order debacle drags on until 10 to 5 on the day before we move. To say we were anxious is an understatement. We received the phone call from our solicitor that it has all been sorted out and we are all stations go for tomorrow.
On the morning of the move the removal company arrived and began packing. It is only when they begin to move your furniture that you realise just how little actual furniture you have. Yes you have the sofa and chairs, a kitchen table and chairs, beds and wardrobes but after that there is very little to move. The kitchen isn’t coming, neither is the bathroom suite or the cubby hole under the stairs, the pantry nor the fireplace. Their contents are though and they are all packed in to various sized boxes commandeered from local shops and other places.
All parties have to out of their house by 12 noon and keys handed over to the estate agent. Once the keys are handed over it becomes a waiting game and did we wait!
Our vendor didn’t seem to understand the urgency of the matter and especially the cost of removals and while he dilly-dallied about with his packing we were paying for the lorries sitting outside his house with our minimalist worldly positions in them. By about 3 0’clock I had had enough and rang him to spur him on, eventually jumping in the car and going around to tell him that he had enough time and it was time to go, beat it mate.
We unpacked the lorries, and the removal company were extremely considerate and didn’t charge us for loading up the garage the day before as it wasn’t our fault that we were messed around so much. Quite an unexpected consideration!
Conclusion
The next time I move it will be feet first out the front door and hopefully up to that heavenly house in the sky. Selling, buying and moving house is definitely one of the most stressful activities that you can participate in.
The one aspect of it that stood out for me was the mood swings and how inconsiderate, selfish and ruthless a person becomes as the process develops. It is definitely not a humane activity but a manifestation of the extreme selfish aspects of capitalism.....
Never again!
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
The Move
What we didn’t realise was that our chain hadn’t just been yanked with the first potential purchase but it had become increasingly longer due to an increase in the number of links. Our Vendors were in turn hoping to purchase a house in another area altogether and were also sale agreed. That house was also part of a chain in that area and so we had inadvertently joined two chains. The actual number involved in the sale was never fully made known but we heard that it was 7+ and we were second from the bottom.
Firstly our purchaser had gone and completed his sale against the advice of his solicitor because he didn’t want to lose his own house sale and without mentioning this to anyone else in the chain, especially ourselves and was now homeless.
While in our Vendor role we had mentioned to him that we could move out and stay with my better half's mother if it came down to it. What he interpreted from that was that we would move out even if we didn’t have a house so as he could move in. What he didn’t fully grasp was that that idea was a short-term idea of 7 -10 days max and not for an unknown number of months and I mention months for the following reason.
Our Vendor who was in sale agreed with the house in another area was hoping to complete well before Christmas but just found out that the Vendor of that house had no intention of moving out before Christmas as being retail owners, that was their busiest time and most profitable and they couldn’t possibly move in the middle of that and that the house they were after, which was their family home, had fallen through and they had nowhere to go. The family had all fallen out and I’ll get to the why in a minute. They were still willing to sell but would need time to look for rented accommodation and that would mean they wouldn’t be out before mid-January to early February. Hence the more illuminating definition of the length of time we were willing to stay with the mother-in-law!
So now our purchaser wants in asap as he has to vacate his property very soon because it isn’t his anymore and is threatening to pull the plug on purchasing ours and we really want into our new house but the vendors being from Dublin and also a family, have nowhere to go temporarily up here while they wait on the retailers moving out.
We don't want the move to turn sour or turf a family out on the street either but if it comes down to it what can we do?
After much telephoning it is agreed by all parties involved that the 12th January is D-Day. We have a date.
Now back to the retailers and the reason for their purchase of their family home having fallen through. Word has it that the daughter, who was intending to purchase the family home was having an affair with the estate agent in charge of the sale and supposedly representing the rest of the family's interests.
They in turn had made a Faustian pact whereby the estate agent would place the family home on the market well below market value but not too low to raise suspicion, sell it to her, split the profits and then resell it to a developer to build houses on the very large property and they would get a share of that transaction also.
Unknown to them, the family found out about the affair and had the property discretely re-valued. When they found out the ‘conflict of interest’ discrepancy involved they called a halt to the proceedings.
Plus later we found out that the purchaser didn’t want to move before Christmas not just for the reasons already stated but also mainly because the 22 year ‘kid’ who was at college in Dublin, would be too upset to move before Christmas.....like WTF, he's 22 for God’s sake, it's not as if he’s in fuck’n kindergarten!
And to top it all off, my better half develops an illness that requires an operation but with our health system in the state it is, that will not be for at least 11 months so she is in agony and taking pain killers daily. Which reduces her ability to help with the packing!
So as the days roll around to the glorious 12th, other subtle little nuances pop up like in our potential new house the searches have unearthed an area of the property, the size of a back door, that isn’t registered in the deeds lodged at the Land & Registry office which means the bank will not release the mortgage as we wouldn’t own the full property, the Vendor hasn’t supplied the correct property certification for his building work and there is an outstanding court order that is basically demanding he knock down his extension as it doesn’t comply with the conservation area the house is in....this is the first we discover that the house is in a conservation area. Also, neither has his gas conversion safety certification arrived.
Also, to cap it all off and send anxiety levels through the roof, his purchase has fallen through the floor because the retailer’s mother of the house he was hoping to purchase has up and died, the inconsiderate bitch!
She, owned a part of the daughters house that was up for sale and now that she has died it will have to go to probate...that can take 6 to 8 months to complete so that sale has fallen through!
More frantic phone calls with pressure levels going through the roof and a hardening of sentiments that ring fence our own needs and he agrees to move out anyway as he doesn’t want to lose our purchase. His better half's sister has agreed to move out of her house and give it to them for two months until they can find a house to move in to permanently...no idea where the sister lives or where she is going to live nor could we care!
As the day draws closer we seek advice from our solicitor as to whether the move is going to go ahead what with everything outstanding, and should we bother packing and ordering a removal company? His advice is to proceed but be aware that it may not complete in time and that it could run on in to the following week(s) before it all finally completes.
I firmly make it known to him and our estate agent that we can’t afford to over-run the deadline for one we don’t want to lose our purchaser and we have no budget for temporary storage and if it doesn’t go ahead on the 12th then it isn’t going ahead at all. They both contact the Vendor's solicitor and estate agent and make this very clear to them to get their skates on. There is no over-run in to the following week(s). We’ll simply walk away and look elsewhere.
And so, we half-heartedly begin packing. It is only when you start this part that you realise just how much crap that you gather up in life.
For instance, my man cave, the garage, had various lengths of copper piping, copper piping for God's sake, that I had kept just in case of a leak. These we believe had been in there for well over 10 years along with half empty tins of paint and other paraphernalia that proved useless. Several runs to the re-cycling soon cleared that all out. In the house, we discovered that we all had quite a number of coats of which most were never worn.....it bordered on greed of a sorts. So we continued to pack and the house filled up with boxes and space quickly became a premium. We reduced our necessities such as cups and plates down to one each so if you happen to break your cup or plate, it was too bad!
The removal company came and did a site visit and decided to load up the garage contents the day before to save time on the actual day. This was an excellent idea. Before leaving they enquired if the move was still going ahead and I responded that we really didn’t know but to turn up tomorrow anyway. I also enquired if they provided storage in case it didn’t and they said yes and bid us adieu and left.
The certificates and the court order debacle drags on until 10 to 5 on the day before we move. To say we were anxious is an understatement. We received the phone call from our solicitor that it has all been sorted out and we are all stations go for tomorrow.
On the morning of the move the removal company arrived and began packing. It is only when they begin to move your furniture that you realise just how little actual furniture you have. Yes you have the sofa and chairs, a kitchen table and chairs, beds and wardrobes but after that there is very little to move. The kitchen isn’t coming, neither is the bathroom suite or the cubby hole under the stairs, the pantry nor the fireplace. Their contents are though and they are all packed in to various sized boxes commandeered from local shops and other places.
All parties have to out of their house by 12 noon and keys handed over to the estate agent. Once the keys are handed over it becomes a waiting game and did we wait!
Our vendor didn’t seem to understand the urgency of the matter and especially the cost of removals and while he dilly-dallied about with his packing we were paying for the lorries sitting outside his house with our minimalist worldly positions in them. By about 3 0’clock I had had enough and rang him to spur him on, eventually jumping in the car and going around to tell him that he had enough time and it was time to go, beat it mate.
We unpacked the lorries, and the removal company were extremely considerate and didn’t charge us for loading up the garage the day before as it wasn’t our fault that we were messed around so much. Quite an unexpected consideration!
Conclusion
The next time I move it will be feet first out the front door and hopefully up to that heavenly house in the sky. Selling, buying and moving house is definitely one of the most stressful activities that you can participate in.
The one aspect of it that stood out for me was the mood swings and how inconsiderate, selfish and ruthless a person becomes as the process develops. It is definitely not a humane activity but a manifestation of the extreme selfish aspects of capitalism.....
Never again!
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
Secret History Of Internal Revenue Auditing
Steven Are has just finished reading
A Secret History Of The IRA.
I’ve just finished reading Ed Moloney’s comprehensive and illuminating tome regarding the Republican Movement under the guidance of the Adams faction and I thought I’d share a few opinions.
The book is a cracking read and sheds light on the internal workings of the both wings of the same beast, the military and the political, and how the Adams Group guided/coaxed/coerced/threatened/bribed the Republican monolith to the point where not only was a ceasefire inevitable, but decommissioning of weaponry was the last outworking of a torturous process.
Coming from a Unionist perspective, Ed’s work lays bare the machinations of a machine that we were in mortal fear of, but remarkably he manages to put a very human face on those people behind the scenes. No easy feat.
Adams clearly had foreseen that the military campaign would be unsuccessful as far back as the mid-eighties, and as such gathered around him those who could wield significant authority over the militarists but who in his estimation also had strategic acumen. The “Think Tank” within the Adams Group navigated the often dangerous path between the ‘Council’ and the ‘Executive’.
Why on Earth there was so much bureaucracy even within the ‘military’ wing is beyond me. At times the quibbling is more reminiscent of a popularity contest, and made all the more confusing by people being able to sit on both boards! But I suppose this is also one of the reasons the Adams Group was successful in guiding the movement to exclusively peaceful means.
Interestingly, the author strongly suggests but without obviously saying so that treachery at a very high level scuppered major arms importations and the Loughall Ambush. One wonders if British Intelligence ‘cleared the path’ for the early Adams Group to grow, given the East Tyrone PIRA were opposed to peaceful action and lukewarm to Adams at best. It is clear now that penetration at every level by British Intelligence plagued the Provisionals.
But a curious thread woven in behind all of the political manoeuvrings caught my eye, namely that for an organisation of the size and sophistication of the Provisionals they cried poor at every opportunity.
But fast forward on from the cessation of military hostilities, with what we know of Slab’s creative approach to self-financing and various heists, where has the money gone?
In the book Ed mentions a very diverse global portfolio of business interests that the Finance Department managed, one that 20 years ago was estimated at 200 million Sterling!
I read a while ago that Brendan Hughes had to go and argue for money for ex-prisoners to feed themselves while working, while nowadays the Armani shinners don’t seem to be strapped. How can they justify this? I’ve read articles on TPQ of former volunteers succumbing to alcoholism and more than a few have taken their own lives after the conflict.
How about freeing up some of this capital to look after those who gave a lot, and I’m saying this from across the divide!
I’ve just finished reading Ed Moloney’s comprehensive and illuminating tome regarding the Republican Movement under the guidance of the Adams faction and I thought I’d share a few opinions.
The book is a cracking read and sheds light on the internal workings of the both wings of the same beast, the military and the political, and how the Adams Group guided/coaxed/coerced/threatened/bribed the Republican monolith to the point where not only was a ceasefire inevitable, but decommissioning of weaponry was the last outworking of a torturous process.
Coming from a Unionist perspective, Ed’s work lays bare the machinations of a machine that we were in mortal fear of, but remarkably he manages to put a very human face on those people behind the scenes. No easy feat.
Adams clearly had foreseen that the military campaign would be unsuccessful as far back as the mid-eighties, and as such gathered around him those who could wield significant authority over the militarists but who in his estimation also had strategic acumen. The “Think Tank” within the Adams Group navigated the often dangerous path between the ‘Council’ and the ‘Executive’.
Why on Earth there was so much bureaucracy even within the ‘military’ wing is beyond me. At times the quibbling is more reminiscent of a popularity contest, and made all the more confusing by people being able to sit on both boards! But I suppose this is also one of the reasons the Adams Group was successful in guiding the movement to exclusively peaceful means.
Interestingly, the author strongly suggests but without obviously saying so that treachery at a very high level scuppered major arms importations and the Loughall Ambush. One wonders if British Intelligence ‘cleared the path’ for the early Adams Group to grow, given the East Tyrone PIRA were opposed to peaceful action and lukewarm to Adams at best. It is clear now that penetration at every level by British Intelligence plagued the Provisionals.
But a curious thread woven in behind all of the political manoeuvrings caught my eye, namely that for an organisation of the size and sophistication of the Provisionals they cried poor at every opportunity.
But fast forward on from the cessation of military hostilities, with what we know of Slab’s creative approach to self-financing and various heists, where has the money gone?
In the book Ed mentions a very diverse global portfolio of business interests that the Finance Department managed, one that 20 years ago was estimated at 200 million Sterling!
I read a while ago that Brendan Hughes had to go and argue for money for ex-prisoners to feed themselves while working, while nowadays the Armani shinners don’t seem to be strapped. How can they justify this? I’ve read articles on TPQ of former volunteers succumbing to alcoholism and more than a few have taken their own lives after the conflict.
How about freeing up some of this capital to look after those who gave a lot, and I’m saying this from across the divide!
March 1, 2018
The Jumping Parliament
The Uri Avnery Column highlights Israeli racism against black Africans.
I put on a T-shirt with the slogan "Peace is greater than Greater Israel". In the middle of the debate I took my jacket off, displaying the slogan.
After a few minutes, an usher approached me and said politely: "The Speaker would like to see you in his office."
The speaker was Yitzhak Shamir, a former commander of the Lehi terrorist underground. He received me with a broad smile, asked me to be seated and said: "Uri, you have made your point. Now I ask you to take the t-shirt off and return to your seat!" Of course I did so.
I remembered this small incident this week, when something much more serious happened in the Knesset.
The American vice president honored Israel with a visit and was received like a king.
Why? Don't know. To my mind, the man is a good-looking and well-dressed fool. Wherever he stopped, he made speeches that should have made even ardent Zionists blush. He lauded Israel in terms of childish adulation, heaping shameless flattery upon fake history.
Official Israel was ecstatic. No one reminded the public that the extreme Christian evangelism espoused by Pence has an unhappy end. It says that after all the Jews have gathered in the Holy Land, Christ will return to earth and all the Jews will convert to his religion. Those who don't will perish.
The high point of the visit was Pence's speech in the Knesset plenum. This in itself was curious. Such honors are reserved for foreign heads of state. Pence, as a mere vice, had no such right. But the Israeli government was set to flatter the man, who might one day become president himself.
(Actually, the only reason I can imagine for not throwing Donald Trump out is the frightening idea that Pence will become president.)
As a former Knesset member I was invited to be seated in the Plenum hall on this occasion, but of course I declined the honor. What followed was shameful.
When the vice president started to utter his chain of flatteries, the members jumped up and gave him a wild standing ovation. This was repeated again and again, up and down, up and down, and looked both ridiculous and disgusting.
Contrary to the US congress, the Knesset does not allow applause. In all my 10 years as a member, during which I attended every single session, I don’t remember a single hand-clap, not to mention multiple standing ovations.
After the guest's speech, representatives of the parties had the right to respond. All the Jewish parties lauded the American politician wholeheartedly. No difference between coalition and opposition.
But The really shameful scene came right at the beginning. When Pence started to speak, the members of the Arab United List stood up and waved placards protesting Trump’s recent recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The Knesset Guard seems to have been forewarned. In a split second, they set upon the 13 members of the list and evicted them forcibly. It was an ugly sight, made even uglier by the stormy applause from most Jewish members.
The United List is a combination of three Arab parties with widely divergent views – Communist, Nationalist and Islamist. They were compelled to unite when the Jewish majority enacted a law raising the minimum clause with the obvious intent of getting rid of the Arab parties, none of which had a chance of passing the minimum on its own. So they put up a joint list and became the third largest Knesset faction.
The entire ugly scene was quite superfluous. After a minute, the Speaker could have acted as Shamir did in my case – ask the Arab members to be seated after having made their point. But the present Speaker is no Shamir. He was a Zionist activist in Soviet Russia, with quite a different mentality.
For The two million Arab citizens of Israel and the tens of millions of Arabs in the neighboring countries, the scene conveyed a clear message: the Arabs don't really belong to the State of Israel.
The visual impact was unequivocal: all the Jews in the Knesset applauded the eviction of all the Arabs. It was a clear national divide, showing that the Arabs are strangers in the "Jewish state" – no matter how many centuries they have lived here.
The division is not so absolutely clean: the Arab list contains one Jewish communist, while most Jewish factions have one Arab member each. Popular humor calls them "Pet Arabs".
This was not the end. On the very next day, the police announced that they were going to recommend that the three nationalist members of the United List be put on trial for breaking the party financing law.
Since parties represented in the Knesset receive state subsidies, the law prescribes what other donations they are allowed to receive. Israeli citizens are allowed to donate up to a certain maximum donations from abroad are forbidden.
Now the police announced that the Arab national Party, Balad, had received large cash donations from abroad, disguising them with false documentation. The investigation, it was disclosed, has taken two years, with 140 persons interrogated.
Yeah? If so, why was the disclosure made exactly one day after the Knesset incident? Arab citizens and others are compelled to believe that the disclosure was a penalty for insulting the US Vice President.
How vicious! How stupid!
But Arabs are not the most unfortunate victims of this government. This role is reserved for the Africans.
Black people fleeing from Sudan and Eritrea have reached us for years after a long and painful trek, crossing the border between Sinai and Israel. In the end Israel built a wall and stopped the flow. But before that happened, about 35 thousand black Africans had reached Tel Aviv, where they settled in the poorest sections and soon quarreled with the locals.
The government built a special prison for them, but many had to be released. They were illegally employed washing dishes and such.
Now the Israeli government has made a secret agreement with the governments of Ruanda and Uganda: for a payment per head, these countries will receive the immigrants. The victims themselves will receive a few dollars if they leave voluntarily. Otherwise they will be incarcerated indefinitely.
The decision raised a storm. It was generally assumed that in these African countries the lives of the refugees would be in danger, that they would be robbed, raped and killed, that others would try to reach European shores and be killed on the way.
The racist aspect was painfully obvious. Israel is full of foreign workers, from Ukrainians to Chinese. The Africans could easily displace them and do their jobs. But they are black. And they might – God forbid! - marry kosher Jewish girls.
And suddenly something completely unexpected happened: a moral uprising. After a rising tide of protests and articles, citizens spoke with a new voice.
Hundreds of pilots and other air crew called for airlines to refuse to transport the refugees from Israel to Africa. Many announced that they themselves would refuse to fly them. They swore not to be like the German locomotive drivers, who transported the Jews to their deaths in the extermination camps.
An elderly woman, a survivor from such a camp, announced on TV that she would hide any refugee seeking her help. She called on all Israeli women to do the same and hide refugees in the attics of their homes. That was a clear allusion to Anne Frank, who was hidden with her family in an attic in Amsterdam during the Holocaust.
This is going on now, a rising tide, an Israeli voice that has not been heard for a long time. A voice that has been mute for so many years, the voice of my Israel, the voice of yesterday's Israel - and hopefully tomorrow's.
There was a time when I could be proud to be an Israeli. Perhaps this time is returning.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
I put on a T-shirt with the slogan "Peace is greater than Greater Israel". In the middle of the debate I took my jacket off, displaying the slogan.
After a few minutes, an usher approached me and said politely: "The Speaker would like to see you in his office."
The speaker was Yitzhak Shamir, a former commander of the Lehi terrorist underground. He received me with a broad smile, asked me to be seated and said: "Uri, you have made your point. Now I ask you to take the t-shirt off and return to your seat!" Of course I did so.
I remembered this small incident this week, when something much more serious happened in the Knesset.
The American vice president honored Israel with a visit and was received like a king.
Why? Don't know. To my mind, the man is a good-looking and well-dressed fool. Wherever he stopped, he made speeches that should have made even ardent Zionists blush. He lauded Israel in terms of childish adulation, heaping shameless flattery upon fake history.
Official Israel was ecstatic. No one reminded the public that the extreme Christian evangelism espoused by Pence has an unhappy end. It says that after all the Jews have gathered in the Holy Land, Christ will return to earth and all the Jews will convert to his religion. Those who don't will perish.
The high point of the visit was Pence's speech in the Knesset plenum. This in itself was curious. Such honors are reserved for foreign heads of state. Pence, as a mere vice, had no such right. But the Israeli government was set to flatter the man, who might one day become president himself.
(Actually, the only reason I can imagine for not throwing Donald Trump out is the frightening idea that Pence will become president.)
As a former Knesset member I was invited to be seated in the Plenum hall on this occasion, but of course I declined the honor. What followed was shameful.
When the vice president started to utter his chain of flatteries, the members jumped up and gave him a wild standing ovation. This was repeated again and again, up and down, up and down, and looked both ridiculous and disgusting.
Contrary to the US congress, the Knesset does not allow applause. In all my 10 years as a member, during which I attended every single session, I don’t remember a single hand-clap, not to mention multiple standing ovations.
After the guest's speech, representatives of the parties had the right to respond. All the Jewish parties lauded the American politician wholeheartedly. No difference between coalition and opposition.
But The really shameful scene came right at the beginning. When Pence started to speak, the members of the Arab United List stood up and waved placards protesting Trump’s recent recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The Knesset Guard seems to have been forewarned. In a split second, they set upon the 13 members of the list and evicted them forcibly. It was an ugly sight, made even uglier by the stormy applause from most Jewish members.
The United List is a combination of three Arab parties with widely divergent views – Communist, Nationalist and Islamist. They were compelled to unite when the Jewish majority enacted a law raising the minimum clause with the obvious intent of getting rid of the Arab parties, none of which had a chance of passing the minimum on its own. So they put up a joint list and became the third largest Knesset faction.
The entire ugly scene was quite superfluous. After a minute, the Speaker could have acted as Shamir did in my case – ask the Arab members to be seated after having made their point. But the present Speaker is no Shamir. He was a Zionist activist in Soviet Russia, with quite a different mentality.
For The two million Arab citizens of Israel and the tens of millions of Arabs in the neighboring countries, the scene conveyed a clear message: the Arabs don't really belong to the State of Israel.
The visual impact was unequivocal: all the Jews in the Knesset applauded the eviction of all the Arabs. It was a clear national divide, showing that the Arabs are strangers in the "Jewish state" – no matter how many centuries they have lived here.
The division is not so absolutely clean: the Arab list contains one Jewish communist, while most Jewish factions have one Arab member each. Popular humor calls them "Pet Arabs".
This was not the end. On the very next day, the police announced that they were going to recommend that the three nationalist members of the United List be put on trial for breaking the party financing law.
Since parties represented in the Knesset receive state subsidies, the law prescribes what other donations they are allowed to receive. Israeli citizens are allowed to donate up to a certain maximum donations from abroad are forbidden.
Now the police announced that the Arab national Party, Balad, had received large cash donations from abroad, disguising them with false documentation. The investigation, it was disclosed, has taken two years, with 140 persons interrogated.
Yeah? If so, why was the disclosure made exactly one day after the Knesset incident? Arab citizens and others are compelled to believe that the disclosure was a penalty for insulting the US Vice President.
How vicious! How stupid!
But Arabs are not the most unfortunate victims of this government. This role is reserved for the Africans.
Black people fleeing from Sudan and Eritrea have reached us for years after a long and painful trek, crossing the border between Sinai and Israel. In the end Israel built a wall and stopped the flow. But before that happened, about 35 thousand black Africans had reached Tel Aviv, where they settled in the poorest sections and soon quarreled with the locals.
The government built a special prison for them, but many had to be released. They were illegally employed washing dishes and such.
Now the Israeli government has made a secret agreement with the governments of Ruanda and Uganda: for a payment per head, these countries will receive the immigrants. The victims themselves will receive a few dollars if they leave voluntarily. Otherwise they will be incarcerated indefinitely.
The decision raised a storm. It was generally assumed that in these African countries the lives of the refugees would be in danger, that they would be robbed, raped and killed, that others would try to reach European shores and be killed on the way.
The racist aspect was painfully obvious. Israel is full of foreign workers, from Ukrainians to Chinese. The Africans could easily displace them and do their jobs. But they are black. And they might – God forbid! - marry kosher Jewish girls.
And suddenly something completely unexpected happened: a moral uprising. After a rising tide of protests and articles, citizens spoke with a new voice.
Hundreds of pilots and other air crew called for airlines to refuse to transport the refugees from Israel to Africa. Many announced that they themselves would refuse to fly them. They swore not to be like the German locomotive drivers, who transported the Jews to their deaths in the extermination camps.
An elderly woman, a survivor from such a camp, announced on TV that she would hide any refugee seeking her help. She called on all Israeli women to do the same and hide refugees in the attics of their homes. That was a clear allusion to Anne Frank, who was hidden with her family in an attic in Amsterdam during the Holocaust.
This is going on now, a rising tide, an Israeli voice that has not been heard for a long time. A voice that has been mute for so many years, the voice of my Israel, the voice of yesterday's Israel - and hopefully tomorrow's.
There was a time when I could be proud to be an Israeli. Perhaps this time is returning.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Something To Celebrate
Tommy McKearney writes that there is something to celebrate.
The first Dáil Éireann and the Democratic ProgrammeNext January the Peadar O’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum will mark the centenary of the first Dáil Éireann and the publication of one of modern Ireland’s landmark documents, the Democratic Programme. The forum will celebrate the occasion with a conference in Liberty Hall, Dublin.
While it is important that seminal events are remembered, it is also necessary that we learn from them. There are lessons from that era that are not only of historical interest but have relevance to contemporary Ireland and its relationship with the rest of the world. The celebration on 19 January 2019 in Liberty Hall, therefore, will go beyond a simple commemoration: it will also explore the progress, or lack of it, since then and ask participants to contribute towards making a positive and progressive impact in the days to come.
The people who participated on that historic occasion in 1919 not only asserted the Irish people’s right to self-determination and independence but also identified a need to rectify serious social and economic issues that had a detrimental effect on Ireland’s working people. Moreover, they also created a political arena that had the potential to implement these tasks. That the eventual outcome did not fulfil its intention is cause for regret rather than outright dismissal.
Firstly, therefore, let us look briefly at the conditions under which working people live and labour in today’s Ireland. A century after the publication of the Democratic Programme, which included the statement that the Republic will “reaffirm that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare,” there can be little doubt that this objective has been decisively rejected by governing institutions in Ireland.
The dogma of free-market capitalism is ruthlessly implemented, with little care for its effect on working people. There is a housing and homelessness crisis, with the neo-liberal Irish state, in spite of an obvious emergency, insisting on the provision of houses through the private sector, notwithstanding the abject failure of this policy. Lengthy hospital waiting-lists, and the spectacle of patients parked for hours on trolleys, is a national disgrace. Exacerbating difficulties within the health service is the absence of adequate provision of home help for the elderly.
Nevertheless, this state persists with the detrimental practice of maintaining a parallel private and public health service.
Typifying the Irish state’s neo-liberal ethos is the fall-out from the Carillion fiasco.¹ So determined was the Dublin government to assist the privileged elite that this reckless British company was awarded responsibility for the design, building, financing and maintenance of six new schools around the country. This so-called public-services company powerfully illustrates the drive towards the privatisation of public services that has been relentlessly pursued over the past decades.
Whereas once the capitalist state provided a protective structure whereby an elite would profit from manufacturing and finance, this has now become a situation where the state also ensures that a favoured few benefit by being paid handsomely to manage public services. In the process, standards are frequently lowered, trade unions are often expelled, and ultimately, if privatised, the management fails, as Carillion and others have done, with the taxpaying public picking up the bill.
Illustrating the sheer mendacity of this regime was the astonishing spectacle last year of an Irish government refusing to accept €13 billion in taxes owed by the enormously wealthy Apple Corporation.
In the light of all this it is reasonable to ask whether a sovereign Irish republic as asserted in the Mansion House ninety-nine years ago exists in any real sense in Ireland today. In the first place, a raft of restrictions is imposed on the popular will as a consequence of membership of the European Union. This can only get worse if proposals for closer integration, coupled with the strengthening of the euro zone, are implemented.
Moreover, it is likely that this will come about, since the Davos poster-boy Emmanuel Macron is proposing this very package and has recently been receiving backing form the supine leadership of Germany’s Social Democratic Party.
More worrying still is the flagrant violation by the United States of what is left of Ireland’s neutrality. This was emphasised last month at Shannon Airport, where the vice-president of the United States, Mike Pence, posed for photographs as he shook hands with American soldiers in combat fatigues. These soldiers, bound for Kuwait, are clearly not tourists, and their presence in Shannon Airport makes the Irish government party to their military campaign.
As Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD (Sinn Féin) said:
Let us not be complacent either, because this situation has a resonance beyond national pride. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its symbolic Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight,² thanks largely to the “unpredictability” of Donald Trump.
Compromising neutrality, therefore, poses a risk that Ireland could be dragged almost unwittingly into an imperial war.
To address the problems arising from a diminished sovereignty coupled with the destructiveness of neo-liberalism, it is worth reflecting finally on a central concept promoted by the first Dáil. This was the extension and empowerment of democracy. Those who gathered in the Mansion House on that January day could have taken their seats in the British Parliament but, while forming a significant bloc in the House of Commons, would nevertheless have remained as impotent as the Irish Party had been fifty years before. Just as then, there is now a need to facilitate a more participatory form of democracy, one that is not at present available.
The Peadar O’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum is not calling for anything as dramatic as the creation of an alternative parliament. What it seeks to do, among other things, is to draw attention to the limitations imposed by a reliance on the existing parliamentary process, where, in the words of Lenin, “capital exercises its influence on the state power.” The powerful and inspiring campaign against the water tax taught us that single-issue campaigns are effective but can be limited. Without the continuous popular pressure of a mass movement the ruling class make strategic concessions that can be eroded in time.
The Forum plans thereafter to use its celebration of the first Dáil in 2019 to explore and advocate the establishment of a wider forum, aimed at encouraging political discourse and promoting the creation and direction of a bottom-up mass movement.
Doing this, however, requires the building of a regularly convened assembly or arena designed with the intention of identifying and promoting a comprehensive programme capable of transforming Irish society. What the assembly would be named, how it would be made up or where it might be convened are matters for democratic agreement and are not a prerogative reserved by the Peadar O’Donnell Forum.
What the forum does insist upon, though, is that a hundred years after the first Dáil the Irish working class must be allowed to realise the promise and potential of that assembly’s Democratic Programme.
1. Paul Mason, “Ink it onto your knuckles: Carillion is how neoliberalism lives and breathes,” Novamedia, 15 January 2018.
2. “Doomsday Clock moved to just two minutes to ‘apocalypse’,” BBC News, 25 January 2018.
Tommy McKearney is a trade union activist and author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection To Parliament.
Follow Tommy McKearney on Twitter @Tommymckearney
The first Dáil Éireann and the Democratic ProgrammeNext January the Peadar O’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum will mark the centenary of the first Dáil Éireann and the publication of one of modern Ireland’s landmark documents, the Democratic Programme. The forum will celebrate the occasion with a conference in Liberty Hall, Dublin.
While it is important that seminal events are remembered, it is also necessary that we learn from them. There are lessons from that era that are not only of historical interest but have relevance to contemporary Ireland and its relationship with the rest of the world. The celebration on 19 January 2019 in Liberty Hall, therefore, will go beyond a simple commemoration: it will also explore the progress, or lack of it, since then and ask participants to contribute towards making a positive and progressive impact in the days to come.
The people who participated on that historic occasion in 1919 not only asserted the Irish people’s right to self-determination and independence but also identified a need to rectify serious social and economic issues that had a detrimental effect on Ireland’s working people. Moreover, they also created a political arena that had the potential to implement these tasks. That the eventual outcome did not fulfil its intention is cause for regret rather than outright dismissal.
Firstly, therefore, let us look briefly at the conditions under which working people live and labour in today’s Ireland. A century after the publication of the Democratic Programme, which included the statement that the Republic will “reaffirm that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare,” there can be little doubt that this objective has been decisively rejected by governing institutions in Ireland.
The dogma of free-market capitalism is ruthlessly implemented, with little care for its effect on working people. There is a housing and homelessness crisis, with the neo-liberal Irish state, in spite of an obvious emergency, insisting on the provision of houses through the private sector, notwithstanding the abject failure of this policy. Lengthy hospital waiting-lists, and the spectacle of patients parked for hours on trolleys, is a national disgrace. Exacerbating difficulties within the health service is the absence of adequate provision of home help for the elderly.
Nevertheless, this state persists with the detrimental practice of maintaining a parallel private and public health service.
Typifying the Irish state’s neo-liberal ethos is the fall-out from the Carillion fiasco.¹ So determined was the Dublin government to assist the privileged elite that this reckless British company was awarded responsibility for the design, building, financing and maintenance of six new schools around the country. This so-called public-services company powerfully illustrates the drive towards the privatisation of public services that has been relentlessly pursued over the past decades.
Whereas once the capitalist state provided a protective structure whereby an elite would profit from manufacturing and finance, this has now become a situation where the state also ensures that a favoured few benefit by being paid handsomely to manage public services. In the process, standards are frequently lowered, trade unions are often expelled, and ultimately, if privatised, the management fails, as Carillion and others have done, with the taxpaying public picking up the bill.
Illustrating the sheer mendacity of this regime was the astonishing spectacle last year of an Irish government refusing to accept €13 billion in taxes owed by the enormously wealthy Apple Corporation.
In the light of all this it is reasonable to ask whether a sovereign Irish republic as asserted in the Mansion House ninety-nine years ago exists in any real sense in Ireland today. In the first place, a raft of restrictions is imposed on the popular will as a consequence of membership of the European Union. This can only get worse if proposals for closer integration, coupled with the strengthening of the euro zone, are implemented.
Moreover, it is likely that this will come about, since the Davos poster-boy Emmanuel Macron is proposing this very package and has recently been receiving backing form the supine leadership of Germany’s Social Democratic Party.
More worrying still is the flagrant violation by the United States of what is left of Ireland’s neutrality. This was emphasised last month at Shannon Airport, where the vice-president of the United States, Mike Pence, posed for photographs as he shook hands with American soldiers in combat fatigues. These soldiers, bound for Kuwait, are clearly not tourists, and their presence in Shannon Airport makes the Irish government party to their military campaign.
As Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD (Sinn Féin) said:
these images are a stark reminder that the civilian Shannon Airport has virtually become a forward base for the US army to carry out military operations and exercises.
Let us not be complacent either, because this situation has a resonance beyond national pride. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its symbolic Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight,² thanks largely to the “unpredictability” of Donald Trump.
Compromising neutrality, therefore, poses a risk that Ireland could be dragged almost unwittingly into an imperial war.
To address the problems arising from a diminished sovereignty coupled with the destructiveness of neo-liberalism, it is worth reflecting finally on a central concept promoted by the first Dáil. This was the extension and empowerment of democracy. Those who gathered in the Mansion House on that January day could have taken their seats in the British Parliament but, while forming a significant bloc in the House of Commons, would nevertheless have remained as impotent as the Irish Party had been fifty years before. Just as then, there is now a need to facilitate a more participatory form of democracy, one that is not at present available.
The Peadar O’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum is not calling for anything as dramatic as the creation of an alternative parliament. What it seeks to do, among other things, is to draw attention to the limitations imposed by a reliance on the existing parliamentary process, where, in the words of Lenin, “capital exercises its influence on the state power.” The powerful and inspiring campaign against the water tax taught us that single-issue campaigns are effective but can be limited. Without the continuous popular pressure of a mass movement the ruling class make strategic concessions that can be eroded in time.
The Forum plans thereafter to use its celebration of the first Dáil in 2019 to explore and advocate the establishment of a wider forum, aimed at encouraging political discourse and promoting the creation and direction of a bottom-up mass movement.
Doing this, however, requires the building of a regularly convened assembly or arena designed with the intention of identifying and promoting a comprehensive programme capable of transforming Irish society. What the assembly would be named, how it would be made up or where it might be convened are matters for democratic agreement and are not a prerogative reserved by the Peadar O’Donnell Forum.
What the forum does insist upon, though, is that a hundred years after the first Dáil the Irish working class must be allowed to realise the promise and potential of that assembly’s Democratic Programme.
1. Paul Mason, “Ink it onto your knuckles: Carillion is how neoliberalism lives and breathes,” Novamedia, 15 January 2018.
2. “Doomsday Clock moved to just two minutes to ‘apocalypse’,” BBC News, 25 January 2018.
Tommy McKearney is a trade union activist and author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection To Parliament.Follow Tommy McKearney on Twitter @Tommymckearney
February 28, 2018
I Was Not A Member Of The IRA
Via The Transcripts Andrew Marr sat down with Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams last week in Dundalk and talked about the future of Sinn Féin, Brexit and Irish unity.
Gerry Adams The Andrew Marr Show BBC One 4 February 2018
The Andrew Marr Show
BBC One
Andrew: Now then, few political lives divide opinion like Gerry Adams. For some, he’s a man of blood who defended many IRA atrocities during The Troubles in Northern Ireland. To others, he’s a courageous peacemaker who was instrumental in the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago. After thirty-five years as president of Sinn Féin Mr. Adams is standing down this month and handing over to a new generation of Republican leaders. I sat down with him last week in Dundalk near the Irish border to reflect on his life campaigning for a united Ireland. I began by asking him whether he had failed in that endeavour?
Gerry: No, because when I joined Sinn Féin, which was over fifty years ago, it was banned, it was outlawed. There was no prospect, really, of a strategy for Irish unity. If I look back now, a half a million people vote for Sinn Féin. We’re the second largest party in The North. There’s now a peaceful way to get Irish unity.
Andrew: Your old comrade, Martin McGuinness, never saw it. Do you think you’ll see it?
Gerry: Yes, if I live long enough and you know, with Martin’s passing, I suppose, proves to all of us that you can’t be certain about anything. You know Martin – I miss Martin every single – day so, is an Irish Republic, is Irish unity inevitable? No, it isn’t. It’s only going to happen if we work at it. I come from a very, very straightforward position: I want to see an end to the British connection with Ireland.
Andrew: How much does the Brexit vote help your ideal of a united Ireland?
Gerry Adams with Andrew Marr
Photo: BBC News
Gerry: I think we need to be very, very careful that we don’t see Brexit as something which can be exploited. Brexit is disastrous for the people of Ireland. The British government are not at all clear about what their future relationship with the European Union’s going to be and they are arguing that they’re going to leave the customs union and they are going to leave the single market and that will end up a complete disaster for people here on the island of Ireland. The agreement that was made recently, which moved the negotiations into their second phase, was a fudge. It’s filled with contradictions. The, the…
Andrew: …Fudge is not always bad.
Gerry: Well, it is not always bad if it gets you over a particular difficulty. Tonnes of business people are totally dependent on the flow back and forth of business and commerce across what is an invisible border. When a hard economic border comes back that’s going to stump that – it’s going to destroy that.
Andrew: If it comes back. If it comes back. One of your own MPs, Mr. (Chris) Hazzard, has said that if it comes back those customs posts and those hard pieces of infrastructure along the border could become a target for dissident Republican groups and mass civil disobedience and we could see the return of violence around the border. Do you share that worry?
Gerry: Yes, I would. He didn’t say it was likely. He said it was a concern. And one has to be concerned that this would be exploited but look – you see, people have got used, after decades of conflict, people have got used to peace so the images which you may have or which I may have of border checkpoints and of heavy patrols and all of that…
Andrew: …They belong to history…
Gerry: That all belongs to history and nobody wants that back.
Andrew: Now these debates are going to be thrashed out on the floor of the House of Commons and there are going to be some very substantial votes. If Sinn Féin took up its seats and even voted once or twice you could change the course of British history and change the course of history for the whole island of Ireland. Is it really worth Republican principle not taking those seats and not engaging in those votes?
Gerry: Well before I deal with that let me tell you the solution to this problem: The solution to this problem is special designated status for The North within the European Union and that is do-able…
Andrew: …but the Irish government don’t like this idea and nor do they like it in Brussels. They think it sets too many precedents for the rest of the EU.
Gerry: Well, I don’t know whether they like it or not because they’re very flexible in terms of how they deal with the European Union and its relationships with the various different states and with political will that is very, very, very do-able. Now coming back to the issue of Sinn Féin taking our seats at Westminster: We just received the largest vote that we ever received…
Andrew: …and you have leverage.
Gerry: No, sorry,sorry, Andrew – we, when we get a mandate – obey that mandate and stay true to that mandate. But that vote was a vote for no British involvement in our affairs. The centre of political gravity being on the island of Ireland. So we will not betray those people who had a choice.
Andrew: Let’s talk, if we may now, about the past: Why did you not join the IRA?
Gerry: Because I was active in Sinn Féin when the IRA was just nonexistent. In the 1960’s after the Border Campaign the whole trajectory within Republicanism was to build politically and I’m one of the very small group of people who were activists before the pogroms in 1969 – I’m one of the very few Republicans in there. Now, having said that and, you know, it’s a matter of history, the IRA’s gone, Andrew. The IRA is gone. And I mean my position has been consistent that I was not a member of the IRA but I’ve never distanced myself from the IRA.
Andrew: Well that’s the, so that’s – were you never tempted to join?
Gerry: No, no, I wasn’t. No. I had my role in the struggle. I’d like to think I’ve served the struggle well.
Andrew: Because, I mean you always supported the armed struggle. You always defended the IRA. You were treated by members of the IRA as a kind of commander when you were in Long Kesh and everybody who studied you – I mean I range from British politicians to journalists – they all think you were in the IRA. You always say: No, I wasn’t and I wasn’t on the Army Council. Why is it that everybody else, including the people who left their testimony in Boston and so forth, are sure that you were?
Gerry: You’ll have to ask them that, Andrew. And you know some day I’ll do an interview and this issue won’t arise. Now I don’t mind dealing with the issue but I make the point again: See, the IRA have gone. I did defend the IRA but I also was very critical of the IRA at times. I don’t condone everything that the IRA did.
Andrew: You were very, very vociferous and very clear in condemning the Manchester Arena bombing by an Islamic group. What is the moral difference between that, for instance, and the Birmingham Pub bombings?
Gerry: Well the Birmingham Pub bombings were wrong. I condemn that as well. I don’t have any compunction about it.
Andrew: But those again, those were innocent people going in just to have a pint of Mild and listen to a jukebox.
Gerry: Oh, no, no – but I gave you my answer to that. I mean I would wish that no one, no one, had been killed or injured in the course of the conflict.
Andrew: At some point you changed your mind about the physical force process and about the use of violence. When and why did you change your mind?
Gerry: Because we were able to create an alternative. When you can put forward an alternative sensible people will embrace that alternative because no one wants to be either supporting or part – no one sensible, wants to be supporting or part of armed action – so once you present an alternative – it’s when you close down the options, when you say to people…
Andrew: …So it was tactical rather than moral. It wasn’t you saying: This is morally wrong. Killing people like this is the wrong thing to do, morally – it no longer works is what you’re saying, in a sense.
Gerry: No, no, sorry, Andrew, I’m better able to tell you what I think on these matters than you to put words into my mouth. If we want to talk about morality you’d need a longer show than this. But look, you can only make moral judgments about people when you walk in their shoes and that’s, that’s, thankfully, is we’re talking here about history, we’re talking about something that has passed…
Andrew: …So there was not a moment when you looked at the death of Tim Parry or some kid…
Gerry: …Of course! Of course!…
Andrew: …or whatever and you thought: This has gone far enough. I can no longer stick with this…
Gerry: …Of course! Of course! And I said that at the time…
Andrew: …it was a moral revulsion?…
Gerry: And I said that at the time. So how could anyone, even if it’s accidental, how could anyone stand over the killing of a child or stand over the killing of a civilian? It’s a much different matter entirely, if you want to be into all of that, if it’s soldiers versus soldiers but in the awfulness of and the horror of war you cannot stand over some of those incidents.
Andrew: You spent a lot of time sitting on the other side of the table from a whole stream of British leaders – very, very early days – Ted Heath and Willie Whitelaw and so forth and then John Major, Tony Blair, Peter Mandleson, Mo Mowlam – which of those did most for peace in Ireland in your view?
Gerry: Well I suppose Tony Blair – you know and I would have big issues with him around Iraq and other matters and we actually, myself and Martin, warned him about not getting involved in Iraq.
Andrew: Did you?
Gerry: Oh, yes, yes! We said to him: Don’t, don’t do – look at the Irish experience – don’t go in there. But he was given an opportunity, if you’d like, on a plate and he seized it.
Andrew: So Tony Blair – and now Tony Blair’s party is led by a very, very different man who’s always supported a united Ireland, he’s been a big backer of yours over the years – what difference would it make to the island of Ireland and to Sinn Féin and your cause to have Jeremy Corbyn as British Prime Minister, which he might well be?
Gerry: Well I would like to see Jeremy in that position for the benefit of the people in Britain – leaving Ireland out of it. I think Jeremy is an outstanding politician and I hope…
Andrew: …Let’s put Ireland back into it…
Gerry: …I hope my endorsement of him isn’t used against him in the time ahead. But yes, he and Ken Livingstone and others kept faith and they were the people who said, when others said no, talk. They were the people who were open to conversation about how to deal with conflict and how to get conflict resolution processes but look – let’s not preempt the next…
Andrew: …Of course not…
Gerry: …general election.
Andrew: Gerry Adams, are you a man of faith?
Gerry: Yes, I am. Yes.
Andrew: So one day you’ll be judged by your maker and when you’re being judged by your maker will you be able to say: I have clean hands?
Gerry: Well, the one thing that I understand about faith – and you know, as you get older you reflect on all of these things – the one thing I know about Jesus is that He forgave. He didn’t go round condemning. Treat people with dignity and people will respond in a dignified way. Treat people badly and people will respond badly.
Andrew: Nobody gets to write their own obituary – but what would be the headline on yours?
Gerry: Well, God knows. I’m not really interested. You know, some people say to me: What’s your legacy? I won’t be around, you know?
Andrew: None of us will. Gerry Adams, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.
You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
Gerry Adams The Andrew Marr Show BBC One 4 February 2018
The Andrew Marr Show
BBC One
Andrew: Now then, few political lives divide opinion like Gerry Adams. For some, he’s a man of blood who defended many IRA atrocities during The Troubles in Northern Ireland. To others, he’s a courageous peacemaker who was instrumental in the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago. After thirty-five years as president of Sinn Féin Mr. Adams is standing down this month and handing over to a new generation of Republican leaders. I sat down with him last week in Dundalk near the Irish border to reflect on his life campaigning for a united Ireland. I began by asking him whether he had failed in that endeavour?
Gerry: No, because when I joined Sinn Féin, which was over fifty years ago, it was banned, it was outlawed. There was no prospect, really, of a strategy for Irish unity. If I look back now, a half a million people vote for Sinn Féin. We’re the second largest party in The North. There’s now a peaceful way to get Irish unity.
Andrew: Your old comrade, Martin McGuinness, never saw it. Do you think you’ll see it?
Gerry: Yes, if I live long enough and you know, with Martin’s passing, I suppose, proves to all of us that you can’t be certain about anything. You know Martin – I miss Martin every single – day so, is an Irish Republic, is Irish unity inevitable? No, it isn’t. It’s only going to happen if we work at it. I come from a very, very straightforward position: I want to see an end to the British connection with Ireland.
Andrew: How much does the Brexit vote help your ideal of a united Ireland?
Gerry Adams with Andrew MarrPhoto: BBC News
Gerry: I think we need to be very, very careful that we don’t see Brexit as something which can be exploited. Brexit is disastrous for the people of Ireland. The British government are not at all clear about what their future relationship with the European Union’s going to be and they are arguing that they’re going to leave the customs union and they are going to leave the single market and that will end up a complete disaster for people here on the island of Ireland. The agreement that was made recently, which moved the negotiations into their second phase, was a fudge. It’s filled with contradictions. The, the…
Andrew: …Fudge is not always bad.
Gerry: Well, it is not always bad if it gets you over a particular difficulty. Tonnes of business people are totally dependent on the flow back and forth of business and commerce across what is an invisible border. When a hard economic border comes back that’s going to stump that – it’s going to destroy that.
Andrew: If it comes back. If it comes back. One of your own MPs, Mr. (Chris) Hazzard, has said that if it comes back those customs posts and those hard pieces of infrastructure along the border could become a target for dissident Republican groups and mass civil disobedience and we could see the return of violence around the border. Do you share that worry?
Gerry: Yes, I would. He didn’t say it was likely. He said it was a concern. And one has to be concerned that this would be exploited but look – you see, people have got used, after decades of conflict, people have got used to peace so the images which you may have or which I may have of border checkpoints and of heavy patrols and all of that…
Andrew: …They belong to history…
Gerry: That all belongs to history and nobody wants that back.
Andrew: Now these debates are going to be thrashed out on the floor of the House of Commons and there are going to be some very substantial votes. If Sinn Féin took up its seats and even voted once or twice you could change the course of British history and change the course of history for the whole island of Ireland. Is it really worth Republican principle not taking those seats and not engaging in those votes?
Gerry: Well before I deal with that let me tell you the solution to this problem: The solution to this problem is special designated status for The North within the European Union and that is do-able…
Andrew: …but the Irish government don’t like this idea and nor do they like it in Brussels. They think it sets too many precedents for the rest of the EU.
Gerry: Well, I don’t know whether they like it or not because they’re very flexible in terms of how they deal with the European Union and its relationships with the various different states and with political will that is very, very, very do-able. Now coming back to the issue of Sinn Féin taking our seats at Westminster: We just received the largest vote that we ever received…
Andrew: …and you have leverage.
Gerry: No, sorry,sorry, Andrew – we, when we get a mandate – obey that mandate and stay true to that mandate. But that vote was a vote for no British involvement in our affairs. The centre of political gravity being on the island of Ireland. So we will not betray those people who had a choice.
Andrew: Let’s talk, if we may now, about the past: Why did you not join the IRA?
Gerry: Because I was active in Sinn Féin when the IRA was just nonexistent. In the 1960’s after the Border Campaign the whole trajectory within Republicanism was to build politically and I’m one of the very small group of people who were activists before the pogroms in 1969 – I’m one of the very few Republicans in there. Now, having said that and, you know, it’s a matter of history, the IRA’s gone, Andrew. The IRA is gone. And I mean my position has been consistent that I was not a member of the IRA but I’ve never distanced myself from the IRA.
Andrew: Well that’s the, so that’s – were you never tempted to join?
Gerry: No, no, I wasn’t. No. I had my role in the struggle. I’d like to think I’ve served the struggle well.
Andrew: Because, I mean you always supported the armed struggle. You always defended the IRA. You were treated by members of the IRA as a kind of commander when you were in Long Kesh and everybody who studied you – I mean I range from British politicians to journalists – they all think you were in the IRA. You always say: No, I wasn’t and I wasn’t on the Army Council. Why is it that everybody else, including the people who left their testimony in Boston and so forth, are sure that you were?
Gerry: You’ll have to ask them that, Andrew. And you know some day I’ll do an interview and this issue won’t arise. Now I don’t mind dealing with the issue but I make the point again: See, the IRA have gone. I did defend the IRA but I also was very critical of the IRA at times. I don’t condone everything that the IRA did.
Andrew: You were very, very vociferous and very clear in condemning the Manchester Arena bombing by an Islamic group. What is the moral difference between that, for instance, and the Birmingham Pub bombings?
Gerry: Well the Birmingham Pub bombings were wrong. I condemn that as well. I don’t have any compunction about it.
Andrew: But those again, those were innocent people going in just to have a pint of Mild and listen to a jukebox.
Gerry: Oh, no, no – but I gave you my answer to that. I mean I would wish that no one, no one, had been killed or injured in the course of the conflict.
Andrew: At some point you changed your mind about the physical force process and about the use of violence. When and why did you change your mind?
Gerry: Because we were able to create an alternative. When you can put forward an alternative sensible people will embrace that alternative because no one wants to be either supporting or part – no one sensible, wants to be supporting or part of armed action – so once you present an alternative – it’s when you close down the options, when you say to people…
Andrew: …So it was tactical rather than moral. It wasn’t you saying: This is morally wrong. Killing people like this is the wrong thing to do, morally – it no longer works is what you’re saying, in a sense.
Gerry: No, no, sorry, Andrew, I’m better able to tell you what I think on these matters than you to put words into my mouth. If we want to talk about morality you’d need a longer show than this. But look, you can only make moral judgments about people when you walk in their shoes and that’s, that’s, thankfully, is we’re talking here about history, we’re talking about something that has passed…
Andrew: …So there was not a moment when you looked at the death of Tim Parry or some kid…
Gerry: …Of course! Of course!…
Andrew: …or whatever and you thought: This has gone far enough. I can no longer stick with this…
Gerry: …Of course! Of course! And I said that at the time…
Andrew: …it was a moral revulsion?…
Gerry: And I said that at the time. So how could anyone, even if it’s accidental, how could anyone stand over the killing of a child or stand over the killing of a civilian? It’s a much different matter entirely, if you want to be into all of that, if it’s soldiers versus soldiers but in the awfulness of and the horror of war you cannot stand over some of those incidents.
Andrew: You spent a lot of time sitting on the other side of the table from a whole stream of British leaders – very, very early days – Ted Heath and Willie Whitelaw and so forth and then John Major, Tony Blair, Peter Mandleson, Mo Mowlam – which of those did most for peace in Ireland in your view?
Gerry: Well I suppose Tony Blair – you know and I would have big issues with him around Iraq and other matters and we actually, myself and Martin, warned him about not getting involved in Iraq.
Andrew: Did you?
Gerry: Oh, yes, yes! We said to him: Don’t, don’t do – look at the Irish experience – don’t go in there. But he was given an opportunity, if you’d like, on a plate and he seized it.
Andrew: So Tony Blair – and now Tony Blair’s party is led by a very, very different man who’s always supported a united Ireland, he’s been a big backer of yours over the years – what difference would it make to the island of Ireland and to Sinn Féin and your cause to have Jeremy Corbyn as British Prime Minister, which he might well be?
Gerry: Well I would like to see Jeremy in that position for the benefit of the people in Britain – leaving Ireland out of it. I think Jeremy is an outstanding politician and I hope…
Andrew: …Let’s put Ireland back into it…
Gerry: …I hope my endorsement of him isn’t used against him in the time ahead. But yes, he and Ken Livingstone and others kept faith and they were the people who said, when others said no, talk. They were the people who were open to conversation about how to deal with conflict and how to get conflict resolution processes but look – let’s not preempt the next…
Andrew: …Of course not…
Gerry: …general election.
Andrew: Gerry Adams, are you a man of faith?
Gerry: Yes, I am. Yes.
Andrew: So one day you’ll be judged by your maker and when you’re being judged by your maker will you be able to say: I have clean hands?
Gerry: Well, the one thing that I understand about faith – and you know, as you get older you reflect on all of these things – the one thing I know about Jesus is that He forgave. He didn’t go round condemning. Treat people with dignity and people will respond in a dignified way. Treat people badly and people will respond badly.
Andrew: Nobody gets to write their own obituary – but what would be the headline on yours?
Gerry: Well, God knows. I’m not really interested. You know, some people say to me: What’s your legacy? I won’t be around, you know?
Andrew: None of us will. Gerry Adams, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.
The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts
The Republic Of Brendan Seery
Sean Bresnahan with an oration delivered at the burial place of IRA volunteer, Brendan Seery.
The text of an oration I gave today in Rathowen, Co. Westmeath, marking the 26th Anniversary of IRA Volunteer Brendan Seery. Brendan died of a heart attack encouraged by wilful neglect in Portlaoise Prison, 19th February 1992. His friends and comrades remember him with pride.
A chairde. It is an honour and a privilege to speak here today, as we gather to mark the 26th Anniversary of IRA Volunteer Brendan Seery. I didn’t know Brendan but, judging by his friends and comrades, who I’ve come to know over recent years, I can easily imagine the man and Republican that he was.
When he passed away in Portlaoise Prison in the February of 1992 — callously let die by those who claim the mantle of the Republic but who in truth are traitors to its cause — something was lost for us all. An Irish Prisoner Of War, we are conscious that today in Ireland we still have political prisoners in Maghaberry, Portlaoise and Hydebank Gaols. Our support is with them all. A mere 44 years old at the time of his death, with the martyred dead of Ireland may he know peace. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anama.
Like many others of his generation, Brendan — or ‘Cén Fáth’ as he is fondly remembered — stood up to be counted through hard times. He joined Óglaigh na hÉireann and took the oath to the Republic, which beat in his heart throughout his efforts to advance a united and free Ireland. An upstanding Patriot, we might ask just where, today, is the Republic of Brendan Seery and where are the efforts in 2018 to uphold its authority and dignity?
2018 marks not just the centenary of the historic 1918 Election, which gave form by democratic mandate to the Easter Republic proclaimed in 1916, setting in concrete its constitutional legitimacy. It marks also — significantly for the effort to see that Republic restored — an emerging constitutional crisis for the British state in Ireland and the tearing asunder of its long-running normalisation strategy.
While this is good news for the Republican endeavour, speeding the prospect of an end to British rule, it is far from enough to realise our core objectives. No. The Republic will not come about by default born of Brexit or demographic change in the North. The situation before us instead demands renewed struggle and a major stepping up of the national effort. The Republic must be taken, for history tells us it will not be given.
But continuing British rule in the North is not the only issue in the Ireland of 2018. The Partition system overall, with its undue claims to our national territory — both north and south — is a usurp of the democratic process and a violation of our national rights. Partition must be ended and new constitutional arrangements, in line with our democratic entitlements, brought forward in its stead.
In this sense, the Free State stands also in defiance of the 1918 Election — but it does so while claiming to draw its constitutional authority and line from the same. It does not. Its supposed authority derives from Britain’s 1920 Government of Ireland Act — not the 1918 Election. This deceit has been going on for almost a century and it is this, in this centenary year, which the Free State fears might yet be exposed.
Volunteer Brendan Seery, however, was not deceived. He knew and understood that this so-called ‘Republic’ was not that fought and died for by so many. He did not die for a 32-county expanded Free State. Nor did he die that we might come to live in the ‘Agreed Ireland’ peddled now as our future by the constitutional establishment, only recently spoken of by Leo Varadkar.
He died for the Irish Republic and a complete end to British rule — for complete separation between Ireland and Britain, right down to the point of constitutional succession. For the Republic of Brendan Seery proceeds from the 1916 Proclamation. His efforts were to bring an end to its usurp and we, who follow in his mould, must remain constant in that pursuit.
As much demands that a Third Dáil proceed from the people in a reconstituted Republic. This remains the Republican position and should be the bedrock of efforts to restore Irish sovereignty. With Brexit set to sharpen the worst vestiges of Partition, it is an imperative — now as ever — that we organise to ensure the northern remnant of British colonialism is finally disbanded, the Free State with it, and the All-Ireland Republic restored.
While that is the job of work before us, as we head towards the centenary of the 1918 Election much remains to be done. Republicans need to set out clear parameters as to what should constitute a United Ireland and pressure by campaign those in the political arena likely to determine upon this matter, should the time for the same arrive. As Brexit and demographic change speed a new dynamic towards Irish Unity, that is the task we must set toward in this period of seismic import.
Ultimately, for ourselves, any Republic to emerge upon Irish Unity must be in line with the 1916 Proclamation, proceeding from there and not the constitutional process employed by Britain to effect its usurp. This is set to become the key battle as the Crown and its agents set toward a revised continuum of the Good Friday Agreement, should a nationalist majority emerge in the North — a majority quite possibly already in place.
An arrangement as that they are set toward — the so-called and emerging ‘Agreed Ireland’ — will ‘agree’, if allowed, a forward British role in our country, enforcing a further violation of Irish sovereignty. For Irish Republicans, though, any United Ireland must be a sovereign Ireland — one founded on the right of the Irish people to determine their own affairs, freely and of themselves.
We must be ready for the critical ideological engagement that lies ahead, proffering a clear vision of the Ireland we say should go forward upon reunification. We must likewise set out a pathway that determines toward how this will be achieved.
Irish society at this time is fluid and open to change. But, absent the leadership and direction that traditionally has come from Republicanism, societal forces could easily be steered to service the emerging agenda. We must be alert to the dangers. We must develop a comprehensive position that sets out specifics as to how a ‘New Ireland’ will be agreed and by whom. Absent this, we are on the road to Good Friday Mk.II — the all-Ireland version.
It is then, at the finish, the sovereign Republic that we strive for — not reform of the status quo, not our seat at the table, nor a more just or humane version of Partition. Not even Irish Unity under a 32-county Free State — the spiteful state, we should remember, that let Brendan Seery die of wanton neglect. No. We are out for the Republic, the Irish Republic whose flame burned strong in the hearts of heroes — among them Volunteer Brendan Seery — and those for whom they fought and died. It burns there yet.
Brendan Seery knew and understood this when he joined the Republican Movement. As an Irish Republican, his allegiance lay with the 1916 Proclamation. We, too, seek the constitution of a Republic in the image and line of that timeless treatise. Like Brendan, it was to here we pledged allegiance when joining the Republican Movement. The same demands we remain constant.
Like the martyred Patriot before us, we maintain that Ireland, as the Proclamation declared, should be a sovereign independent state. Let us go from this graveside today and build the Republic of Brendan Seery — the only fitting tribute to the man and the cause for which he gave his life. Onwards to the Republic — An Phoblacht Abú.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
The text of an oration I gave today in Rathowen, Co. Westmeath, marking the 26th Anniversary of IRA Volunteer Brendan Seery. Brendan died of a heart attack encouraged by wilful neglect in Portlaoise Prison, 19th February 1992. His friends and comrades remember him with pride.
A chairde. It is an honour and a privilege to speak here today, as we gather to mark the 26th Anniversary of IRA Volunteer Brendan Seery. I didn’t know Brendan but, judging by his friends and comrades, who I’ve come to know over recent years, I can easily imagine the man and Republican that he was.
When he passed away in Portlaoise Prison in the February of 1992 — callously let die by those who claim the mantle of the Republic but who in truth are traitors to its cause — something was lost for us all. An Irish Prisoner Of War, we are conscious that today in Ireland we still have political prisoners in Maghaberry, Portlaoise and Hydebank Gaols. Our support is with them all. A mere 44 years old at the time of his death, with the martyred dead of Ireland may he know peace. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anama.
Like many others of his generation, Brendan — or ‘Cén Fáth’ as he is fondly remembered — stood up to be counted through hard times. He joined Óglaigh na hÉireann and took the oath to the Republic, which beat in his heart throughout his efforts to advance a united and free Ireland. An upstanding Patriot, we might ask just where, today, is the Republic of Brendan Seery and where are the efforts in 2018 to uphold its authority and dignity?
2018 marks not just the centenary of the historic 1918 Election, which gave form by democratic mandate to the Easter Republic proclaimed in 1916, setting in concrete its constitutional legitimacy. It marks also — significantly for the effort to see that Republic restored — an emerging constitutional crisis for the British state in Ireland and the tearing asunder of its long-running normalisation strategy.
While this is good news for the Republican endeavour, speeding the prospect of an end to British rule, it is far from enough to realise our core objectives. No. The Republic will not come about by default born of Brexit or demographic change in the North. The situation before us instead demands renewed struggle and a major stepping up of the national effort. The Republic must be taken, for history tells us it will not be given.
But continuing British rule in the North is not the only issue in the Ireland of 2018. The Partition system overall, with its undue claims to our national territory — both north and south — is a usurp of the democratic process and a violation of our national rights. Partition must be ended and new constitutional arrangements, in line with our democratic entitlements, brought forward in its stead.
In this sense, the Free State stands also in defiance of the 1918 Election — but it does so while claiming to draw its constitutional authority and line from the same. It does not. Its supposed authority derives from Britain’s 1920 Government of Ireland Act — not the 1918 Election. This deceit has been going on for almost a century and it is this, in this centenary year, which the Free State fears might yet be exposed.
Volunteer Brendan Seery, however, was not deceived. He knew and understood that this so-called ‘Republic’ was not that fought and died for by so many. He did not die for a 32-county expanded Free State. Nor did he die that we might come to live in the ‘Agreed Ireland’ peddled now as our future by the constitutional establishment, only recently spoken of by Leo Varadkar.
He died for the Irish Republic and a complete end to British rule — for complete separation between Ireland and Britain, right down to the point of constitutional succession. For the Republic of Brendan Seery proceeds from the 1916 Proclamation. His efforts were to bring an end to its usurp and we, who follow in his mould, must remain constant in that pursuit.
As much demands that a Third Dáil proceed from the people in a reconstituted Republic. This remains the Republican position and should be the bedrock of efforts to restore Irish sovereignty. With Brexit set to sharpen the worst vestiges of Partition, it is an imperative — now as ever — that we organise to ensure the northern remnant of British colonialism is finally disbanded, the Free State with it, and the All-Ireland Republic restored.
While that is the job of work before us, as we head towards the centenary of the 1918 Election much remains to be done. Republicans need to set out clear parameters as to what should constitute a United Ireland and pressure by campaign those in the political arena likely to determine upon this matter, should the time for the same arrive. As Brexit and demographic change speed a new dynamic towards Irish Unity, that is the task we must set toward in this period of seismic import.
Ultimately, for ourselves, any Republic to emerge upon Irish Unity must be in line with the 1916 Proclamation, proceeding from there and not the constitutional process employed by Britain to effect its usurp. This is set to become the key battle as the Crown and its agents set toward a revised continuum of the Good Friday Agreement, should a nationalist majority emerge in the North — a majority quite possibly already in place.
An arrangement as that they are set toward — the so-called and emerging ‘Agreed Ireland’ — will ‘agree’, if allowed, a forward British role in our country, enforcing a further violation of Irish sovereignty. For Irish Republicans, though, any United Ireland must be a sovereign Ireland — one founded on the right of the Irish people to determine their own affairs, freely and of themselves.
We must be ready for the critical ideological engagement that lies ahead, proffering a clear vision of the Ireland we say should go forward upon reunification. We must likewise set out a pathway that determines toward how this will be achieved.
Irish society at this time is fluid and open to change. But, absent the leadership and direction that traditionally has come from Republicanism, societal forces could easily be steered to service the emerging agenda. We must be alert to the dangers. We must develop a comprehensive position that sets out specifics as to how a ‘New Ireland’ will be agreed and by whom. Absent this, we are on the road to Good Friday Mk.II — the all-Ireland version.
It is then, at the finish, the sovereign Republic that we strive for — not reform of the status quo, not our seat at the table, nor a more just or humane version of Partition. Not even Irish Unity under a 32-county Free State — the spiteful state, we should remember, that let Brendan Seery die of wanton neglect. No. We are out for the Republic, the Irish Republic whose flame burned strong in the hearts of heroes — among them Volunteer Brendan Seery — and those for whom they fought and died. It burns there yet.
Brendan Seery knew and understood this when he joined the Republican Movement. As an Irish Republican, his allegiance lay with the 1916 Proclamation. We, too, seek the constitution of a Republic in the image and line of that timeless treatise. Like Brendan, it was to here we pledged allegiance when joining the Republican Movement. The same demands we remain constant.
Like the martyred Patriot before us, we maintain that Ireland, as the Proclamation declared, should be a sovereign independent state. Let us go from this graveside today and build the Republic of Brendan Seery — the only fitting tribute to the man and the cause for which he gave his life. Onwards to the Republic — An Phoblacht Abú.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
February 27, 2018
Laws Should Not Just Protect The Planned, The Privileged, The Perfect
Dr Anne Mc Closkey insists that intrauterine life is a continuum.
At night, when things quietened down there was time to just watch these wee scraps of humanity as they fought for their lives.
And fight they did. Even those of 23 or 24 weeks gestation, the weight of a bag of sugar, felt pain, hated being stabbed and poked, and although the endotracheal tube rendered them mute, they screamed silently. They hated needles and probes of all types, they loved being stroked and soothed, they yawned and stretched, smiled and frowned. They especially responded to their parents voices. Early behaviours and personality traits, parents used to tell us when they came back for the annual Christmas party, remained outside of the hospital.
That these small, totally dependent individuals are full members of the human family, imbued with human dignity, and deserving of all the rights and entitlements of any other person is self-evident.
Intrauterine life is a continuum, from the moment the mother becomes pregnant till her child is born. There can be no arbitrary cut-off at which it becomes expendable. Our laws should not just protect the planned, the privileged and the perfect, but all the children of the nation.
Anne Mc Closkey works as a GP in Derry. Lifelong republican and community activist, mother and grandmother, stood as Independent candidate in 2016 Assembly election, polling over 3k 1st preference votes, founder member of Cherish all the Children Equally, a republican progressive organisation founded to give pro-life socialists and Republicans a voice and to campaign against repeal of the constitutional right to life in 8th amendment.
At night, when things quietened down there was time to just watch these wee scraps of humanity as they fought for their lives.
And fight they did. Even those of 23 or 24 weeks gestation, the weight of a bag of sugar, felt pain, hated being stabbed and poked, and although the endotracheal tube rendered them mute, they screamed silently. They hated needles and probes of all types, they loved being stroked and soothed, they yawned and stretched, smiled and frowned. They especially responded to their parents voices. Early behaviours and personality traits, parents used to tell us when they came back for the annual Christmas party, remained outside of the hospital.
That these small, totally dependent individuals are full members of the human family, imbued with human dignity, and deserving of all the rights and entitlements of any other person is self-evident.
Intrauterine life is a continuum, from the moment the mother becomes pregnant till her child is born. There can be no arbitrary cut-off at which it becomes expendable. Our laws should not just protect the planned, the privileged and the perfect, but all the children of the nation.
Anne Mc Closkey works as a GP in Derry. Lifelong republican and community activist, mother and grandmother, stood as Independent candidate in 2016 Assembly election, polling over 3k 1st preference votes, founder member of Cherish all the Children Equally, a republican progressive organisation founded to give pro-life socialists and Republicans a voice and to campaign against repeal of the constitutional right to life in 8th amendment.
A Positive Challenge To Northern Ireland Nationalists
James Wilson sets the context to a statement released by a group comprised of civic unionists, greens, socialists and non-aligned.
Over the past few years, a group of Northern Ireland civic unionists, greens, socialists and non aligned have engaged in both difficult and constructive conversations with Sinn Fein and other sections of civic nationalism.
Via these conversations we gained the impression that we were equals in terms of the expression of rights, equalities, civil liberties and reconciliation.
It was therefore puzzling when our nationalist neighbours were to lobby Taoiseach Leo Varadkar via correspondence and not mention those with an alternative constitutional allegiance or identity who share similar or related concerns about rights, reconciliation and civil liberties. We assume we were referred to as '... everyone living here' [sic].
This suggests that people, such as the signatories of this letter, are passive as concerns the debating of issues around rights and civil liberties. We are neither passive or defensive but instead actively engaged in positive interventions and debates.
Therefore, we take this opportunity to remind all this desire to debate the issues of equality, inclusion and ultimately reconciliation is not the exclusive preserve of only one section of our divided society.
Within 72 hours of the first tentative approach on the morning of Wednesday 21st February, some 105 signatures had been secured in support of this text. The group has been drawn from business, politics and community activism and is committed to engaging with all sections of society.
As in their sustained encounters with civic nationalism, this ad hoc group of civic minded Northern Ireland citizens are obliged to Prof Pete Shirlow, Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, who has facilitated a series of events and conversation between civic nationalism, unionism and others. These events, centred upon mutual respect and open dialogue.
Indeed these events and the sustained dialogue with our nationalist neighbours have built confidence in presenting such a letter which aims to further enhance peace-building.
Group Rapporteur Doctor James Wilson summed up the achievement:
A Positive Challenge to Northern Nationalists
We the undersigned desire a transparent and inclusive debate concerning rights, truth, equality and civil liberties and in so doing challenge assumptions that such values are not embedded within civic unionism, pluralism and other identities.
We are motivated by the desire to build a society for the betterment of everyone. This cannot happen when such a commitment is perceived as being vested in one community or political persuasion. We find it frustrating and puzzling that civic unionism, pluralists and other forms of civic leadership have been rendered invisible in many debates focused on rights and responsibilities. It has reduced our capacity to be heard and undermines the power of reconciliation to shift society away from stale and limiting notions of identity.
We have worked for peace and reconciliation and in so doing have had open and transparent engagement with civic nationalism. That has included recognition of the need for equality and most importantly the urgent need for polarised communities in Northern Ireland to reconcile and deal with barriers to a better future. To achieve this requires the recognition that withholding truth presents as such. This is not unique to any institution or section within our society but where it is a selective process, healing a pernicious and destabilising past remains as a challenge to us all.
Civic unionism, and other identities are not resistant to claims of equality and full citizenship. These identities are central to the development of an authentically fair and tolerant society.
We wish to unite, not divide, and in encouraging transparency we call upon civic nationalism and others to engage with us in frank and fulsome debates about the many values and beliefs that are commonly shared and are vital to transforming the issues that we face.
Brian Acheson
Ian Acheson
Irwin Armstrong
Arthur Aughey
Stuart Aveyard
John Barry
Doug Beattie
John Bew
Elizabeth Boyd
Gavin Boyd
William Boyd
Glenn Bradley
Michael Briggs
Daniel Brown
Jonathan Burgess
Paul Burgess
Jason Burke
Alison Campbell
Stevie Campbell
Lesley Carroll
Jim Crothers
Jonny Currie
Vince Curry
Glenda Davies
James Dingley
Brian Dougherty
Jeffrey Dudgeon
John Dunlop
Janice Dunwoody
Aaron Edwards
William Ennis
Brian Ervine
Linda Ervine
Isabella Evangelisti
Neil Faris
Albert Flanagan
Dean Farquhar
Stewart Finn
John W. Foster
James Gallacher
Richard Garland
Brian Garrett
James Greer
Trevor Hamilton
Barry Hazley
Helen Henderson
Maureen Hetherington
Chris Hudson
Fiona Hutchinson
Mark Irvine
Kathryn Johnston
Georgina Kee-McCarter
James Kee
Julia Kee
Lauren Kerr
John Kyle
Paul Leeman
David McAloanen
Chris McGimpsey
Shirley McMichael
Lesley Macaulay
William Matchett
Andrew Mawhinney
Lindsay Millar
Lewis Montgomery
Derek Moore
Pamela Moore
Steve Moore
Gareth Mulvenna
Mike Nesbitt
George Newell
Hannah Niblock
Russell Orr
Jenny Palmer
John Palmer
Len Peace
Claire Pierson
Andy Pollak
Catherine Pollock
Dawn Purvis
David Ramsey
Chris Reid
Stafford Reynolds
Trevor Ringland
John Shackels
David Shaw
Stephanie Shaw
Peter Shirlow
Frank Shivers
Philip Smith
David Smyth
Neil Southern
Brian Spencer
David Stewart
John Stewart
Robin Stewart
Kyle Thompson
Brian W. Walker
Garth Watson
David Whiteside
Robert Williamson
Steve Williamson
Andrew Wilson
James Wilson
Terence Wright
Over the past few years, a group of Northern Ireland civic unionists, greens, socialists and non aligned have engaged in both difficult and constructive conversations with Sinn Fein and other sections of civic nationalism.
Via these conversations we gained the impression that we were equals in terms of the expression of rights, equalities, civil liberties and reconciliation.
It was therefore puzzling when our nationalist neighbours were to lobby Taoiseach Leo Varadkar via correspondence and not mention those with an alternative constitutional allegiance or identity who share similar or related concerns about rights, reconciliation and civil liberties. We assume we were referred to as '... everyone living here' [sic].
This suggests that people, such as the signatories of this letter, are passive as concerns the debating of issues around rights and civil liberties. We are neither passive or defensive but instead actively engaged in positive interventions and debates.
Therefore, we take this opportunity to remind all this desire to debate the issues of equality, inclusion and ultimately reconciliation is not the exclusive preserve of only one section of our divided society.
Within 72 hours of the first tentative approach on the morning of Wednesday 21st February, some 105 signatures had been secured in support of this text. The group has been drawn from business, politics and community activism and is committed to engaging with all sections of society.
As in their sustained encounters with civic nationalism, this ad hoc group of civic minded Northern Ireland citizens are obliged to Prof Pete Shirlow, Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, who has facilitated a series of events and conversation between civic nationalism, unionism and others. These events, centred upon mutual respect and open dialogue.
Indeed these events and the sustained dialogue with our nationalist neighbours have built confidence in presenting such a letter which aims to further enhance peace-building.
Group Rapporteur Doctor James Wilson summed up the achievement:
The aim of this text is not only to remind our nationalist neighbours that we exist, but to challenge both them and the Dublin and also British Government to join with us in pursuit of that many civic values and beliefs that we share.
A Positive Challenge to Northern Nationalists
We the undersigned desire a transparent and inclusive debate concerning rights, truth, equality and civil liberties and in so doing challenge assumptions that such values are not embedded within civic unionism, pluralism and other identities.
We are motivated by the desire to build a society for the betterment of everyone. This cannot happen when such a commitment is perceived as being vested in one community or political persuasion. We find it frustrating and puzzling that civic unionism, pluralists and other forms of civic leadership have been rendered invisible in many debates focused on rights and responsibilities. It has reduced our capacity to be heard and undermines the power of reconciliation to shift society away from stale and limiting notions of identity.
We have worked for peace and reconciliation and in so doing have had open and transparent engagement with civic nationalism. That has included recognition of the need for equality and most importantly the urgent need for polarised communities in Northern Ireland to reconcile and deal with barriers to a better future. To achieve this requires the recognition that withholding truth presents as such. This is not unique to any institution or section within our society but where it is a selective process, healing a pernicious and destabilising past remains as a challenge to us all.
Civic unionism, and other identities are not resistant to claims of equality and full citizenship. These identities are central to the development of an authentically fair and tolerant society.
We wish to unite, not divide, and in encouraging transparency we call upon civic nationalism and others to engage with us in frank and fulsome debates about the many values and beliefs that are commonly shared and are vital to transforming the issues that we face.
Brian Acheson
Ian Acheson
Irwin Armstrong
Arthur Aughey
Stuart Aveyard
John Barry
Doug Beattie
John Bew
Elizabeth Boyd
Gavin Boyd
William Boyd
Glenn Bradley
Michael Briggs
Daniel Brown
Jonathan Burgess
Paul Burgess
Jason Burke
Alison Campbell
Stevie Campbell
Lesley Carroll
Jim Crothers
Jonny Currie
Vince Curry
Glenda Davies
James Dingley
Brian Dougherty
Jeffrey Dudgeon
John Dunlop
Janice Dunwoody
Aaron Edwards
William Ennis
Brian Ervine
Linda Ervine
Isabella Evangelisti
Neil Faris
Albert Flanagan
Dean Farquhar
Stewart Finn
John W. Foster
James Gallacher
Richard Garland
Brian Garrett
James Greer
Trevor Hamilton
Barry Hazley
Helen Henderson
Maureen Hetherington
Chris Hudson
Fiona Hutchinson
Mark Irvine
Kathryn Johnston
Georgina Kee-McCarter
James Kee
Julia Kee
Lauren Kerr
John Kyle
Paul Leeman
David McAloanen
Chris McGimpsey
Shirley McMichael
Lesley Macaulay
William Matchett
Andrew Mawhinney
Lindsay Millar
Lewis Montgomery
Derek Moore
Pamela Moore
Steve Moore
Gareth Mulvenna
Mike Nesbitt
George Newell
Hannah Niblock
Russell Orr
Jenny Palmer
John Palmer
Len Peace
Claire Pierson
Andy Pollak
Catherine Pollock
Dawn Purvis
David Ramsey
Chris Reid
Stafford Reynolds
Trevor Ringland
John Shackels
David Shaw
Stephanie Shaw
Peter Shirlow
Frank Shivers
Philip Smith
David Smyth
Neil Southern
Brian Spencer
David Stewart
John Stewart
Robin Stewart
Kyle Thompson
Brian W. Walker
Garth Watson
David Whiteside
Robert Williamson
Steve Williamson
Andrew Wilson
James Wilson
Terence Wright
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.
