Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1159
February 26, 2018
British Empire - A Legalized System Of Theft And Murder
Mick Hall has an unyielding view of the British Empire:
The British Empire was a legalized system of theft and murder, genocide is the only word which describes it.
Add caption
In the early days of David Cameron's coalition government he attempted to rewrite the history of WW1 in a sorry attempt to turn ruling class donkeys into lions. Pliable academics from Oxbridge were recruited to turn this unnecessary and bloody conflagration into something noble and heroic.
The plan was to celebrate every day of the war, but within months this post imperialist endeavor quickly withered on the vine. Far from changing the national consciousness about heroes led by ruling class donkeys it set it in stone.
Now the same bunch of ruling class cretins are attempting to rewrite the history of the British Empire, the difference being the politicians are taking a backseat while Oxbridge academics are leading the charge.
One of their number Nigel Biggar, a regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at Oxford University, which in itself is a contradiction of terms, started the ball rolling when he wrote an article in The Times in which he accused:
As if Biggar is not engaged in wilful manipulation in his Times column.
In his attempt to rewrite the bloody history of the Empire Biggar quotes The Case for Colonialism an article by a fellow academic Bruce Gilley another Oxford lumine in which he wrote "For the last 100 years, western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy." He then calls for a return of colonialism, citing the benefits of a colonial governance. Gilley also claims the British Empire brought law, order, and good government. True, that's what imperialism does, but questions need to be asked who benefited from this so called law and order. It certainly wasn't the overwhelming majority of the population who lived in the occupied land as they were treated appallingly by the British administrations.
Nor was it the British working classes who during the years of the Empire lived in slum housing, worked in factories without any health and safety and in which child labour was legally allowed.
The great English estates which tourists now flock too were built upon empire blood, Far from benefiting British workers as Gilley's ilk claim they were treated like chattels, and lived in bondage and fear due to the Bloody Code, a term now used to refer to the system of crimes and punishments in England in the 18th and the 19th centuries.
Larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence. This is the type of barbarism these people inflicted on not only ordinary men and women in the British Isle but their victims throughout the British empire. When the magistrates, the most toady section of the justice system refused to pass guilty verdicts due to the harshness of the sentence, the government turned to transportation for what would be regarded today as minor crimes or no crimes at all.
It has been estimated that over one-third of all so called criminals convicted in Britain between 1788 and 1867 were transported to Australia and Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania)
The law and order within the Empire the likes of Biggar and Gilley admire so much came at the end of a bayonet or rope, without it would have been impossible for the British imperialists to plunder the wealth of the nations they occupied. There law had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with genocide.
The so called civilising mission which the British ruling class wish to reinvent was a total sham, a falsehood dipped in blood, nothing but empty rhetoric designed to cover the crimes of the Empire.
As Karuna Mantena has argued successfully:
Just how shallow Gilley's arguments are, India's literacy rate at the end of British rule was only 12 percent, it had been 9% prior to the Empire years as Raghu Bhaskaran points out:
The British Empire inflicted genocide on peoples across the world, the fact the British State have never accounted for these crimes is the main reason why the likes of Gilley and co are now able to rewrite history with such ease.
Britain's imperial past was one long, unbroken litany of oppression, exploitation and self-deception. It’s the main reason why today the UK is such an undemocratic state, why like all democracies worthy of the name we don't have an elected head of state, or a second democratically elected parliamentary chamber and are still governed by a narrow ruling class which is currently enriching itself as it did in the empire years and pauperising a large section of its own population.
Look at the photo below of Truganini, her relative Bessy Clarke and William Lanney, believed in the 1800s to be the last indigenous Tasmanian people alive. They and their forebears had lived in this region for thousands of years but within a few short years of British occupation of their homelands they were wiped off the face of the earth. By murdering scum acting under orders from London.
Ian Jack recently wrote:
Approximately three million people died in The Bengal famine and not only there, in Ireland at least one million people died from starvation and its attendant diseases, whilst a further one million were forced to emigrate or starve during the Great famine years. The population of the island dropped from over 8 million in 1845 to about 6 million in 1850.
These were not accidents of history but happened because of the deliberate genocidal behavior of the British Government.
Ian Jack concluded with this:
Never forget the concentration camp was first tried by the British in the Transvaal Rebellion when the Boers revolted against the British stealing what they regarded as their homeland.
The Empire imprisoned the women, and children of the Boer guerrilla fighters in these concentration camps and all but left them to starve or die of diseases. 28,000 Boer women and children and at least 20,000 black people died in the camps. If that is not genocide I do not understand the definition of the word.
The Empire deliberately and systematically devastated the supply of food and shelter, towns and thousands of farmsteads were burnt or ravaged, herds of livestock wiped out and crops destroyed. This was not an aberration unique to the British behavior in SA. This was a benchmark act of how they behaved throughout their cruel and grubby empire.
The Nazi's marauding across Poland and Russia acted similarly during WW2 and we rightly call it Genocide. To their great credit the German people have analysed the crimes of the Third Rich and answered for them. It is time the British did the same, but don't hold your breath, the British ruling class are more likely to repeat it than deal with their history in a thoughtful and civilized manner.
trailer " Bengal Shadows" from joy banerjee on Vimeo.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
The British Empire was a legalized system of theft and murder, genocide is the only word which describes it.
Add captionIn the early days of David Cameron's coalition government he attempted to rewrite the history of WW1 in a sorry attempt to turn ruling class donkeys into lions. Pliable academics from Oxbridge were recruited to turn this unnecessary and bloody conflagration into something noble and heroic.
The plan was to celebrate every day of the war, but within months this post imperialist endeavor quickly withered on the vine. Far from changing the national consciousness about heroes led by ruling class donkeys it set it in stone.
Now the same bunch of ruling class cretins are attempting to rewrite the history of the British Empire, the difference being the politicians are taking a backseat while Oxbridge academics are leading the charge.
One of their number Nigel Biggar, a regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at Oxford University, which in itself is a contradiction of terms, started the ball rolling when he wrote an article in The Times in which he accused:
Strident anti-colonialists could lead to a feeling of guilt about the British Empire which makes the public vulnerable to wilful manipulation.
As if Biggar is not engaged in wilful manipulation in his Times column.
In his attempt to rewrite the bloody history of the Empire Biggar quotes The Case for Colonialism an article by a fellow academic Bruce Gilley another Oxford lumine in which he wrote "For the last 100 years, western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy." He then calls for a return of colonialism, citing the benefits of a colonial governance. Gilley also claims the British Empire brought law, order, and good government. True, that's what imperialism does, but questions need to be asked who benefited from this so called law and order. It certainly wasn't the overwhelming majority of the population who lived in the occupied land as they were treated appallingly by the British administrations.
Nor was it the British working classes who during the years of the Empire lived in slum housing, worked in factories without any health and safety and in which child labour was legally allowed.
The great English estates which tourists now flock too were built upon empire blood, Far from benefiting British workers as Gilley's ilk claim they were treated like chattels, and lived in bondage and fear due to the Bloody Code, a term now used to refer to the system of crimes and punishments in England in the 18th and the 19th centuries.
Larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence. This is the type of barbarism these people inflicted on not only ordinary men and women in the British Isle but their victims throughout the British empire. When the magistrates, the most toady section of the justice system refused to pass guilty verdicts due to the harshness of the sentence, the government turned to transportation for what would be regarded today as minor crimes or no crimes at all.
It has been estimated that over one-third of all so called criminals convicted in Britain between 1788 and 1867 were transported to Australia and Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania)
The law and order within the Empire the likes of Biggar and Gilley admire so much came at the end of a bayonet or rope, without it would have been impossible for the British imperialists to plunder the wealth of the nations they occupied. There law had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with genocide.
The so called civilising mission which the British ruling class wish to reinvent was a total sham, a falsehood dipped in blood, nothing but empty rhetoric designed to cover the crimes of the Empire.
As Karuna Mantena has argued successfully:
After 1857 great rebellion in India, and the scandal of Governor Edward Eyre's brutal repression of the Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica in 1865. The rhetoric continued but it became an alibi for British misrule and racism. No longer was it believed that the natives could truly make progress, instead they had to be and were ruled by a heavy hand.
Just how shallow Gilley's arguments are, India's literacy rate at the end of British rule was only 12 percent, it had been 9% prior to the Empire years as Raghu Bhaskaran points out:
British did diddly squat. Or rather they destroyed all community based educational systems and let the missionaries monopolize the field, teaching us a perverted version meant for clerks and obedient monkeys.
The British Empire inflicted genocide on peoples across the world, the fact the British State have never accounted for these crimes is the main reason why the likes of Gilley and co are now able to rewrite history with such ease.
Britain's imperial past was one long, unbroken litany of oppression, exploitation and self-deception. It’s the main reason why today the UK is such an undemocratic state, why like all democracies worthy of the name we don't have an elected head of state, or a second democratically elected parliamentary chamber and are still governed by a narrow ruling class which is currently enriching itself as it did in the empire years and pauperising a large section of its own population.
Look at the photo below of Truganini, her relative Bessy Clarke and William Lanney, believed in the 1800s to be the last indigenous Tasmanian people alive. They and their forebears had lived in this region for thousands of years but within a few short years of British occupation of their homelands they were wiped off the face of the earth. By murdering scum acting under orders from London.
Ian Jack recently wrote:
Biggar and the rest of the Empire apologists are always weighing one thing against another: the abolition of the slave trade versus the Amritsar massacre; the empire as the only armed resistance to the Nazis in 1940-41 (good) versus the extinction of indigenous Tasmanian people (bad). Gilley, the like-minded scholar Biggar admires, certainly believes in balance sheets when he describes how the colonial record might be assessed by measuring “development, security, governance, rights, etc” against the counterfactual: what would likely have happened in the absence of colonial rule.
Such arithmetic seems like madness: every historical fact, supposing it can be agreed on, has a thousand human ramifications. As well as that, there are the chasms that separate human experience. A topical example is Winston Churchill. Defending Rhodes in a speech at the Oxford Union two years ago, Biggar said: “If Rhodes must fall, so must Churchill, whose views on empire and race were much the same.” Or, you might say, even worse. Churchill had a visceral loathing of Indians. Hindus, he said to his private secretary in 1945, were a foul race “protected by their mere pullulation [rapid breeding] from the doom that is their due”. How much his attitudes contributed to the Bengal famine of 1943 is arguable, but a persuasive case has been made (by the writer Madhusree Mukerjee, among others) that Churchill’s refusal to heed the advice of his Indian administration was instrumental in the death of between 2 and 3 million people.
Approximately three million people died in The Bengal famine and not only there, in Ireland at least one million people died from starvation and its attendant diseases, whilst a further one million were forced to emigrate or starve during the Great famine years. The population of the island dropped from over 8 million in 1845 to about 6 million in 1850.
These were not accidents of history but happened because of the deliberate genocidal behavior of the British Government.
Ian Jack concluded with this:
The argument sits at the heart of a new documentary, Bengal Shadows. For every million Britons who know about the latest Churchill feature film, Darkest Hour, I suspect no more than half a dozen will know about the documentary (and the proportion in India may not be much larger). But what Churchill might mean to a resident of Midnapore, West Bengal, and another in Bognor Regis, West Sussex, could not be more different. Before we try to refine ethical approaches to the empire, we should perhaps try to discover more of what it was.
Never forget the concentration camp was first tried by the British in the Transvaal Rebellion when the Boers revolted against the British stealing what they regarded as their homeland.
The Empire imprisoned the women, and children of the Boer guerrilla fighters in these concentration camps and all but left them to starve or die of diseases. 28,000 Boer women and children and at least 20,000 black people died in the camps. If that is not genocide I do not understand the definition of the word.
The Empire deliberately and systematically devastated the supply of food and shelter, towns and thousands of farmsteads were burnt or ravaged, herds of livestock wiped out and crops destroyed. This was not an aberration unique to the British behavior in SA. This was a benchmark act of how they behaved throughout their cruel and grubby empire.
The Nazi's marauding across Poland and Russia acted similarly during WW2 and we rightly call it Genocide. To their great credit the German people have analysed the crimes of the Third Rich and answered for them. It is time the British did the same, but don't hold your breath, the British ruling class are more likely to repeat it than deal with their history in a thoughtful and civilized manner.
trailer " Bengal Shadows" from joy banerjee on Vimeo.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Direct Rule ... A Biblical God-Send
A good dose of British Direct Rule! That’s just the tonic which controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, recommends in his Fearless Flying Column today for the ailing Irish peace process.
Direct Rule from Westminster would be a Biblical God-send for the DUP. Okay, so a whole bunch of new laws regarding same-sex marriage, the Irish language, abortion rights, and defamation would descend upon Northern Ireland, but at least the God-fearing wing of the Democratic Unionists could blame the Godless liberalism which has engulfed Westminster.
The bitter medicine which political activists and parties must face in Northern Ireland is that cuts must come and the nightmare of austerity which plagued the republic is about to be inflicted on the north - only one question remains, who will do the inflicting - London or Stormont?
Those of us who are of a vintage to recall the Direct Rule which befell the Province after the original Stormont Parliament was axed by then Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath in 1972 know the nearest Northern Ireland came to having Ulster-born Westminster MPs run affairs in Ulster was the likes of Brian Mawhinney, the former Conservative MP for Peterborough, who served as Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Office team.
The Mawhinney reign is perhaps best known for the axing of corporal punishment in schools in the late 1980s. The cynic could observe that the NIO Ministers certainly did not have to worry what the voters of Northern Ireland thought about their decisions as such Labour or Tory Ministers were based in mainland Britain constituencies.
The bottom line was - there’s no votes to be gained in Northern Ireland, so if tough decisions need to be made - it ain’t gonna affect my seat! This year, with no Stormont Ministers in place since January 2017, a pothole plague ravishing Ulster’s roads, and the Brexit steamroller coming down that road in March 2019, the bills still need to be paid.
People should not make the mistake of thinking that simply because Rev Ian Paisley is dead that the influence of the fundamentalist wing has equally waned. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which Paisley senior founded in 1951, may not have the same sway in the DUP as it did during the 1985 ‘Never, never, never’ era, but that does not mean that evangelical Christianity is dead and buried so far as the DUP voter base is concerned.
The liberal wing of mainstream Irish Presbyterianism may hold the reins of power in the Alliance Party, and the election-battered Ulster Unionist Party is perceived to have turned its back electorally on the Loyal Orders and Christian Churches, but there is still a strong undercurrent of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity rippling through the Province.
Okay, I admit that undercurrent is not organised enough to launch its own political movement. While not on the radar at the moment, until the DUP itself goes liberal like the rival UUP, Alliance or the Greens, then the concept of an Irish Christian Party - though much needed - is a political non-starter. #
Numbers may be statistically falling in the mainstream Protestant denominations - Irish Presbyterianism, the Church of Ireland, and Irish Methodism, as well as the Catholic Church - but there is a quiet revival taking place in Northern Ireland with the growth in popularity of the Pentecostal movement, such as the Elim network or the equally strong array of independent Pentecostal churches and fellowships.
The DUP will be fully aware of the electoral consequences of turning political backs on the Christian Church and Loyal Order communities. Even if it is a case of Christians turning their own backs on the ballot box, that could still cost Unionists their seats.
If every evangelical or conservative Christian - irrespective of denomination - came out to vote, how would that change the face of Northern Ireland politics? Even if Sinn Fein is to fend off any potential electoral threat from Fianna Fail in Northern Ireland, how does it persuade middle class devout Catholics to plump for the republican movement?
Is it any wonder Sinn Fein is so bitterly opposed to Direct Rule from Westminster? If mainland political parties start calling the shots in terms of new legislation for Northern Ireland in the advent, the DUP can rally the Christian vote in the pro-Union community by stating that the Tories or Labour brought in same-sex marriage.
If Sinn Fein goes too Left wing, would that seriously affect the party’s support from middle class Catholics? Or is it possible the republican movement could take a leaf from South America and indulge in Catholic liberation theology as a carrot to conservative Catholics in Northern Ireland?
So how should the DUP play the coming days? Firstly, push for full blown Direct Rule with Tory Ministers taking decisions on health, education, roads and budgets. Secondly, let the mainland parties bring in the laws which rattle the Church brigade.
Thirdly, once these controversial laws - such as same-sex marriage, Irish language, and abortion - are in place, then demand that the Tories appoint Northern Ireland MPs as NIO Ministers. As Sinn Fein does not yet take its Commons seats, there’s no chance of the return of a Westminster-based Education Minister from the party.
But for the DUP, the elephant in the political chamber is Labour boss Jeremy Corbyn. With polls suggesting he could get the keys to 10 Downing Street if there was to be a snap General Election, could a Prime Minister Corbyn persuade Sinn Fein to dump its abstentionist policy it has strictly adhered to since its formation in 1905?
There are grumblings within Unionism that the content of the draft deal puts the DUP at a severe disadvantage for any future negotiations to restore Stormont. Equally, there are rumblings within the republican movement that the content of that draft deal stressed that Sinn Fein had made too many concessions to unionism simply to get a partitionist parliament up and running again.
I’m not a gambling man, but I’d put heavy odds the DUP will reap more benefits than Sinn Fein from Direct Rule - no matter how well the British Government tries to dress it up. Not to sound a warning, but where does the Hard Right of Loyalism fit into this scenario?
John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist.
John Coulter is also author of ‘ An Sais Glas: (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism’, which is available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Direct Rule from Westminster would be a Biblical God-send for the DUP. Okay, so a whole bunch of new laws regarding same-sex marriage, the Irish language, abortion rights, and defamation would descend upon Northern Ireland, but at least the God-fearing wing of the Democratic Unionists could blame the Godless liberalism which has engulfed Westminster.
The bitter medicine which political activists and parties must face in Northern Ireland is that cuts must come and the nightmare of austerity which plagued the republic is about to be inflicted on the north - only one question remains, who will do the inflicting - London or Stormont?
Those of us who are of a vintage to recall the Direct Rule which befell the Province after the original Stormont Parliament was axed by then Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath in 1972 know the nearest Northern Ireland came to having Ulster-born Westminster MPs run affairs in Ulster was the likes of Brian Mawhinney, the former Conservative MP for Peterborough, who served as Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Office team.
The Mawhinney reign is perhaps best known for the axing of corporal punishment in schools in the late 1980s. The cynic could observe that the NIO Ministers certainly did not have to worry what the voters of Northern Ireland thought about their decisions as such Labour or Tory Ministers were based in mainland Britain constituencies.
The bottom line was - there’s no votes to be gained in Northern Ireland, so if tough decisions need to be made - it ain’t gonna affect my seat! This year, with no Stormont Ministers in place since January 2017, a pothole plague ravishing Ulster’s roads, and the Brexit steamroller coming down that road in March 2019, the bills still need to be paid.
People should not make the mistake of thinking that simply because Rev Ian Paisley is dead that the influence of the fundamentalist wing has equally waned. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which Paisley senior founded in 1951, may not have the same sway in the DUP as it did during the 1985 ‘Never, never, never’ era, but that does not mean that evangelical Christianity is dead and buried so far as the DUP voter base is concerned.
The liberal wing of mainstream Irish Presbyterianism may hold the reins of power in the Alliance Party, and the election-battered Ulster Unionist Party is perceived to have turned its back electorally on the Loyal Orders and Christian Churches, but there is still a strong undercurrent of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity rippling through the Province.
Okay, I admit that undercurrent is not organised enough to launch its own political movement. While not on the radar at the moment, until the DUP itself goes liberal like the rival UUP, Alliance or the Greens, then the concept of an Irish Christian Party - though much needed - is a political non-starter. #
Numbers may be statistically falling in the mainstream Protestant denominations - Irish Presbyterianism, the Church of Ireland, and Irish Methodism, as well as the Catholic Church - but there is a quiet revival taking place in Northern Ireland with the growth in popularity of the Pentecostal movement, such as the Elim network or the equally strong array of independent Pentecostal churches and fellowships.
The DUP will be fully aware of the electoral consequences of turning political backs on the Christian Church and Loyal Order communities. Even if it is a case of Christians turning their own backs on the ballot box, that could still cost Unionists their seats.
If every evangelical or conservative Christian - irrespective of denomination - came out to vote, how would that change the face of Northern Ireland politics? Even if Sinn Fein is to fend off any potential electoral threat from Fianna Fail in Northern Ireland, how does it persuade middle class devout Catholics to plump for the republican movement?
Is it any wonder Sinn Fein is so bitterly opposed to Direct Rule from Westminster? If mainland political parties start calling the shots in terms of new legislation for Northern Ireland in the advent, the DUP can rally the Christian vote in the pro-Union community by stating that the Tories or Labour brought in same-sex marriage.
If Sinn Fein goes too Left wing, would that seriously affect the party’s support from middle class Catholics? Or is it possible the republican movement could take a leaf from South America and indulge in Catholic liberation theology as a carrot to conservative Catholics in Northern Ireland?
So how should the DUP play the coming days? Firstly, push for full blown Direct Rule with Tory Ministers taking decisions on health, education, roads and budgets. Secondly, let the mainland parties bring in the laws which rattle the Church brigade.
Thirdly, once these controversial laws - such as same-sex marriage, Irish language, and abortion - are in place, then demand that the Tories appoint Northern Ireland MPs as NIO Ministers. As Sinn Fein does not yet take its Commons seats, there’s no chance of the return of a Westminster-based Education Minister from the party.
But for the DUP, the elephant in the political chamber is Labour boss Jeremy Corbyn. With polls suggesting he could get the keys to 10 Downing Street if there was to be a snap General Election, could a Prime Minister Corbyn persuade Sinn Fein to dump its abstentionist policy it has strictly adhered to since its formation in 1905?
There are grumblings within Unionism that the content of the draft deal puts the DUP at a severe disadvantage for any future negotiations to restore Stormont. Equally, there are rumblings within the republican movement that the content of that draft deal stressed that Sinn Fein had made too many concessions to unionism simply to get a partitionist parliament up and running again.
I’m not a gambling man, but I’d put heavy odds the DUP will reap more benefits than Sinn Fein from Direct Rule - no matter how well the British Government tries to dress it up. Not to sound a warning, but where does the Hard Right of Loyalism fit into this scenario?
John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist. John Coulter is also author of ‘ An Sais Glas: (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism’, which is available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
February 25, 2018
Bus Useless
Anthony McIntyre writes about the failure of service delivery with Bus Eireann.
That pretty much sums up the quality of service on offer from Bus Eireann. Service is a misleading term that some consumer society needs to look into. Although the timetable would try to bamboozle passengers into thinking the 101 service from Dublin to Drogheda passes every twenty minutes in the rush hour, that should be regarded as guff, to be taken no more seriously than a politician's election literature. People have been known to stand at the stop at Seatown roundabout for more than an hour waiting on the every twenty minutes service. On occasion they have drifted off to get taxis or find an alternative route home, having strained their necks for what seemed like aeons in the forlorn hope that miracles do actually happen and that the elusive 101 might just come into view, that the endless procession of green Swords Express vehicles might just be punctuated by the arrival of the Bus Eireann red. Like an oasis in the desert it is just a mirage.
Frequently buses pass displaying the "bus full" sign in the front window. Other times as passengers run to catch the bus it accelerates away, the driver ignoring signals from others waiting on a different service that people are yards away. At that point the regret breezes through my head that we back these people when they are on strike. Even when they do stop, as most drivers do, once on the vehicle, flopping down in an uncomfortable seat, the passenger is immediately reminded that seats compete so vigorously for space that that it is even tighter to manoeuvre than on an economy class flight. A journey is an exercise in perpetual fidgeting and shape shifting in a vain bid to get comfortable.
Trying to catch a bus to make a flight or a match is seriously taking a chance. The traveller addicted to risk might like the close call but for the person with a destination to get to on time, it is a gamble where the odds are not with the punter. Myself and my son arrived half way through the first half of an international soccer match at the Aviva, due to Bus Useless doing its usual. No más– we signed up to Matthews for the last game, Manchester United against Sampdoria and arrived well on time and in relative comfort. Another evening saw me wait over forty minutes after the scheduled time before the bus arrived to take me to the airport for a Coventry flight. There were no traffic jams or road diversions, just a case of Bus Useless doing what it does frequently. Trying to get somebody at the depot to explain the delay is like asking a bishop for the result of an investigation into clerical child rape. Head scratching, a look into the middle distance up the road followed by a pretence of talking into the phone: a motionless manoeuvre in search of a seemingly motionless bus.
I dislike the idea of public services being privatised, handed over to profiteers. But when an enterprise like Matthews provides a much better, more comfortable service, that invariably gets people to their destination and leaves nobody strained and stranded for over an hour, it has to have a selling point well ahead of the shambles that characterises service delivery at Bus Useless. Were Mathews to run a service along the 101 route it would clean up. The only reason I set foot on Bus Useless is that there is no other way to reach my destination.
Passengers are well advised over the coming days with the potential intrusion into our already inclement weather scene of the Beast From the East, to take a packed lunch and a hot drink. Bus Useless will do as it has so often done, leaving you stranded in the freezing cold.
Citizens should stand by their public services but first their must be a service on offer. Bus Useless ... for those who want to get nowhere fast.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.
Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
That pretty much sums up the quality of service on offer from Bus Eireann. Service is a misleading term that some consumer society needs to look into. Although the timetable would try to bamboozle passengers into thinking the 101 service from Dublin to Drogheda passes every twenty minutes in the rush hour, that should be regarded as guff, to be taken no more seriously than a politician's election literature. People have been known to stand at the stop at Seatown roundabout for more than an hour waiting on the every twenty minutes service. On occasion they have drifted off to get taxis or find an alternative route home, having strained their necks for what seemed like aeons in the forlorn hope that miracles do actually happen and that the elusive 101 might just come into view, that the endless procession of green Swords Express vehicles might just be punctuated by the arrival of the Bus Eireann red. Like an oasis in the desert it is just a mirage.
Frequently buses pass displaying the "bus full" sign in the front window. Other times as passengers run to catch the bus it accelerates away, the driver ignoring signals from others waiting on a different service that people are yards away. At that point the regret breezes through my head that we back these people when they are on strike. Even when they do stop, as most drivers do, once on the vehicle, flopping down in an uncomfortable seat, the passenger is immediately reminded that seats compete so vigorously for space that that it is even tighter to manoeuvre than on an economy class flight. A journey is an exercise in perpetual fidgeting and shape shifting in a vain bid to get comfortable.
Trying to catch a bus to make a flight or a match is seriously taking a chance. The traveller addicted to risk might like the close call but for the person with a destination to get to on time, it is a gamble where the odds are not with the punter. Myself and my son arrived half way through the first half of an international soccer match at the Aviva, due to Bus Useless doing its usual. No más– we signed up to Matthews for the last game, Manchester United against Sampdoria and arrived well on time and in relative comfort. Another evening saw me wait over forty minutes after the scheduled time before the bus arrived to take me to the airport for a Coventry flight. There were no traffic jams or road diversions, just a case of Bus Useless doing what it does frequently. Trying to get somebody at the depot to explain the delay is like asking a bishop for the result of an investigation into clerical child rape. Head scratching, a look into the middle distance up the road followed by a pretence of talking into the phone: a motionless manoeuvre in search of a seemingly motionless bus.
I dislike the idea of public services being privatised, handed over to profiteers. But when an enterprise like Matthews provides a much better, more comfortable service, that invariably gets people to their destination and leaves nobody strained and stranded for over an hour, it has to have a selling point well ahead of the shambles that characterises service delivery at Bus Useless. Were Mathews to run a service along the 101 route it would clean up. The only reason I set foot on Bus Useless is that there is no other way to reach my destination.
Passengers are well advised over the coming days with the potential intrusion into our already inclement weather scene of the Beast From the East, to take a packed lunch and a hot drink. Bus Useless will do as it has so often done, leaving you stranded in the freezing cold.
Citizens should stand by their public services but first their must be a service on offer. Bus Useless ... for those who want to get nowhere fast.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
Judge Removes Woman In Burqa From Court
Lena M with news of a Melbourne judge banning the niqab in court.
Photo Credits: Guardian Liberty Voice
Justice Beale made a precedent because he did not allow a woman with a niqab to enter the Victorian Supreme Court. It is the first known case of a burka-wearer being refused entry. 'I require anybody who comes into the court — and all are welcome — but anybody who comes into the court, for their face to be uncovered,' Justice Beale said. The niqab, unlike the burqa, covers the head and face but leaves the eyes open.
The wife of an accused terrorist, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was ordered by Justice Christopher Beale this week to remove her niqab and show her face while attending her husband's trial. She refused to remove her veil and chose to sit outside the courtroom, according to Herald Sun. The woman may challenge the judge’s ruling at future hearings of her husband’s trial because the defendant’s lawyer indicated she would seek exemptions from the burka ban on religious grounds going forward.
The Supreme Court’s website says visitors to the court must “dress appropriately” with hats and sunglasses banned. There is no rule about traditional Muslim veils. A court spokesman told The Herald Sun that judges ultimately make the decision about who is allowed in their courtroom. The Victorian Supreme Court said in statement: "Each individual judge is empowered to give directions on a case-by-case basis on who can enter the courtroom."
Islamic Council of Victoria vice president Adel Salman slammed the ban by Justice Beale, saying it's a violation of the woman's human rights. He added:
I think the judge's decision is unreasonable and concerning. Women choose to wear it. It’s part of their faithfulness to God. To ask them to remove it is quite intrusive and, in some cases, quite traumatic.
Mr. Salman also said that if there is concern about security in court or “if there's any doubt about someone's identity, a woman can be asked to step into a room privately with a female security person, remove her niqab, verify their identity.”
The accused terrorist's supporters refused to follow court protocols last year and wouldn't stand when a magistrate entered the courtroom, according to the Herald Sun. The Victorian opposition last year proposed a law to slap women who refuse to show their face in court with a two-week jail term or a $1,500 fine.
Whether the Justice Beale exceeded the limits of its powers, it remains to be seen, because the woman may challenge the burqa ban at the next trial.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Photo Credits: Guardian Liberty VoiceJustice Beale made a precedent because he did not allow a woman with a niqab to enter the Victorian Supreme Court. It is the first known case of a burka-wearer being refused entry. 'I require anybody who comes into the court — and all are welcome — but anybody who comes into the court, for their face to be uncovered,' Justice Beale said. The niqab, unlike the burqa, covers the head and face but leaves the eyes open.
The wife of an accused terrorist, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was ordered by Justice Christopher Beale this week to remove her niqab and show her face while attending her husband's trial. She refused to remove her veil and chose to sit outside the courtroom, according to Herald Sun. The woman may challenge the judge’s ruling at future hearings of her husband’s trial because the defendant’s lawyer indicated she would seek exemptions from the burka ban on religious grounds going forward.
The Supreme Court’s website says visitors to the court must “dress appropriately” with hats and sunglasses banned. There is no rule about traditional Muslim veils. A court spokesman told The Herald Sun that judges ultimately make the decision about who is allowed in their courtroom. The Victorian Supreme Court said in statement: "Each individual judge is empowered to give directions on a case-by-case basis on who can enter the courtroom."
Islamic Council of Victoria vice president Adel Salman slammed the ban by Justice Beale, saying it's a violation of the woman's human rights. He added:
I think the judge's decision is unreasonable and concerning. Women choose to wear it. It’s part of their faithfulness to God. To ask them to remove it is quite intrusive and, in some cases, quite traumatic.
Mr. Salman also said that if there is concern about security in court or “if there's any doubt about someone's identity, a woman can be asked to step into a room privately with a female security person, remove her niqab, verify their identity.”
The accused terrorist's supporters refused to follow court protocols last year and wouldn't stand when a magistrate entered the courtroom, according to the Herald Sun. The Victorian opposition last year proposed a law to slap women who refuse to show their face in court with a two-week jail term or a $1,500 fine.
Whether the Justice Beale exceeded the limits of its powers, it remains to be seen, because the woman may challenge the burqa ban at the next trial.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
February 24, 2018
With Sympathies Like These Who Needs Enmities?
In a letter to the Irish News New York attorney-at-law Martin Galvin again challenges Trevor Ringland over British state culpability.
A chara,
Trevor Ringland writes his 'Sympathies lie with victims and families of Loughinisland atrocity.'(February 2nd) He advises these families to shun republican minded supporters and stop blaming Britain, if British troopers, constabulary, or agents murdered loved ones. With sympathies like these who needs enmities?
Mr. Ringland wants families to accept that British troopers or constabulary who murdered, acted "outside the law" are "innocent until proven guilty', and no excuse for holding Britain accountable. His alternative facts show the deep divide keeping legacy justice a fundamental issue.
Did British troopers, constabulary or agents act "outside the law" at Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc.? Certainly they acted outside the letter of British law. Certainly anyone charged by the crown should be presumed innocent and get a fair trial (unlike Internment.)Why do families believe that the killing of their loved ones, while outside the letter of the law was part of actual British policy?
Look at Loughinisland. No Stone Unturned names and shows recent film of suspects, then reveals, besides DNA evidence available from the recovered car, weapons, and clothing, the wife of one of the gunmen had telephoned and written confessing her involvement and naming the gunmen.
No one was ever charged. Are families promised "no stone unturned" then stonewalled, wrong to believe killers were not "innocent until proven guilty", but innocent by British state immunity?
Look at Ballymurphy. These families say that British troopers murdered innocent people, including a Catholic priest, and mother of eight. After taking 11 innocent lives, and parents from 57 children the British massacred the truth. Victims became posthumous gunmen. The crown made their troopers innocent and the dead guilty.
Families fought for their right to establish truth at a British inquest. Now Britain moves towards pardons dressed up as statutes of limitations, for British troopers and constabulary. Have families no right to believe that the British are putting their undeclared immunity into law?
Former RUC officer and Glenanne Gang member John Weir, said the British government at "the very highest level", was aware of the murder gang's activities. (Irish News, August 28,2017) Despite promises and Court orders, these families have not gotten their right to an overarching investigation. Can these families not ask whether a full investigation might show Weir was right?
The divide over legacy justice is deep. Clearly the mechanisms agreed in the past failed to work. Any new agreement on legacy mechanisms must give real truth to victims. Families must get more than hopes of justice, followed by disillusionment.
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
A chara,
Trevor Ringland writes his 'Sympathies lie with victims and families of Loughinisland atrocity.'(February 2nd) He advises these families to shun republican minded supporters and stop blaming Britain, if British troopers, constabulary, or agents murdered loved ones. With sympathies like these who needs enmities?
Mr. Ringland wants families to accept that British troopers or constabulary who murdered, acted "outside the law" are "innocent until proven guilty', and no excuse for holding Britain accountable. His alternative facts show the deep divide keeping legacy justice a fundamental issue.
Did British troopers, constabulary or agents act "outside the law" at Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc.? Certainly they acted outside the letter of British law. Certainly anyone charged by the crown should be presumed innocent and get a fair trial (unlike Internment.)Why do families believe that the killing of their loved ones, while outside the letter of the law was part of actual British policy?
Look at Loughinisland. No Stone Unturned names and shows recent film of suspects, then reveals, besides DNA evidence available from the recovered car, weapons, and clothing, the wife of one of the gunmen had telephoned and written confessing her involvement and naming the gunmen.
No one was ever charged. Are families promised "no stone unturned" then stonewalled, wrong to believe killers were not "innocent until proven guilty", but innocent by British state immunity?
Look at Ballymurphy. These families say that British troopers murdered innocent people, including a Catholic priest, and mother of eight. After taking 11 innocent lives, and parents from 57 children the British massacred the truth. Victims became posthumous gunmen. The crown made their troopers innocent and the dead guilty.
Families fought for their right to establish truth at a British inquest. Now Britain moves towards pardons dressed up as statutes of limitations, for British troopers and constabulary. Have families no right to believe that the British are putting their undeclared immunity into law?
Former RUC officer and Glenanne Gang member John Weir, said the British government at "the very highest level", was aware of the murder gang's activities. (Irish News, August 28,2017) Despite promises and Court orders, these families have not gotten their right to an overarching investigation. Can these families not ask whether a full investigation might show Weir was right?
The divide over legacy justice is deep. Clearly the mechanisms agreed in the past failed to work. Any new agreement on legacy mechanisms must give real truth to victims. Families must get more than hopes of justice, followed by disillusionment.
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
On Resistance: BDS And Israel’s Declining Support Among Diaspora Jews
Stanley Cohen takes to Counterpunch to challenge Israeli assertions that BDS is failing.
Photo by Kate Ausburn | CC BY 2.0
Like its predecessor movement decades ago in South Africa, assessing the success of BDS against Israel today necessarily rubs up against the tension between Israeli hasbara (propaganda) and its reality as an effective organizing tool against it throughout the world.
Though Israel has repeatedly claimed BDS has proven to be a failed venture, it’s a contention very much in desperate search of fact. Indeed, one need only look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that Israel has spent in various anti-BDS efforts to discern that its impact is not just productive, but poses a dynamic threat to the status quo ante of the state.
Why else would it continue to invest such large, indeed, increasing amounts of money against a movement that it asserts has had no cognizable impact upon its policies or its future?
To be sure, Israel has spent vast sums of money on anti-BDS lobbyists and publicity and on a veritable army of social media trolls used to promote fantasy as desperate push back against the truthful and appealing fact laden argument and results of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
It has expanded its use of public relations and law firms throughout the world in an effort to silence the movement through attacks on academic freedom, faculty and students and by legislative fiat designed to criminalize, sanction and otherwise deter persons or groups that engage in support for the BDS effort.
To the extent that pro Israeli lobbyists such as AIPAC have been able to purchase some state and federal anti-BDS legislative enactments in the United States, ultimately they will prove to be, of no moment, costly pyrrhic victories as courts strike them down as unconstitutional infringement upon free speech and association.
Further evidence of BDS achievement can be found through Israel’s dramatic increase in the use of travel and immigration bans to sanitize and control the debate over its domestic agenda.
Of late, thousands of Jews involved in the worldwide BDS movement have been banned from traveling to Israel. This unprecedented step demonstrates Israel fears BDS as a powerful global movement which could sway its domestic policy debate if activist Jews were permitted to enter the state. Ultimately, suppression of contentious ideas is the best evidence that the message itself is one the censor’s pen fears most.
In other ways Israel’s well-founded fear of BDS is conspicuous. Thus, while its machinery of censorship has long hidden behind the talisman of national security to control the publication of so-called military activity, it has expanded exponentially to now include information about the growth and efficacy of the BDS movement worldwide.
Indeed, attempts to silence the discussion of BDS success have become increasingly widespread in the massive world of social media. Whether by “voluntary” compliance of social networks or through legislative enactments of the Knesset, here, too, Israel seeks to downplay the achievement of BDS at, literally, the very moment it expands its assault upon it.
It takes little observation to see the palpable disconnect between Israel’s bullish claims that BDS poses no challenge to the course of its domestic strategy and the marked reality it sees as the mounting voice of BDS becomes a dramatic threat to those very policies.
Israel’s desperate, knee-jerk response to a purely peaceful international boycott speaks powerfully about its success in exposing not just the tailored and false Israeli narrative, but its significant impact on various aspects of its society including economic, social and political norms.
As so much the arsonist pouring gasoline on the flames while shouting fire, fire, fire, Israel’s attempt to silence internal political discourse and debate over the rights and freedom of Palestinians by seeking to curb those Jews who choose to partake in it, is destined to fail.
In point of fact, ultimately, it will only serve to expand opposition to Israeli policies among growing numbers of so-called Diaspora Jews who historically have served as a blind rubber stamp to its agenda.
If the BDS movement presents any weakness to date, it is that some of its advocates have conflated participation in geo-political support for a boycott effort with personal empowerment to seek to define, at times dictate, the nature of resistance on the ground, in occupied Palestine.
Thus, some movements and individual activists, particularly among Jewish supporters have used the BDS platform to argue that resistance to Israeli oppression in Palestine must necessarily be limited to individual acts of non-violence or peaceful mass protest alone.
In deigning to “legitimatize” and promote one form of resistance, to the exclusion of all others, advocates of such politically correct dogma subvert, indeed weaken, the core intent of BDS- namely that of an international movement designed to pressure Israel, as an adjunct to resistance in Palestine, as determined and defined solely by Palestinians themselves.
BDS was calculated to serve as an international movement to pressure from the outside an otherwise intransigent Israeli state and body politic. To some, however, it has apparently evolved to provide “entitlement” as full and equal partners in a decision-making process that is not theirs to partake in let alone to decide.
As with all international human rights movements and struggles, this disconnect is not one beyond repair. Ultimately, it will be overcome as the BDS movement continues to grow and mature.
Diaspora Jews
Today, there are twice as many Jews living in New York City than in any city of Israel. As a whole, there are more Jews who live outside of Israel than within it.
Historically, almost all the world’s Jewry has supported Israel as so much a rite of passage from childhood when, beginning long ago, parents and grandparents spoke with glowing praise of a Jewish state built of principled hard work… anchored by democratic ideal.
It was a lie. A grand, perverse lie; one passed with success, in silence, among Diaspora Jews who knew nothing but families and lives built largely of tradition and belief, insulated and isolated from the appalling reality of a far-off Israeli state ripped from the age-old land and history that was, and remains, Palestine.
If truth is the ultimate linchpin of freedom, for some, calculated falsehood has proven to be an accomplished segue between manipulated historical fact and unworthy political survival. Nowhere is that more manifestly apparent, or proven, than it has been with regard to the grand sale of Israel.
In this tale, Israel provides to Jews the hope of a place to one day visit or live, to spend time and passage with those of “shared belief” or, in times of need, to find refuge from a seeming repetitive, cruel history that has sought to punish them in many places… for little more than being Jews.
Born in a time where tailored controlled verse was so much the rule and technology of the day, for decades Zionists successfully sold the narrative of an enlightened state under siege; a small, idealistic pond surrounded by an enormous voracious sea of enemies hell-bent on its destruction.
For children in Hebrew schools throughout the world, be they from the most orthodox of families to those who embraced Reform Judaism to others anchored somewhere in between, the idea of an unbreakable birth-bond between them and Israel became the driving primer of each day.
At yearly festivals, prayers sought to connect today’s families with Jews of a distant millennium together with those who live an essentially state-defined life of Judaism in Israel, one far removed from the theological underpinning of its birth.
From these Zionist sacraments, it was expected, indeed, became the almost preordained norm, that Jews outside of Israel were obligated to lend their obedient voice and moral and financial support to a state most knew nothing about other than the carefully crafted message passed down from generation to generation.
Wars came and went with Israeli figures elevated to iconic stature built from little more than body counts meted out by them, and their minion, upon largely defenseless civilians.
Over time, with doublespeak in the lead, no outrage proved beyond the pale. A brutal occupation became a necessary, but tempered, security step; apartheid a misunderstood gesture to enable Jews and Palestinians to pursue and strengthen their unique identities and faith, among themselves, in safety; embargoes of food, medicine and water a minimal construct to prevent the introduction of weapons of terror. And so it goes, on and on and on. An institutional state of successful rewrite that has long controlled the storyline that defined it.
As with all myth, sooner or later reality swallows a sculpted sale… be it of the moment, the person or the state. In this case, for Diaspora Jews, a reckoning with painful truth was to come… and now grows, day by day, in particular among a generation of millennials weaned from dutiful support for a mythical place and time that did not, and does not, exist.
For a generation of Jews born against the pall of the atrocities of Deir Yassin and a hundred other ravaged, age-old Palestinian villages, the Hollywood classic “Exodus” proved to be a quixotic lure. After all, who could withstand the good looks and charisma of Paul Newman or Sal Mineo.
For them, the desperate flight from the strangle of genocide to the welcome and safe arms of their own “homeland” was a tale that echoed throughout Jewish communities of the day with scant second thought or challenge. To do so was rank heresy.
For those of us who came of age later, during the militant days of the US civil rights and anti war movements, the journey from obedient cheer to unbridled challenge proved to be an essential leap of faith that moved many from complacency to confrontation. For some Jews of the time, the ring of challenge necessarily meant a de nova look at long settled misconceptions about just what Israel was, indeed, had always been. It was not a pretty picture.
For more than a few, it set in motion a life-long examination that often stumbled for want of fresh eyes or reliable information. Decades away from cell phones, YouTube, the internet, and alternative news sources, we were largely driven by information cast by but a hand full of structured reports within acceptable margins controlled by a few major media outlets.
Indeed, when it came to Israel, ours was not a generation moved by the reality of bombings, assassinations or collective punishment that unfolded in virtual time for all to see. To the contrary, we were force-fed the dreamy tempt of socialist kibbutzim bringing forth life from a barren desert… only later to learn that its sanded base was but a thin windblown veneer over the rubble of destroyed Palestinian villages and the skeletal remains of children.
Lest there be any failed memory or fidelity on our part, once a year, tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors appear at memorials in Israel for those left behind, only later to be returned to the darkness of their own abject poverty. And who can forget the grandmotherly smile of Prime Minister Golda Meir wrapped in her apron preparing blintzes for guests only later to proclaim, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian…[it’s] not as though there was a Palestinian people… and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them… they did not exist.”
Today, the Jewish community in the United States is very different from the one that I was reared in. Generations have come and gone where the prettied-up narrative has long since been replaced by the reality of an open and honest examination, especially among young American Jews, of a state built of brazen land theft and ethnic cleansing; one maintained by occupation and apartheid punctuated by very public, periodic bursts of mindless death and destruction.
In the internet age, it is simply no longer possible to suppress or recast the horror of Palestinian life under the brutal control of an Israeli state that has long since held itself out as beyond the reach of international or humanitarian law in its drive to cleanse Palestine of its entire indigenous population. Today, this reality moves a generation of young Diaspora Jews in ways over fundamental human rights and social justice long ignored or rationalized away by their parents and grandparents.
Whether it’s the reality of Jewish picnickers overlooking Gaza and applauding with the blast of each phosphorous bomb exploding on civilians below, the death of infants for want of energy for incubators, mass incarceration of Palestinian children without formal charge or trial, the murder of defenseless unarmed demonstrators, rampaging “settlers” screaming death to Arabs or elected Palestinian “Israelis” ejected from the Knesset for daring to challenge the political rampage of its Jewish majority, the daily nightmare that is Palestine increasingly resonates with anger and resistance among millennial Jews who shout, “not in our name.”
For decades Israel came to depend upon Diaspora Jews for political, economic and moral support that was provided without question or challenge as so much primordial identification. Those days are gone. In demonstrations, meeting halls, academia, and through alliances with other social justice groups, a new generation of informed and outraged Jews has, at long last, rejected the notion of a Jewish state built on the back of endless Palestinian suffering and injustice. Indeed, more than a few challenge the very legitimacy of the state of Israel.
The idea of unconditional support for an authoritarian Jewish state has lost its long secure place as increasing numbers of millennial Jews see, and rightly so, silence as willing complicity.
The closure of Gaza is now more than a decade old as millions are held hostage, daily, to a cruel and systematic attack on their very existence. The occupation is more than fifty years old. Throughout Palestine, not a day passes without a new and very public Israeli outrage.
For Diaspora Jews, the battle against ruthless Israeli hegemony will neither be easy nor painless. At times, it will echo with the determined and peaceful call of BDS. Some will be drawn to the barricade of militant resistance and, perhaps, pay a terrible price for that step. Still, others will preach to the uncertain through prose or poetry that resonates with the sweet lyric of freedom.
Resistance demands determined diversity. It is long. It is hard. It is costly. For eleven million stateless Palestinians there is no alternative until justice be had.
Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
Follow Stanley Cohen on Twitter @StanleyCohenLaw
Photo by Kate Ausburn | CC BY 2.0Like its predecessor movement decades ago in South Africa, assessing the success of BDS against Israel today necessarily rubs up against the tension between Israeli hasbara (propaganda) and its reality as an effective organizing tool against it throughout the world.
Though Israel has repeatedly claimed BDS has proven to be a failed venture, it’s a contention very much in desperate search of fact. Indeed, one need only look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that Israel has spent in various anti-BDS efforts to discern that its impact is not just productive, but poses a dynamic threat to the status quo ante of the state.
Why else would it continue to invest such large, indeed, increasing amounts of money against a movement that it asserts has had no cognizable impact upon its policies or its future?
To be sure, Israel has spent vast sums of money on anti-BDS lobbyists and publicity and on a veritable army of social media trolls used to promote fantasy as desperate push back against the truthful and appealing fact laden argument and results of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
It has expanded its use of public relations and law firms throughout the world in an effort to silence the movement through attacks on academic freedom, faculty and students and by legislative fiat designed to criminalize, sanction and otherwise deter persons or groups that engage in support for the BDS effort.
To the extent that pro Israeli lobbyists such as AIPAC have been able to purchase some state and federal anti-BDS legislative enactments in the United States, ultimately they will prove to be, of no moment, costly pyrrhic victories as courts strike them down as unconstitutional infringement upon free speech and association.
Further evidence of BDS achievement can be found through Israel’s dramatic increase in the use of travel and immigration bans to sanitize and control the debate over its domestic agenda.
Of late, thousands of Jews involved in the worldwide BDS movement have been banned from traveling to Israel. This unprecedented step demonstrates Israel fears BDS as a powerful global movement which could sway its domestic policy debate if activist Jews were permitted to enter the state. Ultimately, suppression of contentious ideas is the best evidence that the message itself is one the censor’s pen fears most.
In other ways Israel’s well-founded fear of BDS is conspicuous. Thus, while its machinery of censorship has long hidden behind the talisman of national security to control the publication of so-called military activity, it has expanded exponentially to now include information about the growth and efficacy of the BDS movement worldwide.
Indeed, attempts to silence the discussion of BDS success have become increasingly widespread in the massive world of social media. Whether by “voluntary” compliance of social networks or through legislative enactments of the Knesset, here, too, Israel seeks to downplay the achievement of BDS at, literally, the very moment it expands its assault upon it.
It takes little observation to see the palpable disconnect between Israel’s bullish claims that BDS poses no challenge to the course of its domestic strategy and the marked reality it sees as the mounting voice of BDS becomes a dramatic threat to those very policies.
Israel’s desperate, knee-jerk response to a purely peaceful international boycott speaks powerfully about its success in exposing not just the tailored and false Israeli narrative, but its significant impact on various aspects of its society including economic, social and political norms.
As so much the arsonist pouring gasoline on the flames while shouting fire, fire, fire, Israel’s attempt to silence internal political discourse and debate over the rights and freedom of Palestinians by seeking to curb those Jews who choose to partake in it, is destined to fail.
In point of fact, ultimately, it will only serve to expand opposition to Israeli policies among growing numbers of so-called Diaspora Jews who historically have served as a blind rubber stamp to its agenda.
If the BDS movement presents any weakness to date, it is that some of its advocates have conflated participation in geo-political support for a boycott effort with personal empowerment to seek to define, at times dictate, the nature of resistance on the ground, in occupied Palestine.
Thus, some movements and individual activists, particularly among Jewish supporters have used the BDS platform to argue that resistance to Israeli oppression in Palestine must necessarily be limited to individual acts of non-violence or peaceful mass protest alone.
In deigning to “legitimatize” and promote one form of resistance, to the exclusion of all others, advocates of such politically correct dogma subvert, indeed weaken, the core intent of BDS- namely that of an international movement designed to pressure Israel, as an adjunct to resistance in Palestine, as determined and defined solely by Palestinians themselves.
BDS was calculated to serve as an international movement to pressure from the outside an otherwise intransigent Israeli state and body politic. To some, however, it has apparently evolved to provide “entitlement” as full and equal partners in a decision-making process that is not theirs to partake in let alone to decide.
As with all international human rights movements and struggles, this disconnect is not one beyond repair. Ultimately, it will be overcome as the BDS movement continues to grow and mature.
Diaspora Jews
Today, there are twice as many Jews living in New York City than in any city of Israel. As a whole, there are more Jews who live outside of Israel than within it.
Historically, almost all the world’s Jewry has supported Israel as so much a rite of passage from childhood when, beginning long ago, parents and grandparents spoke with glowing praise of a Jewish state built of principled hard work… anchored by democratic ideal.
It was a lie. A grand, perverse lie; one passed with success, in silence, among Diaspora Jews who knew nothing but families and lives built largely of tradition and belief, insulated and isolated from the appalling reality of a far-off Israeli state ripped from the age-old land and history that was, and remains, Palestine.
If truth is the ultimate linchpin of freedom, for some, calculated falsehood has proven to be an accomplished segue between manipulated historical fact and unworthy political survival. Nowhere is that more manifestly apparent, or proven, than it has been with regard to the grand sale of Israel.
In this tale, Israel provides to Jews the hope of a place to one day visit or live, to spend time and passage with those of “shared belief” or, in times of need, to find refuge from a seeming repetitive, cruel history that has sought to punish them in many places… for little more than being Jews.
Born in a time where tailored controlled verse was so much the rule and technology of the day, for decades Zionists successfully sold the narrative of an enlightened state under siege; a small, idealistic pond surrounded by an enormous voracious sea of enemies hell-bent on its destruction.
For children in Hebrew schools throughout the world, be they from the most orthodox of families to those who embraced Reform Judaism to others anchored somewhere in between, the idea of an unbreakable birth-bond between them and Israel became the driving primer of each day.
At yearly festivals, prayers sought to connect today’s families with Jews of a distant millennium together with those who live an essentially state-defined life of Judaism in Israel, one far removed from the theological underpinning of its birth.
From these Zionist sacraments, it was expected, indeed, became the almost preordained norm, that Jews outside of Israel were obligated to lend their obedient voice and moral and financial support to a state most knew nothing about other than the carefully crafted message passed down from generation to generation.
Wars came and went with Israeli figures elevated to iconic stature built from little more than body counts meted out by them, and their minion, upon largely defenseless civilians.
Over time, with doublespeak in the lead, no outrage proved beyond the pale. A brutal occupation became a necessary, but tempered, security step; apartheid a misunderstood gesture to enable Jews and Palestinians to pursue and strengthen their unique identities and faith, among themselves, in safety; embargoes of food, medicine and water a minimal construct to prevent the introduction of weapons of terror. And so it goes, on and on and on. An institutional state of successful rewrite that has long controlled the storyline that defined it.
As with all myth, sooner or later reality swallows a sculpted sale… be it of the moment, the person or the state. In this case, for Diaspora Jews, a reckoning with painful truth was to come… and now grows, day by day, in particular among a generation of millennials weaned from dutiful support for a mythical place and time that did not, and does not, exist.
For a generation of Jews born against the pall of the atrocities of Deir Yassin and a hundred other ravaged, age-old Palestinian villages, the Hollywood classic “Exodus” proved to be a quixotic lure. After all, who could withstand the good looks and charisma of Paul Newman or Sal Mineo.
For them, the desperate flight from the strangle of genocide to the welcome and safe arms of their own “homeland” was a tale that echoed throughout Jewish communities of the day with scant second thought or challenge. To do so was rank heresy.
For those of us who came of age later, during the militant days of the US civil rights and anti war movements, the journey from obedient cheer to unbridled challenge proved to be an essential leap of faith that moved many from complacency to confrontation. For some Jews of the time, the ring of challenge necessarily meant a de nova look at long settled misconceptions about just what Israel was, indeed, had always been. It was not a pretty picture.
For more than a few, it set in motion a life-long examination that often stumbled for want of fresh eyes or reliable information. Decades away from cell phones, YouTube, the internet, and alternative news sources, we were largely driven by information cast by but a hand full of structured reports within acceptable margins controlled by a few major media outlets.
Indeed, when it came to Israel, ours was not a generation moved by the reality of bombings, assassinations or collective punishment that unfolded in virtual time for all to see. To the contrary, we were force-fed the dreamy tempt of socialist kibbutzim bringing forth life from a barren desert… only later to learn that its sanded base was but a thin windblown veneer over the rubble of destroyed Palestinian villages and the skeletal remains of children.
Lest there be any failed memory or fidelity on our part, once a year, tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors appear at memorials in Israel for those left behind, only later to be returned to the darkness of their own abject poverty. And who can forget the grandmotherly smile of Prime Minister Golda Meir wrapped in her apron preparing blintzes for guests only later to proclaim, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian…[it’s] not as though there was a Palestinian people… and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them… they did not exist.”
Today, the Jewish community in the United States is very different from the one that I was reared in. Generations have come and gone where the prettied-up narrative has long since been replaced by the reality of an open and honest examination, especially among young American Jews, of a state built of brazen land theft and ethnic cleansing; one maintained by occupation and apartheid punctuated by very public, periodic bursts of mindless death and destruction.
In the internet age, it is simply no longer possible to suppress or recast the horror of Palestinian life under the brutal control of an Israeli state that has long since held itself out as beyond the reach of international or humanitarian law in its drive to cleanse Palestine of its entire indigenous population. Today, this reality moves a generation of young Diaspora Jews in ways over fundamental human rights and social justice long ignored or rationalized away by their parents and grandparents.
Whether it’s the reality of Jewish picnickers overlooking Gaza and applauding with the blast of each phosphorous bomb exploding on civilians below, the death of infants for want of energy for incubators, mass incarceration of Palestinian children without formal charge or trial, the murder of defenseless unarmed demonstrators, rampaging “settlers” screaming death to Arabs or elected Palestinian “Israelis” ejected from the Knesset for daring to challenge the political rampage of its Jewish majority, the daily nightmare that is Palestine increasingly resonates with anger and resistance among millennial Jews who shout, “not in our name.”
For decades Israel came to depend upon Diaspora Jews for political, economic and moral support that was provided without question or challenge as so much primordial identification. Those days are gone. In demonstrations, meeting halls, academia, and through alliances with other social justice groups, a new generation of informed and outraged Jews has, at long last, rejected the notion of a Jewish state built on the back of endless Palestinian suffering and injustice. Indeed, more than a few challenge the very legitimacy of the state of Israel.
The idea of unconditional support for an authoritarian Jewish state has lost its long secure place as increasing numbers of millennial Jews see, and rightly so, silence as willing complicity.
The closure of Gaza is now more than a decade old as millions are held hostage, daily, to a cruel and systematic attack on their very existence. The occupation is more than fifty years old. Throughout Palestine, not a day passes without a new and very public Israeli outrage.
For Diaspora Jews, the battle against ruthless Israeli hegemony will neither be easy nor painless. At times, it will echo with the determined and peaceful call of BDS. Some will be drawn to the barricade of militant resistance and, perhaps, pay a terrible price for that step. Still, others will preach to the uncertain through prose or poetry that resonates with the sweet lyric of freedom.
Resistance demands determined diversity. It is long. It is hard. It is costly. For eleven million stateless Palestinians there is no alternative until justice be had.
Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.Follow Stanley Cohen on Twitter @StanleyCohenLaw
February 23, 2018
Save The 8th
Helen McClafferty calls to Save the 8th Amendment.
At the center of this debate is the Eight Amendment to Ireland’s Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment acknowledges a mother’s right to life, but also extends an equal right to the life of the unborn child.
The Government, which two years ago gifted a Tricolor and a copy of the Proclamation to every school in the country has now decided to call a referendum on the 8th Amendment. The current Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has announced the referendum on repealing the Eight Amendment is likely to be held on May 25th of this year. The announcement came after a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday.
"Save the 8th" is a campaign to defend the amendment to the Irish constitution, which defends the equal right to life of the mother and unborn baby.
There are some who are very passionate about justice but seemingly give very little attention to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year.
Save the 8th movement needs intelligent, strategizing and brave campaigning to reach those whose minds are not yet made up on this issue. Will you help to Save the 8th?
Please pass this on to your relatives and friends, especially those who live in the south of Ireland. Please ask them to vote "No" to repealing the 8th Amendment and ask others to do the same.
"Cherish ALL the children of the nation equally; not just the privileged, planned or the perfect."
You can also contact Life Institute for more details on SAVE the 8TH.
At the center of this debate is the Eight Amendment to Ireland’s Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment acknowledges a mother’s right to life, but also extends an equal right to the life of the unborn child.
The Government, which two years ago gifted a Tricolor and a copy of the Proclamation to every school in the country has now decided to call a referendum on the 8th Amendment. The current Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has announced the referendum on repealing the Eight Amendment is likely to be held on May 25th of this year. The announcement came after a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday.
"Save the 8th" is a campaign to defend the amendment to the Irish constitution, which defends the equal right to life of the mother and unborn baby.
There are some who are very passionate about justice but seemingly give very little attention to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year.
Save the 8th movement needs intelligent, strategizing and brave campaigning to reach those whose minds are not yet made up on this issue. Will you help to Save the 8th?
Please pass this on to your relatives and friends, especially those who live in the south of Ireland. Please ask them to vote "No" to repealing the 8th Amendment and ask others to do the same.
"Cherish ALL the children of the nation equally; not just the privileged, planned or the perfect."
You can also contact Life Institute for more details on SAVE the 8TH.
The Greensboro Massacre
Christopher Owens reviews a book on a US massacre.
It's an incident that could very well have come from our own country. Protest, murder, political intrigue and acquittals, the events of November 3rd 1979 should be as discussed and dissected as much as Bloody Sunday and Kingsmill.
Sadly, this book remains one of a very few about the Greensboro Massacre.
Published in 1980, both authors were present at the march against the Klu Klux Klan and American Nazi Party, which saw the death of five people (all members of the Communist Workers Party) at the hands of the Klan and Nazis.
Allegations of collusion surfaced, due to the lack of a police presence until after the shootings. It quickly emerged that one of the Klansmen who had been present at the shooting was a police informer, while a member of the ANP (who had been an FBI informer) encouraged the Nazis to arm themselves prior to the demonstration.
Tried before an all white southern jury, they were acquitted when the jury accepted their argument that they had been provoked. Another trial in 1984 also saw the gunmen being acquitted when they argued their motivations were political, as opposed to racial.
So this book, the first about the massacre, retains an important place in history.
With both authors being members of the Communist Workers Party, there is no pretence at impartiality. On one hand, it's refreshing to see and read such open proclamations of Communism in such works (especially in a pre Gorbachov era Cold War). On the other hand, it does get rather po-faced and tiresome to read about "full time revolutionaries" and their debates about revealing their Communist beliefs to a sympathetic public.
The vast majority of the book is dedicated to telling the stories of the people who died at Greensboro, and they are all portrayed as good, hard working members of the party who were willing to debate, think and take action (such as moving to North Carolina to work in a textile mill so they can spread the message to the working class).
Interestingly (to me anyway), the chapters dedicated to each person are almost interchangeable. All of them give up certain types of careers to become revolutionaries, all of them are involved with trade union disputes, all of them knew to have fun etc etc. And while I cannot fault their activism and bravery in uniting black and white textile workers against the bosses and the police, there's very little in the way of what made them tick. What made them human. It's just party political propaganda at best (although understandable giving the context).
The authors conspiracy theory about it being a deliberate attempt to stifle the growth of the Communist Workers Party by removing some of the genuinely committed members (and future leaders) is an interesting one, considering what we now know about the conflict in this country. However, with the CWP never numbering more than (probably) 1000 members (in a country of 225.1 million in 1979), I'm not convinced that the state saw them as much of a potential threat.
Ultimately, it's hard to come away with any other thought that the marchers were maybe a tad naive to think that, by announcing that a march would be held under the banner "Death to the Klan", there would not be anything of this ilk. With the Klan being heavily infiltrated and even members taking up important positions in the political establishment, it was only going to end up bloody.
In recent years, with a Truth and Reconciliation style committee (not endorsed by the mayor or the majority of the council of Greensboro) report citing that both sides engaged in antagonising one another in the run up to the march, but that the Klan went there with the intention of murder, more information has become available. And it's fascinating to see the ambivalence some of America seem to have towards the event, because the murdered were Communists.
Very much a time capsule, this book documents a time when radical left wing politics was untouched by neoliberalism and the onslaught of Reaganomics. When people genuinely believed that the revolution wasn't far off and, as described in the book, a time when Robert Mugabe was seen as an inspiring hero.
Paul C. Bermanzohn,Sally A. Bermanzohn The True Story of the Greensboro Massacre Cesar Cauce Publishers and Distributors ISBN-13: 978-0866860000
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
It's an incident that could very well have come from our own country. Protest, murder, political intrigue and acquittals, the events of November 3rd 1979 should be as discussed and dissected as much as Bloody Sunday and Kingsmill.
Sadly, this book remains one of a very few about the Greensboro Massacre.
Published in 1980, both authors were present at the march against the Klu Klux Klan and American Nazi Party, which saw the death of five people (all members of the Communist Workers Party) at the hands of the Klan and Nazis.
Allegations of collusion surfaced, due to the lack of a police presence until after the shootings. It quickly emerged that one of the Klansmen who had been present at the shooting was a police informer, while a member of the ANP (who had been an FBI informer) encouraged the Nazis to arm themselves prior to the demonstration.
Tried before an all white southern jury, they were acquitted when the jury accepted their argument that they had been provoked. Another trial in 1984 also saw the gunmen being acquitted when they argued their motivations were political, as opposed to racial.
So this book, the first about the massacre, retains an important place in history.
With both authors being members of the Communist Workers Party, there is no pretence at impartiality. On one hand, it's refreshing to see and read such open proclamations of Communism in such works (especially in a pre Gorbachov era Cold War). On the other hand, it does get rather po-faced and tiresome to read about "full time revolutionaries" and their debates about revealing their Communist beliefs to a sympathetic public.
The vast majority of the book is dedicated to telling the stories of the people who died at Greensboro, and they are all portrayed as good, hard working members of the party who were willing to debate, think and take action (such as moving to North Carolina to work in a textile mill so they can spread the message to the working class).
Interestingly (to me anyway), the chapters dedicated to each person are almost interchangeable. All of them give up certain types of careers to become revolutionaries, all of them are involved with trade union disputes, all of them knew to have fun etc etc. And while I cannot fault their activism and bravery in uniting black and white textile workers against the bosses and the police, there's very little in the way of what made them tick. What made them human. It's just party political propaganda at best (although understandable giving the context).
The authors conspiracy theory about it being a deliberate attempt to stifle the growth of the Communist Workers Party by removing some of the genuinely committed members (and future leaders) is an interesting one, considering what we now know about the conflict in this country. However, with the CWP never numbering more than (probably) 1000 members (in a country of 225.1 million in 1979), I'm not convinced that the state saw them as much of a potential threat.
Ultimately, it's hard to come away with any other thought that the marchers were maybe a tad naive to think that, by announcing that a march would be held under the banner "Death to the Klan", there would not be anything of this ilk. With the Klan being heavily infiltrated and even members taking up important positions in the political establishment, it was only going to end up bloody.
In recent years, with a Truth and Reconciliation style committee (not endorsed by the mayor or the majority of the council of Greensboro) report citing that both sides engaged in antagonising one another in the run up to the march, but that the Klan went there with the intention of murder, more information has become available. And it's fascinating to see the ambivalence some of America seem to have towards the event, because the murdered were Communists.
Very much a time capsule, this book documents a time when radical left wing politics was untouched by neoliberalism and the onslaught of Reaganomics. When people genuinely believed that the revolution wasn't far off and, as described in the book, a time when Robert Mugabe was seen as an inspiring hero.
Paul C. Bermanzohn,Sally A. Bermanzohn The True Story of the Greensboro Massacre Cesar Cauce Publishers and Distributors ISBN-13: 978-0866860000
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
February 22, 2018
MI5 Sought To Have Haughey Assassinated
Writing last month Mick Hall discussed allegations that MI5 sought to have the UVF target
Charles Haughey.
MI5 attempted to manipulate the Ulster Volunteer Force into killing Charlie Haughey, Taoiseach (PM) of Ireland, who served three terms in office.
More shocking revelations from the Irish Archives under the thirty year rule, a letter from the protestant paramilitary group the UVF to Charles Haughey has emerged in which they warned him the British security service, MI5, all but asked them to murder him in 1985 when he was leader of the opposition in the Irish parliament.
It has long been common knowledge the British intelligence agencies within Ireland colluded with protestant paramilitary groups like the UVF, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), the military wing of the UDA, along with their informers within the IRA to commit crimes up to and including murder.
But ordering the assassination of a senior southern politician, a man who served three terms as the Irish Taoiseach, (Prime Minister) is completely shocking and demonstrates just how murderous, vengeful and beyond political control the British spooks were within Ireland.
When the request from the British crown forces to the UVF to murder Haughey was made he was a serving member of the Irish parliament Dáil Éireann having been first elected in 1957 and returned as a TD (MP) in every general election until he retired in 1992.
I see no reason to doubt the UVF letter is genuine. It would have passed through many hands before it was placed in the Irish governmental archive and even more I would imagine before it was released under the 30 year ruling. That the British government have not challenged its authenticity as you might expect given murdering senior politicians from a friendly state is even under British law a crime and hopefully not an everyday occurrence.
Haughey may well have received the black spot after his enemies in the Irish opposition fed the British security services false information about his role in the arms crises when he and other senior members of the Jack Lynch government were accused of plotting to smuggle arms to the Provos in the early days of the troubles. Their first trial collapsed and following a second trial Haughey and his co defendants were cleared.
The only people to come out of this sorry tale with any honour were an Irish army officer named James Kelly whose career was ruined, and John Kelly (no relation), a founder member and a leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army who refused to recognise the court.
Whatever the truth about Haughey's involvement in this failed escapade it certainly didn't warrant a death sentence. The fact the British state agencies targeted him via their loyalist proxy tells one a great deal about what lurks below the British security services thin veneer of civilized behavior. We should never forget the British security services were plotting murder and mayhem against a leading politician from friendly state.
The letter also reveals it was involved in colluding with its loyalist Proxy in non judicial killings against its own citizens as the North of Ireland was back then and still is sadly part of the disunited kingdom.
More on this here:
The UVF letter to Haughey
The Irish archives may be dusty but opening them lets in light By Ann Marie Hourihane
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
MI5 attempted to manipulate the Ulster Volunteer Force into killing Charlie Haughey, Taoiseach (PM) of Ireland, who served three terms in office.
More shocking revelations from the Irish Archives under the thirty year rule, a letter from the protestant paramilitary group the UVF to Charles Haughey has emerged in which they warned him the British security service, MI5, all but asked them to murder him in 1985 when he was leader of the opposition in the Irish parliament.
It has long been common knowledge the British intelligence agencies within Ireland colluded with protestant paramilitary groups like the UVF, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), the military wing of the UDA, along with their informers within the IRA to commit crimes up to and including murder.
But ordering the assassination of a senior southern politician, a man who served three terms as the Irish Taoiseach, (Prime Minister) is completely shocking and demonstrates just how murderous, vengeful and beyond political control the British spooks were within Ireland.
When the request from the British crown forces to the UVF to murder Haughey was made he was a serving member of the Irish parliament Dáil Éireann having been first elected in 1957 and returned as a TD (MP) in every general election until he retired in 1992.
I see no reason to doubt the UVF letter is genuine. It would have passed through many hands before it was placed in the Irish governmental archive and even more I would imagine before it was released under the 30 year ruling. That the British government have not challenged its authenticity as you might expect given murdering senior politicians from a friendly state is even under British law a crime and hopefully not an everyday occurrence.
Haughey may well have received the black spot after his enemies in the Irish opposition fed the British security services false information about his role in the arms crises when he and other senior members of the Jack Lynch government were accused of plotting to smuggle arms to the Provos in the early days of the troubles. Their first trial collapsed and following a second trial Haughey and his co defendants were cleared.
The only people to come out of this sorry tale with any honour were an Irish army officer named James Kelly whose career was ruined, and John Kelly (no relation), a founder member and a leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army who refused to recognise the court.
Whatever the truth about Haughey's involvement in this failed escapade it certainly didn't warrant a death sentence. The fact the British state agencies targeted him via their loyalist proxy tells one a great deal about what lurks below the British security services thin veneer of civilized behavior. We should never forget the British security services were plotting murder and mayhem against a leading politician from friendly state.
The letter also reveals it was involved in colluding with its loyalist Proxy in non judicial killings against its own citizens as the North of Ireland was back then and still is sadly part of the disunited kingdom.
The UVF letter to Haughey
The Irish archives may be dusty but opening them lets in light By Ann Marie Hourihane
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Commandant Matt Fitzpatrick – A Beacon Of Resistance
The 1916 Societies report on a recent commemorative event.
On Sunday 11th February, the Matt Fitzpatrick, 1916 Society, Newtownbutler, organised a commemoration for their namesake Matt Fitzpatrick at St. Patricks Graveyard, Drumalee, Belturbet, Co. Cavan. Which was followed by a talk on the life and times of Commandant Matt Fitzpatrick. The event was chaired by Eamon McPhilips and the main speech was from former Republican Prisoner Colm Lynagh;
“A chairde agus a chomráidithe dhíl, is mór an onóir domhsa cuireadh a fháill le labhairt anseo inniu ag uaigh an laoch crógach gníomhach, Ceannfort Matt Fitzpatrick, a thug a raibh aige ar son saoirse na hÉireann agus in éadan an cos ar bolg galda a mhaireann sa tír seo go dtí an lá atá inniu ann.”
“Comrades it is a great privilege to be invited here to speak at the grave of Commandant Matt Fitzpatrick. A member of the Irish Republican Army, who gave his life in defence of his country, of freedom and the Irish Republic as declared in 1916. To which we give our allegiance. Matt Fitzpatrick was just 25 years old when he was cut down by British forces not far from here at Clones Railway Station on the 11 February 1922. However short the life of Matt Fitzpatrick, it was not uneventful. In a few short years from first Volunteering in the Republican Army, Matt had led the fight for freedom in Monaghan and Fermanagh. Taking part many successful operations against the might of the British Empire. His courage and leadership led to his rising through the ranks of Óglaigh na hÉireann, eventually becoming Officer in Command or Commandant. It is not possible here to detail the many heroic actions and bravery of Matt Fitzpatrick. His active service included heavy close quarter and fatal combat with the enemy attacking and defeating numerically superior forces. Capturing of Crossley tenders, dangerous reprisal arrests of armed unionists and raids for arms. Indeed in one such action, Matt was shot and wounded and eventually captured. Only to stage a daring escape from military custody and return to a life on the run and endless self-sacrifice.”
“Matt Fitzpatrick was not always a guerilla leader. Born into a loving family in Kilgarrow, Newtownbutler, he no doubt expected and hoped for a long, happy and peaceful life in the company of his family. Unfortunately, Matt Fitzpatrick did not live in a peaceful country. He lived in an Ireland ravaged by British Imperialism where the land, wealth and resources of the country had been seized by the armed force of a foreign power. Overturning the collective ownership of land and resources, as had been the custom in Ireland for millennia. To be replaced by landlordism and eventually capitalism resulting in the enforced impoverishment of Ireland for the benefit and enrichment of the British ruling class. He lived in a land that had experienced forced plantation, sectarian administration and privilege. A land that had witnessed the deliberate starvation of millions, the expulsion of millions more and the denial of our political, civil and cultural rights. Although, he also lived in an Ireland that had a rich tradition of resistance and armed resistance. He came from a tradition which understood that imperialism could not be reformed into something palatable. Rather it had to be opposed with equal force to that which imposed it.”
“Like his comrade James Connolly who hailed from the neighbouring village of Newbliss, he had no doubt learned of Tone, of the United Irishmen and their vision of an Irish republic uniting Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter free from British manipulation and deliberate division. Matt Fitzpatrick as a Volunteer in the Irish Republican Army swore allegiance to the Irish Republic as proclaimed in Easter 1916 based on belief in the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. This declaration is based on a clear understanding of British imperialism as a force driven by the desire to plunder the wealth and resources of the Irish people and a clear understanding that only economic, as well as political freedom, can restore Irish sovereignty.”
“The question is, what did the signatories who proclaimed the Republic so bravely at Easter week mean by economic freedom and the right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland?. Pearse himself in his last writings before his death wrote that decision on which form of government a country chooses must rest with the People and be exercised through free elections but he said that it makes as much sense for working people to vote for capitalism as it does to vote for people who only get up on Tuesdays! Connolly went further in defining economic freedom and his writings have proven prophetic He said that If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She will rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.”
“Matt Fitzpatrick must have hoped, as accepted the hand over by the British Army to the IRA at Clones in the December before his death, that this would lead to full freedom. It is possible that he may have believed Collins when he claimed that the treaty with Britain, surrendering the six counties and accepting dominion status, would be a stepping stone to the eventual Irish Republic. History has shown it did not; the continued partition, the denial of national democracy, the forced acceptance of the sectarian northern state and its sectarian institutions at Stormont, the forced acceptance of the right of Britain to rule Ireland. The terrible consequences of its misrule proven daily. Imperialism still controls us in the north by direct military intervention and with the help of its lackeys who accept the cruelty of British imposed austerity with barely a whimper. As in the South, as Connolly predicted, through her capitalist, through her landlords, through her financiers: in Ireland today while working people struggle to survive, struggle to find a job, struggle to feed their families, struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Just as during the great hunger when the grain ships left Ireland to be sold for profit while Ireland starved, the vast resources of the country are stolen by multinational companies and foreign capital to be exported into the greedy hands of the ‘One Percent’.”
“The pretense by some that the conditions now exist for democratic progression to Irish sovereignty, through the ‘temporary’ acceptance of British rule, is farcical. Just as the claims of the ‘Redmondite Home-Rulers’ who claimed that Britain would afford Ireland freedom if we were to spill our blood at Flanders or the Somme for King and Country. Just like the claim that the treaty Matt Fitzpatrick was told in 1921 would be a stepping stone to freedom, is farcical. As Republicans, we know that no amount of compromise with the imperial master can ever deliver freedom. Let us have no doubt that Britains interest in Ireland remains the same as those that brought them here, that is, the material enrichment of itself and specifically its ruling class.”
“Comrades, these same apologists for imperialism, will tell you that the six counties are a financial burden to Britain, that Britain wants to leave! But don’t be fooled this is the latest version of the old line developed by imperialism to disguise its shameful crimes characterising its victims as ‘the white man’s burden’. Britain not only maintains strategic interests in Ireland but also holds the six counties as a reserve of cheap labour essential to the maintenance of its economic system by deliberately stopping the development of the Irish economy while London thrives. The truth is in fact that Britain is Ireland’s Burden. These same forces and deceivers now, along with appeasement of our imperial masters, now sell the false truth of deliverance from Britain through the support of the European Union. We have witnessed in our time the Imperial intent of Europe as it represented the interest of banks, gangster capitalists and international profiteers against the Irish people on the threat of starvation. The south is still under the cosh of the European Troika which foisted the ordinary people of the 26 counties with a debt not of our making of billions in order to save their own economies.”
“Let us not throw off one imperial ruler only to surrender to another. Just as subservience to Britain cannot deliver us freedom, neither can an institution built and designed to serve the interest of the German, French and other ruling classes ever bring us freedom. As Irish Republicans we must assert our right to rule our own country in our own interests without malign interference from Britain, Europe or anywhere else. We must direct our action to any efforts that will deliver the Republic of 1916. A Republic where all of the children are cherished equally, where the resources and the wealth are used for the benefit of all not the few. Let us here at the grave of our fallen comrade rededicate ourselves to the cause of Irish freedom and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic.”
“Ar dheis Connolly agus Mac Piaras go raibh tú a Chean
On Sunday 11th February, the Matt Fitzpatrick, 1916 Society, Newtownbutler, organised a commemoration for their namesake Matt Fitzpatrick at St. Patricks Graveyard, Drumalee, Belturbet, Co. Cavan. Which was followed by a talk on the life and times of Commandant Matt Fitzpatrick. The event was chaired by Eamon McPhilips and the main speech was from former Republican Prisoner Colm Lynagh;
“A chairde agus a chomráidithe dhíl, is mór an onóir domhsa cuireadh a fháill le labhairt anseo inniu ag uaigh an laoch crógach gníomhach, Ceannfort Matt Fitzpatrick, a thug a raibh aige ar son saoirse na hÉireann agus in éadan an cos ar bolg galda a mhaireann sa tír seo go dtí an lá atá inniu ann.”
“Comrades it is a great privilege to be invited here to speak at the grave of Commandant Matt Fitzpatrick. A member of the Irish Republican Army, who gave his life in defence of his country, of freedom and the Irish Republic as declared in 1916. To which we give our allegiance. Matt Fitzpatrick was just 25 years old when he was cut down by British forces not far from here at Clones Railway Station on the 11 February 1922. However short the life of Matt Fitzpatrick, it was not uneventful. In a few short years from first Volunteering in the Republican Army, Matt had led the fight for freedom in Monaghan and Fermanagh. Taking part many successful operations against the might of the British Empire. His courage and leadership led to his rising through the ranks of Óglaigh na hÉireann, eventually becoming Officer in Command or Commandant. It is not possible here to detail the many heroic actions and bravery of Matt Fitzpatrick. His active service included heavy close quarter and fatal combat with the enemy attacking and defeating numerically superior forces. Capturing of Crossley tenders, dangerous reprisal arrests of armed unionists and raids for arms. Indeed in one such action, Matt was shot and wounded and eventually captured. Only to stage a daring escape from military custody and return to a life on the run and endless self-sacrifice.”
“Matt Fitzpatrick was not always a guerilla leader. Born into a loving family in Kilgarrow, Newtownbutler, he no doubt expected and hoped for a long, happy and peaceful life in the company of his family. Unfortunately, Matt Fitzpatrick did not live in a peaceful country. He lived in an Ireland ravaged by British Imperialism where the land, wealth and resources of the country had been seized by the armed force of a foreign power. Overturning the collective ownership of land and resources, as had been the custom in Ireland for millennia. To be replaced by landlordism and eventually capitalism resulting in the enforced impoverishment of Ireland for the benefit and enrichment of the British ruling class. He lived in a land that had experienced forced plantation, sectarian administration and privilege. A land that had witnessed the deliberate starvation of millions, the expulsion of millions more and the denial of our political, civil and cultural rights. Although, he also lived in an Ireland that had a rich tradition of resistance and armed resistance. He came from a tradition which understood that imperialism could not be reformed into something palatable. Rather it had to be opposed with equal force to that which imposed it.”
“Like his comrade James Connolly who hailed from the neighbouring village of Newbliss, he had no doubt learned of Tone, of the United Irishmen and their vision of an Irish republic uniting Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter free from British manipulation and deliberate division. Matt Fitzpatrick as a Volunteer in the Irish Republican Army swore allegiance to the Irish Republic as proclaimed in Easter 1916 based on belief in the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. This declaration is based on a clear understanding of British imperialism as a force driven by the desire to plunder the wealth and resources of the Irish people and a clear understanding that only economic, as well as political freedom, can restore Irish sovereignty.”
“The question is, what did the signatories who proclaimed the Republic so bravely at Easter week mean by economic freedom and the right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland?. Pearse himself in his last writings before his death wrote that decision on which form of government a country chooses must rest with the People and be exercised through free elections but he said that it makes as much sense for working people to vote for capitalism as it does to vote for people who only get up on Tuesdays! Connolly went further in defining economic freedom and his writings have proven prophetic He said that If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She will rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.”
“Matt Fitzpatrick must have hoped, as accepted the hand over by the British Army to the IRA at Clones in the December before his death, that this would lead to full freedom. It is possible that he may have believed Collins when he claimed that the treaty with Britain, surrendering the six counties and accepting dominion status, would be a stepping stone to the eventual Irish Republic. History has shown it did not; the continued partition, the denial of national democracy, the forced acceptance of the sectarian northern state and its sectarian institutions at Stormont, the forced acceptance of the right of Britain to rule Ireland. The terrible consequences of its misrule proven daily. Imperialism still controls us in the north by direct military intervention and with the help of its lackeys who accept the cruelty of British imposed austerity with barely a whimper. As in the South, as Connolly predicted, through her capitalist, through her landlords, through her financiers: in Ireland today while working people struggle to survive, struggle to find a job, struggle to feed their families, struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Just as during the great hunger when the grain ships left Ireland to be sold for profit while Ireland starved, the vast resources of the country are stolen by multinational companies and foreign capital to be exported into the greedy hands of the ‘One Percent’.”
“The pretense by some that the conditions now exist for democratic progression to Irish sovereignty, through the ‘temporary’ acceptance of British rule, is farcical. Just as the claims of the ‘Redmondite Home-Rulers’ who claimed that Britain would afford Ireland freedom if we were to spill our blood at Flanders or the Somme for King and Country. Just like the claim that the treaty Matt Fitzpatrick was told in 1921 would be a stepping stone to freedom, is farcical. As Republicans, we know that no amount of compromise with the imperial master can ever deliver freedom. Let us have no doubt that Britains interest in Ireland remains the same as those that brought them here, that is, the material enrichment of itself and specifically its ruling class.”
“Comrades, these same apologists for imperialism, will tell you that the six counties are a financial burden to Britain, that Britain wants to leave! But don’t be fooled this is the latest version of the old line developed by imperialism to disguise its shameful crimes characterising its victims as ‘the white man’s burden’. Britain not only maintains strategic interests in Ireland but also holds the six counties as a reserve of cheap labour essential to the maintenance of its economic system by deliberately stopping the development of the Irish economy while London thrives. The truth is in fact that Britain is Ireland’s Burden. These same forces and deceivers now, along with appeasement of our imperial masters, now sell the false truth of deliverance from Britain through the support of the European Union. We have witnessed in our time the Imperial intent of Europe as it represented the interest of banks, gangster capitalists and international profiteers against the Irish people on the threat of starvation. The south is still under the cosh of the European Troika which foisted the ordinary people of the 26 counties with a debt not of our making of billions in order to save their own economies.”
“Let us not throw off one imperial ruler only to surrender to another. Just as subservience to Britain cannot deliver us freedom, neither can an institution built and designed to serve the interest of the German, French and other ruling classes ever bring us freedom. As Irish Republicans we must assert our right to rule our own country in our own interests without malign interference from Britain, Europe or anywhere else. We must direct our action to any efforts that will deliver the Republic of 1916. A Republic where all of the children are cherished equally, where the resources and the wealth are used for the benefit of all not the few. Let us here at the grave of our fallen comrade rededicate ourselves to the cause of Irish freedom and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic.”
“Ar dheis Connolly agus Mac Piaras go raibh tú a Chean
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.
