Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1160
February 21, 2018
May Your Home Be Destroyed
The Uri Avnery Column discusses Mahmoud Abbas.
Abu Mazen, it transpired, was the Fatah leader in charge of Israeli matters.
My First impression of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) was that he was the exact opposite of Arafat. He looked like a schoolmaster.
Arafat was an outgoing type, who liked to embrace and kiss people and to establish close relations from the outset. Abu Mazen was much more reserved and withdrawn. Yet I liked his personality.
Even then, more than 35 years ago, he belonged to the first rank of the Fatah and PLO leadership, side by side with people like Abu Jihad (who was killed by Israel), Abu Iyad (who was killed by Palestinian extremists), Farouk Kaddoumi (who objected to Oslo and was excluded).
I met with Abu Mazen every time I visited Arafat in Tunis. When I heard that he was originally from Safed, the mixed Arab-Jewish town in northern Palestine, this was an additional bond. Safed was the second home of my wife, Rachel, who, as a child, went there every summer. Her father, a children's physician, practiced there in the summers, too. Abu Mazen could not remember whether he was ever treated by him as a child, before his family had to flee in 1948.
After the assassination of Arafat (as I believe, without proof), Abu Mazen assumed the leadership of both Fatah (the party) and the PLO (the semi-government). He is no second Arafat - he has neither the heroic stature nor the international status of the Founder. But he was accepted by all.
As the leader of a small and weak people, faced with a much stronger adversary, Arafat believed that the Palestinians must use all the few instruments at their disposal: organization, diplomacy, violence, whatever. But after the Yom Kippur war, he started on the path to Oslo. As he explained to me: "I saw that after an initial huge victory of surprise, the Arabs lost the war. I realized then that there was no way to recover our country by war."
I think that Abu Mazen did not believe in violence to start with. It is not in his nature. He believes in the great Arab weapon: patience.
Arabs have a very different concept of time from Jewish Israelis - we are impatient, we need instant gratification. Our political history is short, our state came into being just 70 years ago, we have no patience whatsoever.
Arabs have a long, unbroken history, with many ups and downs. They are used to waiting. Patience is a mighty instrument.
I believe that faced with the might of Israel, that is the real doctrine of Abu Mazen - wait patiently until conditions change, let Israel exhaust itself. In the meantime, hold on, cling to the soil, don't give up an inch, what the Arabs call "Sumud". It may take one, two, three generations, but in the end we shall win.
This may not be a popular strategy, not a glorious one, but it may prove effective over time.
This, at least, is my conjecture. Nobody told me so.
But Even a person like Abu Mazen may lose patience from time to time.
His by now famous Yekhreb Beitak speech was such a moment.
Yekhreb Beitak means, literally, "may your house be destroyed". In the vast arsenal of Arab curses, it is one of the mildest. It could be rendered as "Goddamn". (In modern Hebrew, we woefully lack curses, so Hebrew-speaking Israelis have to borrow their curses from Arabic and Russian.)
By all standards, Donald Trump can drive anybody mad. But for Palestinians, he deserves far more extreme curses.
For many decades now, the United States has posed as the impartial arbiter between Zionist Israelis and Arabs. President after president has presented Peace Plans and organized Peace Initiatives, but nothing ever came of them. (Both the Egyptian-Israeli peace initiative and the Oslo agreement were hatched behind the back of the Americans.)
The reason is quite simple: the US has millions of Jewish voters, nearly all of whom are ardent Zionists. After doing nothing at all to save the European Jews during the Holocaust, they are torn by remorse. Arab voters are indifferent.
Therefore, all American presidents, except Dwight Eisenhower (who was so popular that he didn't need the Jewish vote), have been strong supporters of Israel. Since all Israeli governments have rejected the return of the occupied territories, and especially East Jerusalem, American impartiality was a sham.
But Trump is something special. He has appointed an ardent Jewish right-wing Zionist as ambassador to Israel. He has appointed his Jewish son-in-law and some other Zionists as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians. And in the end he has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced that he is going to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv there.
If he had been speaking about "West Jerusalem", the storm would have been mild. In practice, everybody agrees with West Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. But Trump spoke about Greater Jerusalem, only hinting that in some indefinite future, final borders may be drawn.
It is East Jerusalem, of course, which is the real battlefield. The Israeli government claims it as the birthplace of the Jewish religion, the location of the First and Second Jewish Temples and of the Western Wall (which was a part of the Temple's supporting wall, but not of the temple itself).
Speaking of recognizing "Jerusalem" as part of the Jewish State was a heavy blow at the most profound Arab religious and national beliefs.
When the United Nations drew up the partition plan of 1947, it provided for a Jewish state and an Arab state, but conferred on Jerusalem the status of a separate unit. That was unacceptable to both sides.
Immediately after the 1948 war, when my friends (both Jews and Arabs) and I drew up the first peace plan based on the principle of "Two States for Two peoples", we called for a "United Jerusalem, Capital of the Two States". This is still the only viable solution.
The late Faisal Husseini, the unchallenged leader of the population of East Jerusalem, accepted this principle. There are many photos of us two standing together at demonstrations under this slogan. Abu Mazen accepts it, too.
So What did Abu Mazen say in his long speech at the Palestinian parliament, apart from the half-joking curse that made the headlines?
Actually, there was nothing new. He confirmed the terms of the "Arab peace plan", to which I, too, agree wholeheartedly.
He completely rejected the so-called "one-state solution", to which some extreme left-wingers subscribe now out of sheer despair. This would mean in practice a Jewish-dominated apartheid state.
He put an end to all the sham slogans whirling around: the notion that the US could be a mediator, the fiction that there is a "peace process" going on, the idea that the Oslo agreement is still alive and kicking.
The resolutions of the meeting - the PLO Central Council, which is the Palestinian parliament - finally reject the notion that the US could possibly act as an impartial mediator.
The Council decided to "suspend recognition of Israel", which is a rather empty gesture. But it also issued a call "to stop security coordination (with Israel) in all its forms", which is a much more serious matter. I doubt whether Abu Mazen can do this.
It specifically mentions the girl Ahed Tamimi, who had slapped an Israeli army officer on camera, and whom I have called the Palestinian Jean d'Arc.
It called for a boycott of the products of the settlements - a boycott which Gush Shalom, the peace movement to which I belong, initiated in 1998. But it also called for support of the BDS movement, which advocates a boycott of everything Israeli.
For lack of anything better, it calls for more diplomatic action in the UN, the International Criminal Court and other international institutions.
Nothing really very new, but a determination to resist.
Abu Mazen has no deputy. Like many political leaders everywhere, he detests the idea of an heir.
He is now 82 years old, but still younger than I. It seems that - like me - he has decided to live forever.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Abu Mazen, it transpired, was the Fatah leader in charge of Israeli matters.
My First impression of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) was that he was the exact opposite of Arafat. He looked like a schoolmaster.
Arafat was an outgoing type, who liked to embrace and kiss people and to establish close relations from the outset. Abu Mazen was much more reserved and withdrawn. Yet I liked his personality.
Even then, more than 35 years ago, he belonged to the first rank of the Fatah and PLO leadership, side by side with people like Abu Jihad (who was killed by Israel), Abu Iyad (who was killed by Palestinian extremists), Farouk Kaddoumi (who objected to Oslo and was excluded).
I met with Abu Mazen every time I visited Arafat in Tunis. When I heard that he was originally from Safed, the mixed Arab-Jewish town in northern Palestine, this was an additional bond. Safed was the second home of my wife, Rachel, who, as a child, went there every summer. Her father, a children's physician, practiced there in the summers, too. Abu Mazen could not remember whether he was ever treated by him as a child, before his family had to flee in 1948.
After the assassination of Arafat (as I believe, without proof), Abu Mazen assumed the leadership of both Fatah (the party) and the PLO (the semi-government). He is no second Arafat - he has neither the heroic stature nor the international status of the Founder. But he was accepted by all.
As the leader of a small and weak people, faced with a much stronger adversary, Arafat believed that the Palestinians must use all the few instruments at their disposal: organization, diplomacy, violence, whatever. But after the Yom Kippur war, he started on the path to Oslo. As he explained to me: "I saw that after an initial huge victory of surprise, the Arabs lost the war. I realized then that there was no way to recover our country by war."
I think that Abu Mazen did not believe in violence to start with. It is not in his nature. He believes in the great Arab weapon: patience.
Arabs have a very different concept of time from Jewish Israelis - we are impatient, we need instant gratification. Our political history is short, our state came into being just 70 years ago, we have no patience whatsoever.
Arabs have a long, unbroken history, with many ups and downs. They are used to waiting. Patience is a mighty instrument.
I believe that faced with the might of Israel, that is the real doctrine of Abu Mazen - wait patiently until conditions change, let Israel exhaust itself. In the meantime, hold on, cling to the soil, don't give up an inch, what the Arabs call "Sumud". It may take one, two, three generations, but in the end we shall win.
This may not be a popular strategy, not a glorious one, but it may prove effective over time.
This, at least, is my conjecture. Nobody told me so.
But Even a person like Abu Mazen may lose patience from time to time.
His by now famous Yekhreb Beitak speech was such a moment.
Yekhreb Beitak means, literally, "may your house be destroyed". In the vast arsenal of Arab curses, it is one of the mildest. It could be rendered as "Goddamn". (In modern Hebrew, we woefully lack curses, so Hebrew-speaking Israelis have to borrow their curses from Arabic and Russian.)
By all standards, Donald Trump can drive anybody mad. But for Palestinians, he deserves far more extreme curses.
For many decades now, the United States has posed as the impartial arbiter between Zionist Israelis and Arabs. President after president has presented Peace Plans and organized Peace Initiatives, but nothing ever came of them. (Both the Egyptian-Israeli peace initiative and the Oslo agreement were hatched behind the back of the Americans.)
The reason is quite simple: the US has millions of Jewish voters, nearly all of whom are ardent Zionists. After doing nothing at all to save the European Jews during the Holocaust, they are torn by remorse. Arab voters are indifferent.
Therefore, all American presidents, except Dwight Eisenhower (who was so popular that he didn't need the Jewish vote), have been strong supporters of Israel. Since all Israeli governments have rejected the return of the occupied territories, and especially East Jerusalem, American impartiality was a sham.
But Trump is something special. He has appointed an ardent Jewish right-wing Zionist as ambassador to Israel. He has appointed his Jewish son-in-law and some other Zionists as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians. And in the end he has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced that he is going to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv there.
If he had been speaking about "West Jerusalem", the storm would have been mild. In practice, everybody agrees with West Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. But Trump spoke about Greater Jerusalem, only hinting that in some indefinite future, final borders may be drawn.
It is East Jerusalem, of course, which is the real battlefield. The Israeli government claims it as the birthplace of the Jewish religion, the location of the First and Second Jewish Temples and of the Western Wall (which was a part of the Temple's supporting wall, but not of the temple itself).
Speaking of recognizing "Jerusalem" as part of the Jewish State was a heavy blow at the most profound Arab religious and national beliefs.
When the United Nations drew up the partition plan of 1947, it provided for a Jewish state and an Arab state, but conferred on Jerusalem the status of a separate unit. That was unacceptable to both sides.
Immediately after the 1948 war, when my friends (both Jews and Arabs) and I drew up the first peace plan based on the principle of "Two States for Two peoples", we called for a "United Jerusalem, Capital of the Two States". This is still the only viable solution.
The late Faisal Husseini, the unchallenged leader of the population of East Jerusalem, accepted this principle. There are many photos of us two standing together at demonstrations under this slogan. Abu Mazen accepts it, too.
So What did Abu Mazen say in his long speech at the Palestinian parliament, apart from the half-joking curse that made the headlines?
Actually, there was nothing new. He confirmed the terms of the "Arab peace plan", to which I, too, agree wholeheartedly.
He completely rejected the so-called "one-state solution", to which some extreme left-wingers subscribe now out of sheer despair. This would mean in practice a Jewish-dominated apartheid state.
He put an end to all the sham slogans whirling around: the notion that the US could be a mediator, the fiction that there is a "peace process" going on, the idea that the Oslo agreement is still alive and kicking.
The resolutions of the meeting - the PLO Central Council, which is the Palestinian parliament - finally reject the notion that the US could possibly act as an impartial mediator.
The Council decided to "suspend recognition of Israel", which is a rather empty gesture. But it also issued a call "to stop security coordination (with Israel) in all its forms", which is a much more serious matter. I doubt whether Abu Mazen can do this.
It specifically mentions the girl Ahed Tamimi, who had slapped an Israeli army officer on camera, and whom I have called the Palestinian Jean d'Arc.
It called for a boycott of the products of the settlements - a boycott which Gush Shalom, the peace movement to which I belong, initiated in 1998. But it also called for support of the BDS movement, which advocates a boycott of everything Israeli.
For lack of anything better, it calls for more diplomatic action in the UN, the International Criminal Court and other international institutions.
Nothing really very new, but a determination to resist.
Abu Mazen has no deputy. Like many political leaders everywhere, he detests the idea of an heir.
He is now 82 years old, but still younger than I. It seems that - like me - he has decided to live forever.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Where Were You When?
Sean Mallory has few kind words for Arleen Foster.
Mary Lou, having fought a somewhat at times bitter and brutal election campaign, just as Foster did, was radiant with delight at being elected on the second count and was graciously embraced and congratulated by one Northern SF leader, Mrs O’Neill.
Adams after many decades at the helm of a political movement that achieved not one of its original political objectives bowed out on a high to the tumultuous roar of the crowd in the RDS, or was that the crowd in the Aviva as Keith Earls went over the end line, who knows!
Unlike many of those who disagreed with him during his tenure, the term ‘retiring’ had a completely different concept back then than when it was used on that fateful weekend. But nonetheless off he trotted in to the wilderness of Donegal to write his memoirs, tripping over a few well-hidden truths poking out of the ground on his journey.....Truths composed mainly of decomposing human remains! But, another cure for insomnia is hard to turn down!
No, not for that did Theresa and Leo turn their backs on the international arena and sojourn to NI. No indeed, for ‘norn iron’ being without heads of state, they provided the substitutes required and arrived to announce the arranged and often quite strained and contentious ‘friendly’ football match between the two O’Neills that will take place in the Aviva stadium in Dublin, sometime later in the year, in October or was it November?
A match that quickly prompted one Gary McAllister, Press Officer and Chairman of the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, to inform all fans that wish to travel to the game that they are ambassadors for our ‘wee country someday to be free of Taigs’ and should behave as expected when visiting the capital city of that repulsive satellite of Rome.
Well, if Theresa and Leo had, and judging on their respective Brexit successes instead there would not doubt have be a few own goals!
No not for that either, disconsolately they both made the extremely banal announcement that the talks to restore Foster and the DUP to the anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, bigoted and unethical roles they held before were still on-going. Mary Lou, having just got rid of one political bigot, was taking her time to lie down with the dogs of the DUP. Their fleas being particularly nasty.
While the world's press, well the Belfast Telegraph at least, I think the world's press were there for I’m nearly sure I saw a press photographer or was that a groundsman from Hillsborough Castle taking selfies?
Anyway as they stood waiting on any titbits that should fall from the international negotiating table it became clear that Theresa who is being held to ransom by the DUP at Westminster was at odds with the DUP's ‘no surrender’ attitude. A recently resurrected throwback espoused in the House of Commons by Ian Paisley junior in reference to Britain’s capitulating stand against the EU, in the current Brexit negotiations. A statement heralding back to the 1600s where Protestant domination of the indigenous peoples first raised its sectarian and racist head.
Foster, taking time out from the ‘talks’ and unbeknown to the other patrons involved, informed the worlds press, all two of them including the grounds man, and in a scowling face too or is that her natural look, that in towing the line of her party faithful and aware of Nigel's snarling from the sidelines, made clear that there would only be an Irish Language Act over her dead body.
Still with the scowling face of that statement, she went on to conclude that the impasse this has created has led to the collapse of the talks which is Sinn Féin’s fault.
A view seconded by her right hand negotiator Simon Hamilton who went on to humiliate and berate the British Prime Minster Theresa May for having the audacity to visit this part of the UK!
Theresa, sensing failure through failing to copper-fasten any agreement between the DUP and Sinn Féin, and angry for being dragged to this remaining corner of the Empire on false pretences put on a positive demeanour and just as she does with the EU negotiations, quickly bid a hastily retreat back to Westminster and away from the Neanderthals of the DUP....much to relief of Hamilton!
Or so she thought until she discovered them sitting in her No 10 living room demanding more than the one billion and calling for a return of direct rule.
Having initially not come here to emulate or epitomise her idol, Margaret Thatcher, and vigorously stamp her authority on the talks process and ignoring Ian Junior's call to arms, she surrendered but has yet to announce what she capitulated to them.
Not one to rock the boat, Leo on the other hand, casually strolled back to Dublin, not on a horse mind you, to continue the vitally important government policy of checking on his popularity point's in the polls.
On hearing of the collapse of the talks Leo, agitated at being distracted from his vitally important government policy began to implement the process of Joint Rule as outlined under the 1998 Bilateral British-Irish Agreement separate from the Good Friday Agreement. Something the DUP no doubt will have ‘persuaded’ Theresa not to accept under any circumstances.
And so as Mary Lou and Arlene continue to land blows and recriminations abound, we can rest assured that Captain Foster Pugwash and her politically stale crew of sectarian miscreants attempt to keep the Black Pig afloat, that is ‘norn iron’, as she continues to bop upon stormy and turbulent Brexit seas ahead, we can thank our lucky stars that Mary Lou, never having fired a shot, has definitely put her guns away when she declared at the end of her inauguration speech, Tiocfaidh ár lá.
As for Arlene's future, a political leader without mandate or public office, “.......'Cause I'm leavin' on a jet plane, Don't know when I'll be back again, Oh babe, I hate to go....”
John Denver, Leaving On a Jet Plane
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
Mary Lou, having fought a somewhat at times bitter and brutal election campaign, just as Foster did, was radiant with delight at being elected on the second count and was graciously embraced and congratulated by one Northern SF leader, Mrs O’Neill.
Adams after many decades at the helm of a political movement that achieved not one of its original political objectives bowed out on a high to the tumultuous roar of the crowd in the RDS, or was that the crowd in the Aviva as Keith Earls went over the end line, who knows!
Unlike many of those who disagreed with him during his tenure, the term ‘retiring’ had a completely different concept back then than when it was used on that fateful weekend. But nonetheless off he trotted in to the wilderness of Donegal to write his memoirs, tripping over a few well-hidden truths poking out of the ground on his journey.....Truths composed mainly of decomposing human remains! But, another cure for insomnia is hard to turn down!
No, not for that did Theresa and Leo turn their backs on the international arena and sojourn to NI. No indeed, for ‘norn iron’ being without heads of state, they provided the substitutes required and arrived to announce the arranged and often quite strained and contentious ‘friendly’ football match between the two O’Neills that will take place in the Aviva stadium in Dublin, sometime later in the year, in October or was it November?
A match that quickly prompted one Gary McAllister, Press Officer and Chairman of the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, to inform all fans that wish to travel to the game that they are ambassadors for our ‘wee country someday to be free of Taigs’ and should behave as expected when visiting the capital city of that repulsive satellite of Rome.
Well, if Theresa and Leo had, and judging on their respective Brexit successes instead there would not doubt have be a few own goals!
No not for that either, disconsolately they both made the extremely banal announcement that the talks to restore Foster and the DUP to the anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, bigoted and unethical roles they held before were still on-going. Mary Lou, having just got rid of one political bigot, was taking her time to lie down with the dogs of the DUP. Their fleas being particularly nasty.
While the world's press, well the Belfast Telegraph at least, I think the world's press were there for I’m nearly sure I saw a press photographer or was that a groundsman from Hillsborough Castle taking selfies?
Anyway as they stood waiting on any titbits that should fall from the international negotiating table it became clear that Theresa who is being held to ransom by the DUP at Westminster was at odds with the DUP's ‘no surrender’ attitude. A recently resurrected throwback espoused in the House of Commons by Ian Paisley junior in reference to Britain’s capitulating stand against the EU, in the current Brexit negotiations. A statement heralding back to the 1600s where Protestant domination of the indigenous peoples first raised its sectarian and racist head.
Foster, taking time out from the ‘talks’ and unbeknown to the other patrons involved, informed the worlds press, all two of them including the grounds man, and in a scowling face too or is that her natural look, that in towing the line of her party faithful and aware of Nigel's snarling from the sidelines, made clear that there would only be an Irish Language Act over her dead body.
Still with the scowling face of that statement, she went on to conclude that the impasse this has created has led to the collapse of the talks which is Sinn Féin’s fault.
A view seconded by her right hand negotiator Simon Hamilton who went on to humiliate and berate the British Prime Minster Theresa May for having the audacity to visit this part of the UK!
Theresa, sensing failure through failing to copper-fasten any agreement between the DUP and Sinn Féin, and angry for being dragged to this remaining corner of the Empire on false pretences put on a positive demeanour and just as she does with the EU negotiations, quickly bid a hastily retreat back to Westminster and away from the Neanderthals of the DUP....much to relief of Hamilton!
Or so she thought until she discovered them sitting in her No 10 living room demanding more than the one billion and calling for a return of direct rule.
Having initially not come here to emulate or epitomise her idol, Margaret Thatcher, and vigorously stamp her authority on the talks process and ignoring Ian Junior's call to arms, she surrendered but has yet to announce what she capitulated to them.
Not one to rock the boat, Leo on the other hand, casually strolled back to Dublin, not on a horse mind you, to continue the vitally important government policy of checking on his popularity point's in the polls.
On hearing of the collapse of the talks Leo, agitated at being distracted from his vitally important government policy began to implement the process of Joint Rule as outlined under the 1998 Bilateral British-Irish Agreement separate from the Good Friday Agreement. Something the DUP no doubt will have ‘persuaded’ Theresa not to accept under any circumstances.
And so as Mary Lou and Arlene continue to land blows and recriminations abound, we can rest assured that Captain Foster Pugwash and her politically stale crew of sectarian miscreants attempt to keep the Black Pig afloat, that is ‘norn iron’, as she continues to bop upon stormy and turbulent Brexit seas ahead, we can thank our lucky stars that Mary Lou, never having fired a shot, has definitely put her guns away when she declared at the end of her inauguration speech, Tiocfaidh ár lá.
As for Arlene's future, a political leader without mandate or public office, “.......'Cause I'm leavin' on a jet plane, Don't know when I'll be back again, Oh babe, I hate to go....”
John Denver, Leaving On a Jet Plane
Sean Mallory is a Tyrone republican and TPQ columnist
February 20, 2018
Towards A ‘Real Republic’?
Writing on the evening of the Sinn Fein special ard fheis Sean Bresnahan reflects on comments about a united Ireland made by Pearse Doherty.
‘We will deliver unity and a real republic in our time.’ So said Pearse Doherty of Sinn Féin, speaking earlier today at the party’s Special Ard Fhéis in Dublin. But is it the Republic that Sinn Féin are heading for? Talk of ‘continued devolution to Belfast’ into a supposed United Ireland, to include a forward role for the British state as a guarantor of unionism’s ‘Britishness’, makes it difficult to accept this at face value.
The strength of revisionist forces in Ireland and their impact on the party’s direction are not to be taken lightly. Nor can they be accounted for by choice, if welcome, words selected for the occasion of a party sit-in to rouse the faithful. Actions speak louder than words and that is what will count at the finish.
We will see where the United Ireland agenda heads and likely in the not-so-distant future, given the changes ongoing around us. Will it be to the Republic? I’m far from convinced at this point but if it is so — and if this is to where Sinn Féin as a party are really intent toward — then it will be interesting to see if they stay the course during the major ideological battle now speeding down the tracks.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
‘We will deliver unity and a real republic in our time.’ So said Pearse Doherty of Sinn Féin, speaking earlier today at the party’s Special Ard Fhéis in Dublin. But is it the Republic that Sinn Féin are heading for? Talk of ‘continued devolution to Belfast’ into a supposed United Ireland, to include a forward role for the British state as a guarantor of unionism’s ‘Britishness’, makes it difficult to accept this at face value.
The strength of revisionist forces in Ireland and their impact on the party’s direction are not to be taken lightly. Nor can they be accounted for by choice, if welcome, words selected for the occasion of a party sit-in to rouse the faithful. Actions speak louder than words and that is what will count at the finish.
We will see where the United Ireland agenda heads and likely in the not-so-distant future, given the changes ongoing around us. Will it be to the Republic? I’m far from convinced at this point but if it is so — and if this is to where Sinn Féin as a party are really intent toward — then it will be interesting to see if they stay the course during the major ideological battle now speeding down the tracks.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
Trolling ... The Facts
Marty Flynn responds to a critique of him carried in the Belfast Telegraph on the 14th February.
In response to an interview with Helen Deery carried in the Belfast Telegraph In the article written by Belfast Telegraph journalist Donna Deeney, Helen Deery claims to have been trolled by a Belfast based troll since the inquest into her brother Manus Deery’s murder, a ‘troll’ she claims she has never spoken to. Neither Helen nor the journalist, Donna Deeney, name this ‘troll’ in the article but what Ms Deeney did do was post this on to Helen’s Facebook timeline where Helen and Kate Nash did name this person on numerous occasions.
This is not only typical of the one-sided journalism I have come to expect from the mainstream media but proof that this lazy reporting in the wrong circumstances could have serious consequences for the person involved and his or her family.
For those unaware, I am the person being alluded to in the article which is clear from Helen’s timeline and for the record I am not a troll nor have I been trolling Helen Deery as she claims in the interview she gave.
Here are the facts.
Helen not only knows me and my wife Marie personally, but has engaged with me on numerous occasions on social media using language considered inappropriate, politically incorrect, offensive and on a few occasions downright toe curling! This occasion was no different and began with Helen on my Faebook page. Therefore the claim that this is anything more than our usual style of banter is untrue.
I first met Helen in person in 2014. Then in January 2015 when I proudly assisted with carrying the Manus Deery banner for which Helen thanked me personally in the presence of a friend and his young son who also carried the banner on that day.
I was behind the banner with Helen on the Guildhall square)
In the same year when plans were underway to implement the legacy section of the Stormont House Agreement myself and my wife Marie played an active role in supporting Helen, Kate and Linda.
Subsequently, we attended a meeting in the Maldron Hotel where I spoke to Helen prior to and after the meeting. This can be corroborated by family friend and retired Human Rights Lawyer Padraigin Drinan who spoke on the panel that day.
Former reporter for the Belfast Telegraph Lyra McKee who stepped in to chair the event when Eamonn McCann withdrew at the last minute can also confirm this as one of the conversations I had with Helen took place whilst Lyra, I and others were having refreshments in the hotel lobby prior to the meeting.
A short time later my wife and Padraigin Drinan accompanied Kate, Linda, Helen and others to a meeting with the former Stormont Justice Minister David Ford to discuss the plans that were underway at that time. This followed a meeting we attended in Stormont where attempts were underway to ‘gender proof’ draft victim’s legislation which at that time was unavailable for public consumption, scrutiny or consultation.
Following on from this at a meeting to discuss the victim’s issue in the home of Pauline Mellon in Derry my wife and I had Sunday dinner with Helen, Kate and Linda as many can confirm including Padraigin Drinan and Eamon Sweeney, former editor of the Derry Journal, who was also present that day.
So for Helen to claim she has never spoken to me and that I had been trolling her since the inquest when she only blocked me from her Facebook two weeks ago when I asked questions of the Bloody Sunday March committee is as questionable as the interview she gave to the Belfast Telegraph and blatant lies.
What is equally as questionable is days before my exchange with the contributor on The Pensive Quill which has caused the controversy Kate Nash blocked me for questioning comments she had made in relation to this year’s Bloody Sunday March conundrum.
A few days later Kate Nash posted the following on Helen’s timeline which Helen later shared before adopting as her own post.
Kate and Helen’s reference to the ‘governess’ and the ‘handler’ is directed at our friend Pauline Mellon who for over 18 months has been the subject of the most vile online abuse from Kate, Helen and their cronies despite her previous efforts for them and her challenging them to meet to substantiate their endless claims. My highlighting this on the thread which has caused the latest controversy in my opinion is the real crux of the issue, that and my having the audacity to question the Bloody Sunday March Committee over their controversial poster, their membership and their accounts.
I can honestly say that in all my time online and even with my tendency to offend the censor and alarm the PC police I have never witnessed actions as malicious and dangerous and from people claiming to be human rights and justice campaigners, yeah right! And to be honest the recent attempt to discredit me doesn’t even scratch the surface of the continuous efforts by Kate, Helen and company to discredit Pauline Mellon. The very use of the term ‘handler’ which is only one example, in my opinion, represents dangerous and malicious intent.
I will gladly admit to my part in using language considered inappropriate, politically incorrect and even offensive but I have not deviated from the truth, which is how I role. However, for Kate and Helen to point this out whilst conveniently overlooking their own conduct inclusive of posting and supporting vile, nasty and offensive comments is not only questionable but highly hypocritical.
About as hypocritical as the remarks from the administrator of one online ‘debating’ forum who believes that on the strength of the one sided article published in the Belfast Telegraph I am deserving of a slap, which is quite bizarre coming from a self-professed opponent of kangaroo justice. Ironically, this same person through this ‘debating’ forum has failed to address the online abuse of Pauline Mellon and Lorraine Taylor wife of internee Tony Taylor and on a few occasions Dee Fennell by real trolls whose malice and hypocrisy knows no bounds. So as for her ‘booting’ me off the site well the pleasure was all mine. Cait Trainor, as I, left a short time ago for the reasons I’ve just outlined and I doubt I’m the only one who did.
Now back to the issue at the fore of Helen’s recent claims which is my reference to her extending compassion to the commander of the regiment responsible for murdering her brother Manus in 1972. Helen can hug, appreciate and admire whomever she likes as contrary to Helen’s claims I have never voiced my thoughts on this until a few days ago and when doing so was quite flippant about it. That said, I totally stand by my thoughts on the commander and his alleged show of remorse for the following reasons….
Outside of the staged apology from David Cameron in 2010 there has been no compassion shown to the victims of state violence just as prisoners today continue to be brutalised and internment is still here 46 years on from Bloody Sunday.
Helen with her selective compassion did not extend the same to those listed in the Bloody Sunday Museum where she protested last year against the inclusion of the names on a display of those killed up to 1972. Hypocrisy how are you!
Helen doesn’t show the same compassion to those she and her cronies continue to attack both online and off.
Furthermore, when you consider Helen’s logic around her forgiveness and the comfort she received from her act of humanity I would question her membership on the Bloody Sunday March committee when she clearly received a lot of comfort from a few crocodile tears, an apology and a hug.
I will continue to question those on the Bloody Sunday March committee who clearly refuse to give the openness, accountability and inclusivity they demand of others, both collectively and individually, and no amount of lies, fake news, lazy journalism or attention seeking will stop me. I might be a bastard but I’m not the bad guy!
Marty Flynn is a Belfast republican and campaigner
In response to an interview with Helen Deery carried in the Belfast Telegraph In the article written by Belfast Telegraph journalist Donna Deeney, Helen Deery claims to have been trolled by a Belfast based troll since the inquest into her brother Manus Deery’s murder, a ‘troll’ she claims she has never spoken to. Neither Helen nor the journalist, Donna Deeney, name this ‘troll’ in the article but what Ms Deeney did do was post this on to Helen’s Facebook timeline where Helen and Kate Nash did name this person on numerous occasions.
This is not only typical of the one-sided journalism I have come to expect from the mainstream media but proof that this lazy reporting in the wrong circumstances could have serious consequences for the person involved and his or her family.
For those unaware, I am the person being alluded to in the article which is clear from Helen’s timeline and for the record I am not a troll nor have I been trolling Helen Deery as she claims in the interview she gave.
Here are the facts.
Helen not only knows me and my wife Marie personally, but has engaged with me on numerous occasions on social media using language considered inappropriate, politically incorrect, offensive and on a few occasions downright toe curling! This occasion was no different and began with Helen on my Faebook page. Therefore the claim that this is anything more than our usual style of banter is untrue.
I first met Helen in person in 2014. Then in January 2015 when I proudly assisted with carrying the Manus Deery banner for which Helen thanked me personally in the presence of a friend and his young son who also carried the banner on that day.
I was behind the banner with Helen on the Guildhall square)
In the same year when plans were underway to implement the legacy section of the Stormont House Agreement myself and my wife Marie played an active role in supporting Helen, Kate and Linda.
Subsequently, we attended a meeting in the Maldron Hotel where I spoke to Helen prior to and after the meeting. This can be corroborated by family friend and retired Human Rights Lawyer Padraigin Drinan who spoke on the panel that day.
Former reporter for the Belfast Telegraph Lyra McKee who stepped in to chair the event when Eamonn McCann withdrew at the last minute can also confirm this as one of the conversations I had with Helen took place whilst Lyra, I and others were having refreshments in the hotel lobby prior to the meeting.
A short time later my wife and Padraigin Drinan accompanied Kate, Linda, Helen and others to a meeting with the former Stormont Justice Minister David Ford to discuss the plans that were underway at that time. This followed a meeting we attended in Stormont where attempts were underway to ‘gender proof’ draft victim’s legislation which at that time was unavailable for public consumption, scrutiny or consultation.
Following on from this at a meeting to discuss the victim’s issue in the home of Pauline Mellon in Derry my wife and I had Sunday dinner with Helen, Kate and Linda as many can confirm including Padraigin Drinan and Eamon Sweeney, former editor of the Derry Journal, who was also present that day.
So for Helen to claim she has never spoken to me and that I had been trolling her since the inquest when she only blocked me from her Facebook two weeks ago when I asked questions of the Bloody Sunday March committee is as questionable as the interview she gave to the Belfast Telegraph and blatant lies.
What is equally as questionable is days before my exchange with the contributor on The Pensive Quill which has caused the controversy Kate Nash blocked me for questioning comments she had made in relation to this year’s Bloody Sunday March conundrum.
A few days later Kate Nash posted the following on Helen’s timeline which Helen later shared before adopting as her own post.
Kate and Helen’s reference to the ‘governess’ and the ‘handler’ is directed at our friend Pauline Mellon who for over 18 months has been the subject of the most vile online abuse from Kate, Helen and their cronies despite her previous efforts for them and her challenging them to meet to substantiate their endless claims. My highlighting this on the thread which has caused the latest controversy in my opinion is the real crux of the issue, that and my having the audacity to question the Bloody Sunday March Committee over their controversial poster, their membership and their accounts.
I can honestly say that in all my time online and even with my tendency to offend the censor and alarm the PC police I have never witnessed actions as malicious and dangerous and from people claiming to be human rights and justice campaigners, yeah right! And to be honest the recent attempt to discredit me doesn’t even scratch the surface of the continuous efforts by Kate, Helen and company to discredit Pauline Mellon. The very use of the term ‘handler’ which is only one example, in my opinion, represents dangerous and malicious intent.
I will gladly admit to my part in using language considered inappropriate, politically incorrect and even offensive but I have not deviated from the truth, which is how I role. However, for Kate and Helen to point this out whilst conveniently overlooking their own conduct inclusive of posting and supporting vile, nasty and offensive comments is not only questionable but highly hypocritical.
About as hypocritical as the remarks from the administrator of one online ‘debating’ forum who believes that on the strength of the one sided article published in the Belfast Telegraph I am deserving of a slap, which is quite bizarre coming from a self-professed opponent of kangaroo justice. Ironically, this same person through this ‘debating’ forum has failed to address the online abuse of Pauline Mellon and Lorraine Taylor wife of internee Tony Taylor and on a few occasions Dee Fennell by real trolls whose malice and hypocrisy knows no bounds. So as for her ‘booting’ me off the site well the pleasure was all mine. Cait Trainor, as I, left a short time ago for the reasons I’ve just outlined and I doubt I’m the only one who did.
Now back to the issue at the fore of Helen’s recent claims which is my reference to her extending compassion to the commander of the regiment responsible for murdering her brother Manus in 1972. Helen can hug, appreciate and admire whomever she likes as contrary to Helen’s claims I have never voiced my thoughts on this until a few days ago and when doing so was quite flippant about it. That said, I totally stand by my thoughts on the commander and his alleged show of remorse for the following reasons….
Outside of the staged apology from David Cameron in 2010 there has been no compassion shown to the victims of state violence just as prisoners today continue to be brutalised and internment is still here 46 years on from Bloody Sunday.
Helen with her selective compassion did not extend the same to those listed in the Bloody Sunday Museum where she protested last year against the inclusion of the names on a display of those killed up to 1972. Hypocrisy how are you!
Helen doesn’t show the same compassion to those she and her cronies continue to attack both online and off.
Furthermore, when you consider Helen’s logic around her forgiveness and the comfort she received from her act of humanity I would question her membership on the Bloody Sunday March committee when she clearly received a lot of comfort from a few crocodile tears, an apology and a hug.
I will continue to question those on the Bloody Sunday March committee who clearly refuse to give the openness, accountability and inclusivity they demand of others, both collectively and individually, and no amount of lies, fake news, lazy journalism or attention seeking will stop me. I might be a bastard but I’m not the bad guy!
Marty Flynn is a Belfast republican and campaigner
February 19, 2018
Between Shit And Syphilis
Mick Hall contends that:
It's not a mistake or oversight when disabled and economically disadvantaged people attempt to get help from the State and it ends in tears. That is how the process is designed to work.
Heidi, it's you and the government you support who have left so many families cupboards empty.
When I witnessed Tory MP Heidi Allen weep over a starving family in one of the richest nations in the world I wondered what planet she lived on. She is not a casual observer of this crime, she is a perpetrator, she voted for the very policies which were deliberately designed to impoverish this man, his family and millions like them.
For her to express sympathy is between shit and syphilis in my dictionary. What did she believe would happen when the government she supports cuts welfare benefits to the bone, how did she supposed people on low incomes would survive when her government makes them wait 5 to 6 weeks before they receive their first Universal Credit benefit payment?
Who did she think they could turn to for help, advice and support when local council funding was cut to the bone by the Lib Dem Tory coalition? And then the current Tory government making it extremely difficult for councils to fund the case work of local CAB's and the work of other welfare rights advisors.
Did she truly believe hypocrites like her would help fill that gaping hole with charitable donations? A couple of bags of pasta and beans dropped off at her local food bank and her conscience is wiped clean.
No of course not, she new only to well without expert advice some of the most disadvantaged families and individuals in the UK would be thrown on the wayside as if they were human garbage.
Lives would be shattered, families smashed, homes lost and children ending up in care, by hey Heidi Allen Tory MP can cry crocodile tears in public for the very folk whose lives she has helped ruin.
Shame shame shame!
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
It's not a mistake or oversight when disabled and economically disadvantaged people attempt to get help from the State and it ends in tears. That is how the process is designed to work.
Heidi, it's you and the government you support who have left so many families cupboards empty.
When I witnessed Tory MP Heidi Allen weep over a starving family in one of the richest nations in the world I wondered what planet she lived on. She is not a casual observer of this crime, she is a perpetrator, she voted for the very policies which were deliberately designed to impoverish this man, his family and millions like them.
For her to express sympathy is between shit and syphilis in my dictionary. What did she believe would happen when the government she supports cuts welfare benefits to the bone, how did she supposed people on low incomes would survive when her government makes them wait 5 to 6 weeks before they receive their first Universal Credit benefit payment?
Who did she think they could turn to for help, advice and support when local council funding was cut to the bone by the Lib Dem Tory coalition? And then the current Tory government making it extremely difficult for councils to fund the case work of local CAB's and the work of other welfare rights advisors.
Did she truly believe hypocrites like her would help fill that gaping hole with charitable donations? A couple of bags of pasta and beans dropped off at her local food bank and her conscience is wiped clean.
No of course not, she new only to well without expert advice some of the most disadvantaged families and individuals in the UK would be thrown on the wayside as if they were human garbage.
Lives would be shattered, families smashed, homes lost and children ending up in care, by hey Heidi Allen Tory MP can cry crocodile tears in public for the very folk whose lives she has helped ruin.
Shame shame shame!
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage
Back To 1968
Stormont has become the Unionist Alamo, and like the famous Texan bastion, Stormont has now fallen yet again. In spite of the political clouds engulfing the Irish peace process, controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, uses his Fearless Flying Column today to explain how Unionism can extract itself from another Laurel and Hardy-style ‘fine mess’.
The spirits of those who founded the Provisional IRA must be chuckling with the same laughter they uttered in 1972 as the 2018 peace talks to restore a working parliament at Stormont finally collapsed, heralding in a new period of Direct Rule from Westminster.
In 1972, republican violence had escalated to such a level, the Tory Government at Westminster axed the then Unionist-controlled Stormont Government which had run Northern Ireland since the 1920s.
Now, spin doctors from Sinn Fein and the DUP have been burning the midnight oil since the St Valentine’s Day political massacre as the blame game shifted into top gear.
One thing was certain, there was a deal on the cards, which had the clear potential of restoring the devolved institutions. There’s even a simple solution as to why it failed.
Sinn Fein is more internally disciplined at keeping its hawk wing in check. Whatever compromises Sinn Fein would have to swallow, the Sinn Fein supporters from the hardline republican heartlands were prepared to slug down that bitter medicine.
The DUP does not enjoy that republican-style internal discipline. Party founder and Free Presbyterian Church Moderator, the late Rev Ian Paisley, may now be the subject of history books, but up until just after he signed the St Andrews Agreement in 2006, the ‘Doc’, as he was affectionately known, maintained an iron gauntlet grip over both Church and Party.
The current DUP boss, ex-UUP MLA Arlene Foster, would appear to have more difficulty in convincing the traditional fundamentalist Right-wing Democratic Unionists to follow her lead into an accommodation, deal, arrangement, agreement - put whatever label you like on it - with Sinn Fein.
Perhaps Arlene has looked back to her time in the now election-battered Ulster Unionists and remembered what happened a former leader - David Trimble - when he was perceived to have moved too far ahead without bringing the Right-wing grassroots with him.
Perhaps as Arlene was briefing party colleagues in the DUP on the content of the deal, she recalled the activities of the anti-Belfast Agreement pressure group, Union First, in the UUP and the meaningless meetings of the Ulster Unionist Council which bled the UUP dry financially and politically.
Perhaps Arlene realised the ‘auld maxim’ - put party unity before political progress - was the order of the day over the deal with Sinn Fein, or indeed, even an Irish Language Act.
Then again, Unionism has not boxed clever over the Irish Language Act. Rather than a dilution of British culture, Unionists could have used such an Act to make a political fool out of Sinn Fein. With the Act would have come millions of pounds to implement it.
If the Protestant Loyal Orders and evangelicals within Presbyterianism’s denominations had any sense, they would have embraced the Act and set up Irish language classes in every Orange hall and Presbyterian church hall in Ireland - think of the cash which would have flowed into those halls.
But the sad reality is that Unionism, Orangeism and Presbyterianism did not share this radical vision, so how does the Unionist family extract itself from the current political mess?
The ‘anointing’ of Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill as president and vice-president respectively of Sinn Fein clearly proves the republican movement sees the road to Irish unity as coming via Dublin, not Belfast or London. That way forward equally clearly depends on Sinn Fein winning enough TDs in the next Dail General Election - expected later this year - to guarantee that the republican movement becomes a minority partner with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail in the next Leinster House coalition government.
With some form of Direct Rule needed to keep Northern Ireland in business financially, then the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference - established under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement - will play a major role. But the Dublin government’s role in the current Conference set-up is merely making recommendations.
A future Dublin government - which would include Sinn Fein as a minority partner - has to push for a redefining of the Conference’s role by getting it upgraded from a recommendation-suggesting body to a decision-making forum, or in plain political terms joint authority via the back door. This is the nightmare scenario for Unionism long-term as a result of the DUP pulling the plug on the deal with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
To boost its chances of that minority government position, Sinn Fein will spin hard to Southern voters that republicans wanted a deal, but the Paisleyite faction in the DUP dumped a barrel-load of cold water on it, thereby proving that Sinn Fein is a truly democratic movement and not the Provos’ Northern Command apologists trying to tell Southern voters how to run their state.
The DUP has an ace card it must play if the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference whammy is not to knock Unionism for six (and that six could be the six Northern counties of the UK effectively dumped out of the Union).
The DUP must use its influence with the Tories to insist that under any Direct Rule arrangement, Northern Ireland MPs who take their Commons seats should be appointed as Northern Ireland Office Ministers. This is effectively the integrationist policy of former and late UUP boss Jim Molyneaux under another banner.
While Sinn Fein remains the main voice of Northern nationalists and the Paisleyite wing holds sway in the DUP, then the devolution experiment needs to be parked. With the demise of the UUP, the hand of those wanting a single Unionist Party to represent all shades of pro-Union opinion is strengthened. The more UUP members who join the DUP, the more the DUP will become like Molyneaux’s 1980s integrationist UUP.
In the nationalist community, Direct Rule will spell the political death knell for the equally election-battered SDLP. However, it will take time for Fianna Fail to establish itself as the new voice of moderate, middle class nationalism in Northern Ireland.
Sinn Fein can put as many Mary Lous and Michelles up front as it likes - one reality will always remain in place; Sinn Fein does as the Provisional IRA’s Army Council tells it. The Provos as a terrorist organisation will never go away, you know; the Army Council will merely change the method by way it exerts its influence and control over the republican movement.
For the Good Friday Agreement generation, the devolution experience is over and parked. Just as the 1994 paramilitary ceasefires prepared the ground for the Good Friday Agreement, so too, will Direct Rule prepare the ground for a new agreement between a Northern Fianna Fail (including a merged SDLP) and The Unionist Party (involving the merged DUP and UUP).
In the meantime, the key aims of the Northern Ireland Office under Direct Rule will be to keep the Province afloat financially; to get the island of Ireland through Brexit economically, and prevent the hardmen in both republicanism and loyalism from indulging in outbursts of sectarian violence.
I’m told reliably this is 2018, but with the events of St Valentine’s week, it seems we have gone back in time to 1968.
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
The spirits of those who founded the Provisional IRA must be chuckling with the same laughter they uttered in 1972 as the 2018 peace talks to restore a working parliament at Stormont finally collapsed, heralding in a new period of Direct Rule from Westminster.
In 1972, republican violence had escalated to such a level, the Tory Government at Westminster axed the then Unionist-controlled Stormont Government which had run Northern Ireland since the 1920s.
Now, spin doctors from Sinn Fein and the DUP have been burning the midnight oil since the St Valentine’s Day political massacre as the blame game shifted into top gear.
One thing was certain, there was a deal on the cards, which had the clear potential of restoring the devolved institutions. There’s even a simple solution as to why it failed.
Sinn Fein is more internally disciplined at keeping its hawk wing in check. Whatever compromises Sinn Fein would have to swallow, the Sinn Fein supporters from the hardline republican heartlands were prepared to slug down that bitter medicine.
The DUP does not enjoy that republican-style internal discipline. Party founder and Free Presbyterian Church Moderator, the late Rev Ian Paisley, may now be the subject of history books, but up until just after he signed the St Andrews Agreement in 2006, the ‘Doc’, as he was affectionately known, maintained an iron gauntlet grip over both Church and Party.
The current DUP boss, ex-UUP MLA Arlene Foster, would appear to have more difficulty in convincing the traditional fundamentalist Right-wing Democratic Unionists to follow her lead into an accommodation, deal, arrangement, agreement - put whatever label you like on it - with Sinn Fein.
Perhaps Arlene has looked back to her time in the now election-battered Ulster Unionists and remembered what happened a former leader - David Trimble - when he was perceived to have moved too far ahead without bringing the Right-wing grassroots with him.
Perhaps as Arlene was briefing party colleagues in the DUP on the content of the deal, she recalled the activities of the anti-Belfast Agreement pressure group, Union First, in the UUP and the meaningless meetings of the Ulster Unionist Council which bled the UUP dry financially and politically.
Perhaps Arlene realised the ‘auld maxim’ - put party unity before political progress - was the order of the day over the deal with Sinn Fein, or indeed, even an Irish Language Act.
Then again, Unionism has not boxed clever over the Irish Language Act. Rather than a dilution of British culture, Unionists could have used such an Act to make a political fool out of Sinn Fein. With the Act would have come millions of pounds to implement it.
If the Protestant Loyal Orders and evangelicals within Presbyterianism’s denominations had any sense, they would have embraced the Act and set up Irish language classes in every Orange hall and Presbyterian church hall in Ireland - think of the cash which would have flowed into those halls.
But the sad reality is that Unionism, Orangeism and Presbyterianism did not share this radical vision, so how does the Unionist family extract itself from the current political mess?
The ‘anointing’ of Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill as president and vice-president respectively of Sinn Fein clearly proves the republican movement sees the road to Irish unity as coming via Dublin, not Belfast or London. That way forward equally clearly depends on Sinn Fein winning enough TDs in the next Dail General Election - expected later this year - to guarantee that the republican movement becomes a minority partner with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail in the next Leinster House coalition government.
With some form of Direct Rule needed to keep Northern Ireland in business financially, then the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference - established under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement - will play a major role. But the Dublin government’s role in the current Conference set-up is merely making recommendations.
A future Dublin government - which would include Sinn Fein as a minority partner - has to push for a redefining of the Conference’s role by getting it upgraded from a recommendation-suggesting body to a decision-making forum, or in plain political terms joint authority via the back door. This is the nightmare scenario for Unionism long-term as a result of the DUP pulling the plug on the deal with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
To boost its chances of that minority government position, Sinn Fein will spin hard to Southern voters that republicans wanted a deal, but the Paisleyite faction in the DUP dumped a barrel-load of cold water on it, thereby proving that Sinn Fein is a truly democratic movement and not the Provos’ Northern Command apologists trying to tell Southern voters how to run their state.
The DUP has an ace card it must play if the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference whammy is not to knock Unionism for six (and that six could be the six Northern counties of the UK effectively dumped out of the Union).
The DUP must use its influence with the Tories to insist that under any Direct Rule arrangement, Northern Ireland MPs who take their Commons seats should be appointed as Northern Ireland Office Ministers. This is effectively the integrationist policy of former and late UUP boss Jim Molyneaux under another banner.
While Sinn Fein remains the main voice of Northern nationalists and the Paisleyite wing holds sway in the DUP, then the devolution experiment needs to be parked. With the demise of the UUP, the hand of those wanting a single Unionist Party to represent all shades of pro-Union opinion is strengthened. The more UUP members who join the DUP, the more the DUP will become like Molyneaux’s 1980s integrationist UUP.
In the nationalist community, Direct Rule will spell the political death knell for the equally election-battered SDLP. However, it will take time for Fianna Fail to establish itself as the new voice of moderate, middle class nationalism in Northern Ireland.
Sinn Fein can put as many Mary Lous and Michelles up front as it likes - one reality will always remain in place; Sinn Fein does as the Provisional IRA’s Army Council tells it. The Provos as a terrorist organisation will never go away, you know; the Army Council will merely change the method by way it exerts its influence and control over the republican movement.
For the Good Friday Agreement generation, the devolution experience is over and parked. Just as the 1994 paramilitary ceasefires prepared the ground for the Good Friday Agreement, so too, will Direct Rule prepare the ground for a new agreement between a Northern Fianna Fail (including a merged SDLP) and The Unionist Party (involving the merged DUP and UUP).
In the meantime, the key aims of the Northern Ireland Office under Direct Rule will be to keep the Province afloat financially; to get the island of Ireland through Brexit economically, and prevent the hardmen in both republicanism and loyalism from indulging in outbursts of sectarian violence.
I’m told reliably this is 2018, but with the events of St Valentine’s week, it seems we have gone back in time to 1968.
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 18, 2018
Irish Sleepwalking Down the Road To Full Water Charges
James Quigley is concerned about the complacency that has beset Irish citizens in relation to water charges.
The political class know exactly what it’s about. The majority of Irish citizens haven’t a clue. The result could be that total control over our water will be handed over to Brussels bureaucrats. It all hinges on a little subsection of a European Directive and the willingness of our government to use it. The question is who's going to champion the Irish cause?
Left: Phil Hogan (FG) now a EU Commissioner was the minister responsible for trying to bulldoze Water Charges through. Right: That is the question.
The subsection is 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive 2000 (WFD). This simply says member states shall not be in breach of the directive if they decide not to apply full provisions for a given water-use and they shall report the reasons in their River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).
This might not sound much but in reality it is massive. It allows member states to regulate it’s water according to established practices, as long as it does not ″compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the Directive″. Brussels can not remove this clause but Ireland can give it away and everything is pointing in that direction.
Each member country of the EU is obliged by the WFD to implement three River Basin Management Plans for structuring it’s water resources. By the end of the third, supposedly 2027, all members states should be in full compliance. Ireland, however, is three years late with their second RBMP with it’s draft plan just put up on the DHPLG website. It is open for submissions until February 28th.
According to a department information officer Ireland’s finalised plan will be published on April 2018, the same day that it is sent to the EU Commission. It will then be subject to 3 month’s of negotiations where the Irish Government must supply all supporting documentation. However there is speculation that these negotiations could run on much longer and then they could be affected by further rumours of a total revamp of the Water Framework Directive itself later on this year.
Should the unsuspecting public be wary?
The following is an extract of the draft River Basin Management Plan, page 20. I look upon the explanation of the 2010 plan wrong. It is a subjective one that suits their purpose but it does not give the full facts. Bear in mind that because they say something, it does not necessarily means it is fact. You might see what they are trying to do when you read the second part of the paragraph i.e. our ‘established practice’ is gone, full steam ahead.
Coupled with some fine print in the revised Water Services Act 2017, particular Section 9, that allows for CER (energy regulator) to do some fine adjustments to figures on ‘threshold amounts’ of domestic water, the Irish Public should be worried. That’s a nice way of saying; whittling away at the water basic allowances.
What can we do?
I like the idea of people arming themselves with facts, questioning everything and not listening to what they are told by politicians and media alike, no matter who they are. I also like the idea of public empowerment, helping themselves, but unfortunately the issue of water charges has been given over to the political establishment where it is now subject to legal interpretations.
The public must demand that politicians and groups who made commitments against water charges, whether it is Right2Water or Fianna Fáil, put their money where their mouths are. They have to question the legality of this draft River Basin Management Plan. If their integrity can be respected they must not accept what seems to be happening to the principle of Ireland's ‘Established Practice’. They must stand up to EU interference and threats.
Fianna Fáil has a particular responsibility in this issue since they are in a position of power because of it’s ″Confidence and Supply″ arrangement with the present Government.
The public should contact all TDs, even attend their constituency clinics and demand that they do everything in their power to protect Ireland’s ‘Established Practice’, They must question the published draft RBMP and at least make sure that the 9.4 section of the Water Framework Directive is invoked.
Sources;
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/report_of_working_group_on_future_funding_of_domestic_water_services.pdf
http://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-services/chargesmetering/report-working-group-future-funding-domestic-water-services
The political class know exactly what it’s about. The majority of Irish citizens haven’t a clue. The result could be that total control over our water will be handed over to Brussels bureaucrats. It all hinges on a little subsection of a European Directive and the willingness of our government to use it. The question is who's going to champion the Irish cause?
Left: Phil Hogan (FG) now a EU Commissioner was the minister responsible for trying to bulldoze Water Charges through. Right: That is the question.The subsection is 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive 2000 (WFD). This simply says member states shall not be in breach of the directive if they decide not to apply full provisions for a given water-use and they shall report the reasons in their River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).
This might not sound much but in reality it is massive. It allows member states to regulate it’s water according to established practices, as long as it does not ″compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the Directive″. Brussels can not remove this clause but Ireland can give it away and everything is pointing in that direction.
Each member country of the EU is obliged by the WFD to implement three River Basin Management Plans for structuring it’s water resources. By the end of the third, supposedly 2027, all members states should be in full compliance. Ireland, however, is three years late with their second RBMP with it’s draft plan just put up on the DHPLG website. It is open for submissions until February 28th.
According to a department information officer Ireland’s finalised plan will be published on April 2018, the same day that it is sent to the EU Commission. It will then be subject to 3 month’s of negotiations where the Irish Government must supply all supporting documentation. However there is speculation that these negotiations could run on much longer and then they could be affected by further rumours of a total revamp of the Water Framework Directive itself later on this year.
Should the unsuspecting public be wary?
The following is an extract of the draft River Basin Management Plan, page 20. I look upon the explanation of the 2010 plan wrong. It is a subjective one that suits their purpose but it does not give the full facts. Bear in mind that because they say something, it does not necessarily means it is fact. You might see what they are trying to do when you read the second part of the paragraph i.e. our ‘established practice’ is gone, full steam ahead.
The first cycle of river basin management plans was completed in 2010. Ireland signaled an intention to introduce water charges and did not avail of the exemption outlined in article 9(4) of the WFD. In line with article 9(2) of the WFD, we will be required in the final river basin management plan for 2018- 2021 to set out our approach for the cost recovery of water services based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, the contribution of the different water users to cost recovery and how this will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of the Directive.
Coupled with some fine print in the revised Water Services Act 2017, particular Section 9, that allows for CER (energy regulator) to do some fine adjustments to figures on ‘threshold amounts’ of domestic water, the Irish Public should be worried. That’s a nice way of saying; whittling away at the water basic allowances.
What can we do?
I like the idea of people arming themselves with facts, questioning everything and not listening to what they are told by politicians and media alike, no matter who they are. I also like the idea of public empowerment, helping themselves, but unfortunately the issue of water charges has been given over to the political establishment where it is now subject to legal interpretations.
The public must demand that politicians and groups who made commitments against water charges, whether it is Right2Water or Fianna Fáil, put their money where their mouths are. They have to question the legality of this draft River Basin Management Plan. If their integrity can be respected they must not accept what seems to be happening to the principle of Ireland's ‘Established Practice’. They must stand up to EU interference and threats.
Fianna Fáil has a particular responsibility in this issue since they are in a position of power because of it’s ″Confidence and Supply″ arrangement with the present Government.
The public should contact all TDs, even attend their constituency clinics and demand that they do everything in their power to protect Ireland’s ‘Established Practice’, They must question the published draft RBMP and at least make sure that the 9.4 section of the Water Framework Directive is invoked.
Sources;
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/report_of_working_group_on_future_funding_of_domestic_water_services.pdf
http://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-services/chargesmetering/report-working-group-future-funding-domestic-water-services
Denmark Proposes Full-Face Veils Ban
Lena M discusses a Danish proposal to ban full-face veiling.
Photo Credits: Truthdig
Denmark may be the next European country to introduce a ban on full-face veils. Danish government has formally proposed banning full-face veils in public spaces. “It is incompatible with the values in Danish society and disrespectful to the community to keep one’s face hidden when meeting each other in public spaces,” said the justice minister, Søren Pape Poulsen. “With a ban on covering the face we are drawing a line in the sand and underlining that in Denmark we show each other trust and respect by meeting face to face,” he explained.
In 2010, a ban on face coverings, especially those targeting women wearing chador and burka, was adopted by the French Parliament. The "Burqa ban", was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".
As of 2015, Belgium and the Netherlands are European countries with specific bans on face-covering dress, such as the Islamic niqab or burqa. Belgium has a nationwide ban and the European Court of Human Rights recently upheld the country’s right to do so. Actually, judges said it did not violate the rights to private and family life, or freedom of religion or discrimination laws.
In 2017, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing was adopted by the Austrian parliament. Also, a ban on face-covering clothing for soldiers and state workers during work was approved by German parliament. In June 2017 Norway’s government proposed a ban on face-covering Muslim veils in kindergartens, schools and universities.
Last October, all three parties in the coalition said they would support such a ban. This ban would apply to those parts of the clothing that cover the face, such as burqa or niqab. Niqab covers the face but leaves the eyes clear. Burqa is the most concealing of all Islamic veils because it is leaving just a mesh screen to see through.
Last year, the European court of justice in Luxembourg ruled the garments could be banned, but only as part of a general policy barring all religious and political symbols. Also, according to that decision, customers can not simply demand workers remove headscarves if the company has no policy barring religious symbols.
Around 200 women in Denmark wear such garments, according to researchers. “I don’t think there are many who wear the burqa here in Denmark. But if you do, you should be punished with a fine,” Poulsen said. A violation of the ban would entail a fine of 1,000 kroner (£120). Repeated violations would lead to fines of up to 10,000 kroner.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Photo Credits: TruthdigDenmark may be the next European country to introduce a ban on full-face veils. Danish government has formally proposed banning full-face veils in public spaces. “It is incompatible with the values in Danish society and disrespectful to the community to keep one’s face hidden when meeting each other in public spaces,” said the justice minister, Søren Pape Poulsen. “With a ban on covering the face we are drawing a line in the sand and underlining that in Denmark we show each other trust and respect by meeting face to face,” he explained.
In 2010, a ban on face coverings, especially those targeting women wearing chador and burka, was adopted by the French Parliament. The "Burqa ban", was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".
As of 2015, Belgium and the Netherlands are European countries with specific bans on face-covering dress, such as the Islamic niqab or burqa. Belgium has a nationwide ban and the European Court of Human Rights recently upheld the country’s right to do so. Actually, judges said it did not violate the rights to private and family life, or freedom of religion or discrimination laws.
In 2017, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing was adopted by the Austrian parliament. Also, a ban on face-covering clothing for soldiers and state workers during work was approved by German parliament. In June 2017 Norway’s government proposed a ban on face-covering Muslim veils in kindergartens, schools and universities.
Last October, all three parties in the coalition said they would support such a ban. This ban would apply to those parts of the clothing that cover the face, such as burqa or niqab. Niqab covers the face but leaves the eyes clear. Burqa is the most concealing of all Islamic veils because it is leaving just a mesh screen to see through.
Last year, the European court of justice in Luxembourg ruled the garments could be banned, but only as part of a general policy barring all religious and political symbols. Also, according to that decision, customers can not simply demand workers remove headscarves if the company has no policy barring religious symbols.
Around 200 women in Denmark wear such garments, according to researchers. “I don’t think there are many who wear the burqa here in Denmark. But if you do, you should be punished with a fine,” Poulsen said. A violation of the ban would entail a fine of 1,000 kroner (£120). Repeated violations would lead to fines of up to 10,000 kroner.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
February 17, 2018
Kobane Was Stalingrad, Make Afrin Vietnam
Via The Morning Star:
Gay Oak presents a letter from an Irish volunteer in the YPG facing invasion from Turkey
Three Irish volunteers pose in front of a mural depicting Ayse Deniz Karacagil, a Turkish communist, and Robert Grodt, a US anarchist, both killed fighting Isis in 2017
My Kurdish nom de guerre, given to me by the People’s Protection Unit (YPG), is Tirpan Cudi.
I am a communist and one of three Irishmen now in Afrin to resist the Turkish invasion of Rojava, northern Syria.
I have been fighting here against Isis since 2016 as part of the International Freedom Battalion, an alliance of Turkish communist parties and international communist and anarchist volunteers.
Chinese international volunteers in Afrin write: "Down with the Turkish imperialist invasion"
My closest comrades have been here since the battle of Kobane in 2014. They are mostly from Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Lenninist (TKPML) and the Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey (TIKKO).
They have been active since 1972, mainly in the Dersim mountain range and are made up of a mix of ethnicities typical of this region: Kurds, Turks, Armenians, and people of the Allevi religion — a progressive sect of Islam that holds Mohamed’s daughter in reverence.
You realise quickly that there is not one oppressed ethnicity in the region, but alongside the Kurds, there are tens of major groups with their own languages and histories that are threatened by Turkish chauvinism.
However, allies in great number are still thin on the ground. The only thing close to a friendly neighbour in the area is in the very south of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG).
Since the Kurdish referendum, the Iraqi government rolled back a lot of the KRG’s autonomy, so the relatively small assistance they were previously able to get from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party areas has gone.
Former Iraqi Kurdistan president Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) is in charge of the KRG overall, and crucially that includes all of the regions that actually border Rojava.
He is an ally of Turkey and completely hostile. Even when Isis was at its strongest, he stood aside and even impeded the YPG’s fight whenever he could.
The KDP’s politics are not even Kurdish nationalist, they are feudal, tribal, opportunistically friendly with Turkey and Israel, and the party are total clients of the United States, which injects millions of dollars into its failing statelet.
The relationship with the Syrian government is complicated but I wouldn’t describe it as hostile today. Rojava is not a separatist project, its ambition is autonomy within what the Russians propose, a new Syrian Republic.
The YPG and Syrian forces have worked together in the past in the liberation of Aleppo. Many of the city neighbourhoods of Qamishli in Rojava are under government control. But even as a foreigner you can walk or drive through the checkpoints with no problems.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has not been obstructing us in our defence of Afrin, which it could easily do.
Russia has given a decent amount of military assistance to the YPG in the past, though less than the US. It proposes replacing the current Syrian Arab Republic with a new Syrian Republic, with Kurdish autonomy, and state recognition of all minority languages.
Russia has tried to get the Syrian Kurds a place at the table for the peace negotiations, and for the first time secured one for the planned Sochi talks.
However, Russia allowing Turkey to invade Afrin shows it is no more reliable than the US. Our alliances with it were tactical and temporary, just like the YPG said from the start.
International solidarity is therefore vital. One party active here, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP), put the Afrin resistance like this: Kobane was Stalingrad, make Afrin Vietnam.
This is how I would explain it to the anti-capitalist left in Europe and the United States who still struggle to understand and support us.
Like Vietnam, we have made alliances with the big powers in the past and played them off one another. But now we face Turkey, and therefore Nato imperialism, head on.
The YPG will fight the war, but you must conduct a huge and militant solidarity campaign back home. We need actions, protests and trade union declarations. We need slogans on the walls of the West.
Militarily, fighting a Nato army will be different to fighting Isis, like I did in Manbij and Raqqa, due to the Turkish air force. But ideologically speaking it is not so different.
Both Isis and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan want the total destruction of the Kurdish people, both are Islamist and, in typical fascist fashion, both are trying to resurrect an older, glorious order. While Isis wanted a caliphate, Turkey has neo-Ottoman ambitions.
The assistance Turkey has given to Isis is well documented but it failed to crush the Rojava project. So now, to weaken Rojava ahead of the Sochi peace negotiations, Turkey is taking matters directly into its own hands with the invasion of Afrin.
Given the 2015 Turkish campaign against the Kurds in Bakur, eastern Turkey, where they flattened large civilian areas of cities such as Cizre and Nusaybin inside Turkish borders, we can expect a complete disregard for civilian life.
However, in 2015 there were barely any journalists, independent or otherwise, covering those massacres because the Turkish state was able to close off the area.
The Rojava Kurds are more famous and have played a much better media game. Now the world is watching Afrin and asking why the heroes who liberated Raqqa from Isis yesterday are being abandoned today.
Even though we have seen some BBC reporters embedded with the Turkish side, we also have reporters on our side of the line.
In comparison to Isis there are three things I am glad I won’t have to deal with this time. The first is suicide car-bombs driven at speed towards us. Some of those were more powerful than the average air strike.
I arrived in the wake of one once. It had gone off at a crossroads and totally vapourised everything on the road and almost levelled all the apartments on the four corners.
The second is mines, booby traps. There are ridiculous amounts of mines planted by Isis. When they retreated they riddled the places they vacated with mines. In one apartment building in Raqqa we found 35 traps set with explosives.
The third thing is the suicide vests loaded with ball bearings on individual fighters. Although these could make a reappearance given that so many Isis and other jihadis have been recruited to Turkey’s side.
Despite Turkish troop numbers and air power, I’m optimistic. Unlike most of Rojava, Afrin is mountainous and hilly. We can fight a guerilla campaign here during the invasion, and if needs be during an occupation.
Even if we lose major areas, we will either get them back as soon as Turkey withdraws, or Turkey will eventually face losses that will cost Erdogan politically.
Having removed all the people from his administration who might have talked sense into him, Erdogan’s invasion is nothing but a madman lashing out.
The legal implications of fighting a sovereign power and Nato member state do not concern me. I’m in a sovereign state, it’s called Syria, and it’s currently being invaded illegally by Turkey.
I’m a member of the YPG, a Syrian army that’s increasingly gaining de-facto recognition. I don’t care about the legality. Turkey and its Free Syrian Army (FSA) goons have no business here and need to be crushed in their craven neo-Ottoman Salafist efforts. We are not leaving until that job is done.
If we win, then facts on the ground makes prosecuting us unlikely, or at least very unpopular as the West will be on friendly terms with the Rojava project again. If we lose we will be dead.
Gay Oak presents a letter from an Irish volunteer in the YPG facing invasion from Turkey
Three Irish volunteers pose in front of a mural depicting Ayse Deniz Karacagil, a Turkish communist, and Robert Grodt, a US anarchist, both killed fighting Isis in 2017 My Kurdish nom de guerre, given to me by the People’s Protection Unit (YPG), is Tirpan Cudi.
I am a communist and one of three Irishmen now in Afrin to resist the Turkish invasion of Rojava, northern Syria.
I have been fighting here against Isis since 2016 as part of the International Freedom Battalion, an alliance of Turkish communist parties and international communist and anarchist volunteers.
Chinese international volunteers in Afrin write: "Down with the Turkish imperialist invasion" My closest comrades have been here since the battle of Kobane in 2014. They are mostly from Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Lenninist (TKPML) and the Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey (TIKKO).
They have been active since 1972, mainly in the Dersim mountain range and are made up of a mix of ethnicities typical of this region: Kurds, Turks, Armenians, and people of the Allevi religion — a progressive sect of Islam that holds Mohamed’s daughter in reverence.
You realise quickly that there is not one oppressed ethnicity in the region, but alongside the Kurds, there are tens of major groups with their own languages and histories that are threatened by Turkish chauvinism.
However, allies in great number are still thin on the ground. The only thing close to a friendly neighbour in the area is in the very south of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG).
Since the Kurdish referendum, the Iraqi government rolled back a lot of the KRG’s autonomy, so the relatively small assistance they were previously able to get from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party areas has gone.
Former Iraqi Kurdistan president Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) is in charge of the KRG overall, and crucially that includes all of the regions that actually border Rojava.
He is an ally of Turkey and completely hostile. Even when Isis was at its strongest, he stood aside and even impeded the YPG’s fight whenever he could.
The KDP’s politics are not even Kurdish nationalist, they are feudal, tribal, opportunistically friendly with Turkey and Israel, and the party are total clients of the United States, which injects millions of dollars into its failing statelet.
The relationship with the Syrian government is complicated but I wouldn’t describe it as hostile today. Rojava is not a separatist project, its ambition is autonomy within what the Russians propose, a new Syrian Republic.
The YPG and Syrian forces have worked together in the past in the liberation of Aleppo. Many of the city neighbourhoods of Qamishli in Rojava are under government control. But even as a foreigner you can walk or drive through the checkpoints with no problems.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has not been obstructing us in our defence of Afrin, which it could easily do.
Russia has given a decent amount of military assistance to the YPG in the past, though less than the US. It proposes replacing the current Syrian Arab Republic with a new Syrian Republic, with Kurdish autonomy, and state recognition of all minority languages.
Russia has tried to get the Syrian Kurds a place at the table for the peace negotiations, and for the first time secured one for the planned Sochi talks.
However, Russia allowing Turkey to invade Afrin shows it is no more reliable than the US. Our alliances with it were tactical and temporary, just like the YPG said from the start.
International solidarity is therefore vital. One party active here, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP), put the Afrin resistance like this: Kobane was Stalingrad, make Afrin Vietnam.
This is how I would explain it to the anti-capitalist left in Europe and the United States who still struggle to understand and support us.
Like Vietnam, we have made alliances with the big powers in the past and played them off one another. But now we face Turkey, and therefore Nato imperialism, head on.
The YPG will fight the war, but you must conduct a huge and militant solidarity campaign back home. We need actions, protests and trade union declarations. We need slogans on the walls of the West.
Militarily, fighting a Nato army will be different to fighting Isis, like I did in Manbij and Raqqa, due to the Turkish air force. But ideologically speaking it is not so different.
Both Isis and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan want the total destruction of the Kurdish people, both are Islamist and, in typical fascist fashion, both are trying to resurrect an older, glorious order. While Isis wanted a caliphate, Turkey has neo-Ottoman ambitions.
The assistance Turkey has given to Isis is well documented but it failed to crush the Rojava project. So now, to weaken Rojava ahead of the Sochi peace negotiations, Turkey is taking matters directly into its own hands with the invasion of Afrin.
Given the 2015 Turkish campaign against the Kurds in Bakur, eastern Turkey, where they flattened large civilian areas of cities such as Cizre and Nusaybin inside Turkish borders, we can expect a complete disregard for civilian life.
However, in 2015 there were barely any journalists, independent or otherwise, covering those massacres because the Turkish state was able to close off the area.
The Rojava Kurds are more famous and have played a much better media game. Now the world is watching Afrin and asking why the heroes who liberated Raqqa from Isis yesterday are being abandoned today.
Even though we have seen some BBC reporters embedded with the Turkish side, we also have reporters on our side of the line.
In comparison to Isis there are three things I am glad I won’t have to deal with this time. The first is suicide car-bombs driven at speed towards us. Some of those were more powerful than the average air strike.
I arrived in the wake of one once. It had gone off at a crossroads and totally vapourised everything on the road and almost levelled all the apartments on the four corners.
The second is mines, booby traps. There are ridiculous amounts of mines planted by Isis. When they retreated they riddled the places they vacated with mines. In one apartment building in Raqqa we found 35 traps set with explosives.
The third thing is the suicide vests loaded with ball bearings on individual fighters. Although these could make a reappearance given that so many Isis and other jihadis have been recruited to Turkey’s side.
Despite Turkish troop numbers and air power, I’m optimistic. Unlike most of Rojava, Afrin is mountainous and hilly. We can fight a guerilla campaign here during the invasion, and if needs be during an occupation.
Even if we lose major areas, we will either get them back as soon as Turkey withdraws, or Turkey will eventually face losses that will cost Erdogan politically.
Having removed all the people from his administration who might have talked sense into him, Erdogan’s invasion is nothing but a madman lashing out.
The legal implications of fighting a sovereign power and Nato member state do not concern me. I’m in a sovereign state, it’s called Syria, and it’s currently being invaded illegally by Turkey.
I’m a member of the YPG, a Syrian army that’s increasingly gaining de-facto recognition. I don’t care about the legality. Turkey and its Free Syrian Army (FSA) goons have no business here and need to be crushed in their craven neo-Ottoman Salafist efforts. We are not leaving until that job is done.
If we win, then facts on the ground makes prosecuting us unlikely, or at least very unpopular as the West will be on friendly terms with the Rojava project again. If we lose we will be dead.
Sharia Laws Are Part Of The Extremist Threat And Not A Solution
One Law For All protests to British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd about the independent review of Sharia Law. One Law for All rejects sharia review pdf
Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
6th February 2018
Dear Right Hon Amber Rudd, MP,
The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution
As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed their existence.
At the outset, we feared a whitewash but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?
Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes, homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.
Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and ‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are ‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.
In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it themselves. Why did they not do so?
The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious laws.
Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’ which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in Muslim majority countries.
Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.
The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents.”
A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes and human rights violations.
The review is a botched attempt at consultation established with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.
We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile, we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Follow One Law For All on Twitter @One_Law_for_All
Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
6th February 2018
Dear Right Hon Amber Rudd, MP,
The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution
As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed their existence.
At the outset, we feared a whitewash but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?
Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes, homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.
Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and ‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are ‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.
In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it themselves. Why did they not do so?
The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious laws.
Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’ which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in Muslim majority countries.
Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.
The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents.”
A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes and human rights violations.
The review is a botched attempt at consultation established with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.
We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile, we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Follow One Law For All on Twitter @One_Law_for_All
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.
