Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1172

Bitter Man, Bitter Force

From The Transcripts Martin Galvin of Radio Free Eireann speaks to Anthony McIntyre, former Republican prisoner now historian, author and commentator, via telephone from Co. Louth about several topics that are of interest to the Irish Republican community.
Radio Free EireannAudio Player(begins time stamp ~ 19:58)

Martin: We do have Dr. Anthony McIntyre – we had a little bit of difficulty reaching Dominic Óg McGlinchey, we’re going to try him towards the end of the programme. Anthony, welcome back to Radio Free Éireann. Hello?

Anthony: Hello!

Martin: Anthony, are you with us?

Anthony: I am but you’re hard to hear. Go ahead.

Martin: Alright. No, we had a little trouble. We dialed Dominic Óg McGlinchey and weren’t able to make a connection. We’re going to try him again a little bit later in the programme but we wanted to go to you directly. There’ve been a number of important stories in The North of Ireland. This is one of our ‘catch-up’ programmes where we try to catch-up, bring the audience up-to-date, on a number of different issues and we can think of no better person than you, Dr. Anthony McIntyre, a commentator, journalist and somebody who keeps the blog, The Pensive Quill, to try and help us with all those stories so welcome back. Okay, first thing: When we discontinued for fund raising, obviously last January Sinn Féin had resigned from Stormont, there was a new election, there were talks, there were deadlines – many deadlines and deadlines were passed – and where are we now in terms of Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) reconstituting the Stormont Assembly?

Anthony: Well, it’s not going to happen this week or next week. I think at the very least we will have to get past the party conferences. And I think Newton Emerson pointed this out in an article in the Irish News that the party conferences are coming up so there’s little chance of an agreement being reached prior to those conferences. Now the talks have broken down. James Brokenshire, the British Secretary of State, has said that he has to introduce a budget and he’s starting to move in the British Parliament, I think this Monday, to introduce a budget that will be imposed on The North and there’s an argument that he’s trying to say that this is not Direct Rule but you know this is rhetoric. It’s hard to see how it isn’t Direct Rule. It’s certainly the substance of Direct Rule – budgetary matters being controlled by London. So we’re – even though they’re saying it’s not Direct Rule I think Colum Eastwood of the SDLP (Social Democratic and Labour Party), the leader of the SDLP, made the point that it that looks very like Direct Rule – it walks like Direct Rule, it talks like Direct Rule so…

Martin: Okay.

Anthony: Hello?

Martin: Yes. Alright. The Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – they have totally opposite objectives. Sinn Féin wants a united Ireland. The Democratic Union…

Anthony: …No, that’s not true. Sinn Féin says it wants a united Ireland. Sinn Féin’s a partitionist party that supports the partitionist principle of unity by consent. Sinn Féin for years had opposed that. Sinn Féin were the political wing of the IRA and the IRA killed over a thousand members of the security forces, the British security forces. The IRA killed over a thousand members of the British security forces with Sinn Fein’s endorsement. And those British security forces, at one level, were defending the Principle of Consent.

Martin: Alright. But the Democratic Unionist Party views any moves by Sinn Féin, whatever they try, as some sort of threat or bribe or some sort of secret move towards a united Ireland – even to the point where if you would just have an Irish Language Act (ILA) similar presumably to what they have in Wales, they have a Welsh language act in Wales, they have a Scottish language act in Scotland – even a move like that is viewed as a red line, something that the Democratic Unionist Party will not accept where even reconciliation gestures, sorry initiatives, like those of Declan Kearney and others, they are looked on suspiciously, they are looked on as some sort of trick to come over, a Trojan horse, to get involved with undermining British rule. How do two parties – Alex Kane, the Unionist commentator, and others have made this same statement from a Unionist perspective – how do two parties which have totally different views how do they come together and work a coalition on any other basis other than what Suzanne Breen used to write about as ‘rollover Republicanism’ – going along, with Sinn Féin going along with the DUP – how do they ever get a real agreement that would recognise rights, that would jeopardise what the Unionist see, or Democratic Unionist Party sees, as the basis of continued British rule?

Anthony: Well, the way that they will get it will be through the Sinn Féin leader calculating that it’s in his career interest, in the interest of his political career, that they reach an agreement in The North. I’m not a pessimist about that some sort of agreement being reached in The North because I think it’s dependent whether or not (and we’ll learn more about this from the upcoming Ard Fheis) but it’s dependent on whether or not the Sinn Féin party can get into government in The South. Now, they’ve been making overtures to Fine Gael, they’ve been making overtures to Fianna Fáil, and I’ve no doubt that there’s been back-channel negotiations and feeling-out processes in place and what would happen then is the Sinn Féin president will reckon that his chances of getting into government will be greatly increased if he is also seen as being in government in The North. And at that point Sinn Féin will move into government in The North regardless of the Irish Language Act being in place or not. It has to be borne in mind that Sinn Féin were in government for ten years in The North – what did they actually do to go about securing an Irish Language Act? I mean the Executive didn’t collapse over an Irish Language Act. It collapsed over the Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) in which the party had blamed Arlene Foster on – and with, I mean, good reason – but we hardly hear them mention that today. They’re claiming today that the talks are collapsing because or they can’t reach agreement because of the Irish Language Act, marriage equality and the legacy issues – the right to have inquests into killings in The North by British state security personnel.

Good Friday: The Death of Irish Republicanism by Anthony McIntyre
Martin: Okay. Tell me – if the British government introduces a budget – that’s technically Direct Rule or may be considered Direct Rule. How much difference does that really make to people on the ground? The Tory/DUP, whatever you want to call it, partners, they set a block grant. The block grant really controls how much money is available. It is going to lead to and mean cuts of crucial services in The North of Ireland. Would it matter, how much does it matter if it’s the DUP and Sinn Féin at Stormont once they get – it’s like children getting an allowance – once you get that allowance there’s only so much you can do with it, you’re not going to get more money than that allowance – how much does it really matter if the budget is set by Westminster instead of by the DUP and Sinn Féin in some sort of partnership or carve-up?

Anthony: Well, given that the DUP are neoliberal in their outlook, very neoliberal in their outlook, they will not worry too much about shafting the poorer sectors of Northern society. The Sinn Féin are not just as neoliberal and they have a constituency that would expect more. I mean, Sinn Féin have been promising to put manners on the PSNI – failed absolutely! They will not be able to put manners on the Tories. And Sinn Féin are always vulnerable to electoral erosion, particularly to groups like the People Before Profit (PBP) if they’re seen to be implementing the Tory austerity policy. Now Sinn Féin are quite prepared to implement austerity and Sinn Fein are quite prepared to basically shaft the poorest of the society in the interest of obtaining power. But it is convenient for them to have the Tories making them decisions and then they blame the Tories. But as you say, Sinn Féin in government – and I never call it power-sharing, I call it power-splitting because this is what it is – they split power between, in a very ungenerous fashion, between the two main parties who, as you pointed out earlier and Alex Kane has said this as well, they absolutely hate each other but this devil’s alliance, this unholy alliance and it suits both to have this alliance. But it will suit Sinn Féin, to some extent, and let the Tories take the flak on the budget but at the end of the day if Adams decides that his political career is best served by that government in The North, getting it up and running, in conjunction with a government in The South – that’s what he’ll go for.

Martin: Alright. Now, you mentioned the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Now ten years ago there were debates, John and I both worked for candidates who opposed Sinn Féin endorsing the PSNI. What everybody was told: You had the Patten Commission, you had 50/50 recruitment (which has since been done away with), you had policing boards, you had Sinn Féin being involved, very much, on those policing boards – as well as independents, as well as the DUP – and that that would give Nationalists the chance, as you said, to teach, put manners on the PSNI. And all we see in recent weeks, when you talk about legacy issues, when you talk about, for example, the Glenanne case, where about a hundred and thirty people were murdered by Loyalists with, it seems to be, in collusion with British Crown forces – in order to get the truth they were back in court to try and force the PSNI to investigate it and the case, the respondent, the defendant, the person against whom they bring the case is the PSNI Chief Constable. When you talk about not giving a budget for legacy inquests, starving them, stalling them out with money, if you look at the policing boards – they have overall responsibility. The PSNI Chief Constable is the one who implements a budget on a daily basis but the policing boards oversee that annually, they do reports on it – why is it that these structures, these boards, have had no effect whatsoever in getting justice for people who have been denied inquests, who were the victims of collusion? Why is it they now have to go to court, they now have to go to Ombudsman, which is a way of saying that the policing boards failed, that the political structures at Stormont failed, that we can’t get justice in that way. In fact, I just talked about a new film, No Stone Unturned – you have to go to an American film maker to try and get justice – policing boards seem not to work. Why is that?

Anthony: Well, they were set up not to work. They were never set up to be a serious indictment of the state and they have shown their total ineffectualness in this very situation in that we now have the judiciary hitting out at the British police, the PSNI, because of their tardiness and their absolute reluctance to do anything in relation to truth recovery. See, the biggest change under Patten was the change of the name; the name changed from the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) to the PSNI. Now if the PSNI were to face a threat similar in nature and substance to the threat posed by the Provisional IRA the PSNI would behave exactly like the RUC did – no difference whatsoever – because it would probably find itself in a situation where it felt that was the best way to defeat any insurgency so there’s been no substantive change in this force. And this force now is defending and covering up for the worst atrocities. There has never been one member of the PSNI, when it was called the RUC, not one member of it has been brought before the courts for torture yet there were numerous people tortured by the PSNI when it was the RUC.
The Irish News
13 November 2017
They are doing everything possible to prevent investigations into the past yet they want to investigate Republicans – they’re even chasing after myself on charges of IRA membership and attempted escape from prison and bomb attacks that the Loyalists actually carried out. I mean, this is where they’re wasting public money in the American courts and in the courts in The North of Ireland and they’re not willing to spend money and bring in anybody, any of their own people, to trial.

Now if we look at the recent case involving Gary Haggarty where they say his evidence, despite it being substantial, his evidence would not stand up in court. Now that was a means for the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service and the British Public Prosecutor in The North, Barra McGrory, that is a means for them to allow the PSNI to get off the hook and probably more importantly it’s a signal – a shot across the bows of those who think that the John Boutcher Operation Kanova inquiry is going anywhere. Freddie Scappaticci, the agent Stakeknife, will be characterised and dismissed as an accomplice. And accomplice evidence is not acceptable in the courts of The North at the moment. So I mean this force is doing its utmost to thwart justice and it is no surprise to me that people are increasingly alienated from it. Gerry Kelly will get up and talk rubbish about he supports people joining the PSNI because it’s an Irish police force. They’re no more Irish than the Royal Irish Regiment (RIR), the UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) the RUC before it. They’re a British police force. They’re managed, effectively, in terms of what they can do and limited, effectively, in terms of what they can do by MI5. The PSNI are not accountable to an Irish administrative system they’re accountable to the British administrative system and British interests haven’t changed that much.

Martin: Alright. – we’re talking with Dr. Anthony McIntyre – Anthony, there was a new bill introduced – it’s not formally endorsed by the government yet although it’s a member of their party and it was drawn by members of the Democratic Unionist Party and what this bill would do is impose a ten year statute of limitations on any murders or crimes committed by British troopers in The North of Ireland as well as other areas. We’ve had Kate Nash and others on campaigning for prosecutions of British troopers for Bloody Sunday going back to 1972. We’ve had people like the Ballymurphy Massacre Families – if they are cleared by an inquest it might mean that somebody else is guilty of shooting down these people, unarmed people on the street, without provocation, including a Catholic priest, a mother, people going to the aid of others who were wounded – what would it mean to those families, Kate Nash, the Bloody Sunday families, if the British do introduce this ten year statute of limitations?

Anthony: Well, I mean, it’s a ruse. The first question we ask ourselves is it’s a general amnesty – a blanket amnesty for all British security forces because how many people have been killed by British state security forces in The North in the last ten years? So anybody killed before that – you know, there’s been none – I mean, maybe one or two but not in sort of political circumstance -  what happens there is that they’re given an amnesty. And I, I mean I have told Kate Nash myself (and other people) that I disagree with the pursuit of prosecution strategies because it’s a means of preventing the truth from emerging about the past. We will never get the truth while we insist on prosecution strategies but the problem here it’s a one-sided, skewed manner in which the British are trying again to apply this. They want it to apply to only British soldiers and the RUC. And so what it means is that the people who’ll continue to appear in courts for activities that occurred, events that occurred forty, forty-five years ago will be Republicans, in some cases Loyalists – no state forces – which means there’s a hierarchy of victims and some victims are going to be treated vastly different from others. Like, if you can drag an eighty year old Republican like Ivor Bell in front of the courts why the hypocrisy and shouting about eighty year old soldiers getting dragged in front of the courts?

Martin: …And in particularly…

Anthony: …the law has to…

Martin: …And in particularly demonstrations in front of Westminster, people walking around, how it’s ‘Frankenstein justice’ if you bring somebody like Dennis Hutchings into a court for shooting down a young man running away in Benburb, you know, years ago. Okay…

Anthony: …Well I mean the complaint…

Martin: …I just want to get to a couple of more things: Brexit – the negotiations are still going on. It just reminds me what happened here in the United States with Obamacare: You had the Trump Administration and others, Republicans were saying for years we want to repeal and replace Obamacare and everything’ll be great after that, it’ll be great for the economy, all the problems will be solved, all the problems with medical care and costs of medical care will be solved, just elect us, give us our chance. And then obviously when they got elected they had the chance to do that – they have no idea what to do. They have no replacement. They have no programme to do it with. It just seemed to be a good slogan to get elected. In terms of Brexit in The North of Ireland: You had the Tories, you had people calling for Brexit – for breaking away from the European Community – that that was going to make the British a great empire again, it was going to solve all their economic problems, it was going to give everybody jobs and better pay and now it seems they have no strategy for dealing with it, no strategy for what happens. It seems like they thought it would never happen, they don’t have a way to go forward and Ireland, particularly counties – like you live in Co. Louth – and Donegal, others are going to pay a very heavy price for it if it is implemented. How do you see it?

Anthony: Well I mean I think you’re right. The British who were pushing for this, and Theresa May was not a Brexiteer, but the British who were pushing for this had simply no – the right-wing of the Tory party had no idea and they didn’t anticipate a victory and then when they were handed a victory they didn’t know what to do with it. I think that’s been proved in recent times. And the interesting thing is that in The North there has been, in relation to The North, there has been a document uncovered in recent days which shows that the European Union (EU) are pushing for The North to remain within Europe and while Britain will not – now, that would cause serious problems for Unionism but also would be an administrative nightmare for the British and they’re already responding by saying there will be no borders within the UK – it’s not happening. So it’s very unlikely to happen. And the Taoiseach has rolled back from suggestions, well he hasn’t rolled back himself but he’s disputed suggestions, and Simon Coveney, the Foreign Minister, disputed suggestions that the Irish government has been pushing to have The North to stay within the EU which would sort of make it very, it would become very much identifiable as an island totally separate from Britain and the Unionists and the Tories don’t want that. But because the Tories have handled it so badly it’s impossible to say what way it will go because there’s no pattern or plan or logic that can be followed here. You’re just watching them dance about and jump from issue to issue. They’re getting ridiculed in Europe. They simply have no idea how to handle this and because there’s no plan of action we’re not able to sit down and look at the blueprint – it’s make it up as you go along. And I mean Theresa May is under pressure, although I don’t think it’s terminal, but it’s certainly causing her government pressure in that she’s lost two ministers this month. She’s lost a Minister for Defense due to his sexual harassment of women and she’s lost a Minister of International Development for striking secret deals with the State of Israel. So she is under pressure and there’s everything to play for here in terms of what way things will go. But I’m of the view that coming into the new year we will still have Theresa May at the head of the Tory government but The North, I mean she’s too dependent on the DUP for us to see any type of policy introduced which the DUP would find anathema. So all, I think, will be pretty much the same.

Martin: Alright. We were not able to get Dominic Óg McGlinchey but you ran a piece on The Pensive Quill in which there was a controversy: Peadar Heffron wrote a piece and he was interviewed by a journalist for the Irish Independent. Peter Heffron was, or Peadar Heffron, excuse me, was somebody from a Nationalist area, played Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) sports and joined the PSNI which we’ve talked about – he was a victim of a – was injured in an attack and he says he’s a bitter man – he didn’t like the way that the football club that he had belonged to received him – they weren’t sympathetic enough to him and Dominic Óg McGlinchey had written a piece saying that much of what Peadar Heffron said might be the basis of neighbours of Peadar Heffron, former neighbours of Peadar Heffron, being targeted, being victimised, that in that area there are numerous people who were victims of assassinations – either with the help of or covered up by people who joined the PSNI. Why do you think Dominic Óg McGlinchey wrote that piece or what were the themes in that piece that you printed on The Pensive Quill?

Anthony: Well firstly, Peadar Heffron yeah, I mean he’s a bitter man who joined a bitter force. And I mean what happened to Peadar Heffron – and I’ve written about this and I’ve expressed my view in relation to his – the attack on him and the attack also on Ronan Kerr, another Catholic on that force, that ended up, he died, I think there’s no justification for these attacks whatsoever. But, what Dominic McGlinchey was writing about was the sentiment that exists at local level in some communities, in Nationalist communities in The North, towards the PSNI. The acceptance of the PSNI by Sinn Féin is to enhance political careers. It’s not to deliver justice. There’s never been manners put on the PSNI. And people who are sitting in Nationalists areas watching the PSNI cover-up for the RUC murders, the RUC tortures, are very unhappy and a lot of Nationalists lost their lives in that particular area where Peadar Heffron lived and, although he wasn’t a serving member of the PSNI – he served, I think, in Woodbourne and Belfast – Peadar Heffron’s joining of the PSNI would have angered a lot of people who have every right to dissent from his decision to join equally as they have the right to applaud his decision to join. And his colleagues in the Gaelic Club seemed not to have liked it at the time and were pretty blunt and telling him that they didn’t respect his decision.

Because Sinn Féin want to go along with policing doesn’t mean that everybody and their gran have to think that the police are a good thing. Sinn Féin needed to accept the police to get into government. They didn’t reform the police to any great extent and, as you pointed out, the 50/50 Catholic/Protestant balance was just done away with, and Dominic McGlinchey was trying to point out that when a guy like Joe Brolly comes up and interviews Peadar Heffron and then – Heffron’s less at fault here in fact, Heffron’s not at fault at all for feeling the way he does but Brolly is very much at fault, in Dominic’s view, and also in the view of Seán Mallory who earlier, the day before, had written a piece – Seán Mallory’s a former Republican prisoner, here’s from the Tyrone area, he also knows that people on the ground and in the Gaelic Clubs were very unhappy with Peadar Heffron deciding to join a force – a force that’s been involved, heavily involved, in cover-up and truth denial and keeping families, like those of Bloody Sunday and those in North Belfast who were the victims of the Mount Vernon killers, the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force) killers and those victims of the Ballymurphy Massacre ,that there’s a genuine feeling out there of resentment towards that force.

Now Joe Brolly, who was in the GAA himself, a successful GAA man, an All-Ireland Medal winner, Joe Brolly then accused the former members of widespread cowardice and seems to imply that they may have been in some way involved in the fate that befell Peadar Heffron. Now there’s anger at Joe Brolly because Joe Brolly’s saying things about the GAA that haven’t been heard in years and, when they were heard, they were coming from people like Willie McCrea and, therefore, Dominic thinks and Seán Mallory thinks that this expression of blame, culpability, being assigned to the GAA Club, the local GAA club of which Peadar Heffron was a member, they are of the view that this is an egregious attempt and it causes problems for many, many Nationalists. They’re not, in any way, trying to justify the bomb attack on Peadar Heffron, they are simply trying to put it in, put the reaction of the GAA Club to his decision to join the PSNI, they’re trying to put that in context and explain it and give an alternative narrative because this is one of the problems in The North: They (officialdom) want this narrative of the peace process to be accepted. They talk to us about democracy but democracy is the right to choose – choose to do something or choose not to do it and people democratically expressed their views that Peadar Heffron made the wrong decision and they’re quite entitled to express that view and the GAA, his fellow colleagues, his fellow players in the GAA, are quite entitled to be unhappy with him and they’re quite entitled to express that view and they’re doing it in a democratic fashion. There’s nobody saying that Peadar Heffron should have been attacked. I think the attack on Peadar Heffron was terrible, terrible brutal, wholly unjustified. I also feel and when he was denied compensation, when they tried some terrible way to bamboozle, or try to bamboozle their way out of paying him the compensation by saying he wasn’t on duty at the time – well, he was traveling to work – and I spoke out against it and thought he was treated terribly. So people like myself who run this blog or people like Dominic McGlinchey and Seán Mallory who contribute to this blog through insightful articles are not justifying any attack on Peadar Heffron. They’re simply trying to place in context that he is a bitter man who joined a bitter force.

Martin: Alright. We’re going to have to leave that there. Anthony, thank you for being with us. The website, the blog that he was talking about is The Pensive Quill. It covers articles on a daily basis like what we’ve just heard. And I note: We’re not going to have time to discuss it but before we were on fund raising and on a hiatus one of the cases that we have talked about was that of Tony Taylor, a Doire man, who had been – served a sentence, was released and then just suddenly got picked up on what is called licence, or parole, where you can’t attend your hearing, you can’t pick your representative at a hearing so if your representative can’t talk to you you he can’t get information about to prove your innocence. And there was somebody named Gabriel Mackle who was just picked up within the last number of days and it seems like he is going to be another victim of that policy of internment-by-licence so we’re – well, we’ll look forward to reading about it and getting behind it and getting on top of that case, hopefully it’s not true. We want to thank you for bringing us up-to-date on so many stories.

Anthony: Thank you for having me on, Martin. And the Gabriel Mackle case is another example of what this force, the PSNI, is doing. They’re continuing the policy of internment and they’re not being opposed by the people who were interned, previously interned, and who should be standing up opposing them. Thanks very much!

Martin: Alright. Good Luck! Thank you, Anthony. (ends time stamp ~ 51:37)






The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.

You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts 

Revealed: Pedophile Past Of A Respected Professor

Lena M writing in Atheist Republic highlights more cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church.

Photo Credits: Transcend Media Service Rev. James Lara worked from 1973 to 1992 at the Diocese of Brooklyn. He was dropped from the ministry due to credible allegations of child molestation years ago but the diocese didn’t disclose that fact. Instead, he became an award-winning author and professor with the little change in his name - Jaime. The Church chose to protect its reputation instead of protecting possible future victims.

Lara was able to keep his past hidden for so long because the diocese refused to tell the public which priests were removed from ministry because of “credible” allegations of molesting children, the Washington Post reports.

Over the past 25 years, Jaime Lara was a professor at Yale University, wrote five books and won more than a dozen prestigious awards and fellowships. Since 2013, he has been a professor of medieval and renaissance studies at Arizona State University. He succeeded to hide his problematic past and he also built an illustrious career in the academic world of sacred art history.

On Thursday, the Brooklyn diocese quietly posted Mr. Lara’s name on its website, confirming that he had been laicized, or defrocked, for the abuse. Later in the day, the diocese posted the names of seven more former priests who were defrocked for child sexual abuse offenses, in an effort to protect children who might come into contact with them. This move happened under pressure of numerous victims. Victims of Father Lara, who served in Brooklyn for 19 years, and victim advocates said on Thursday that while they were glad that his name was being publicized, they felt it was too little too late.

“There is no excuse for a supposedly moral institution to wait 25 years to release a pedophile priest’s name,” said Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer portrayed in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, about clergy sexual abuse.

Ricardo Gonzalez, one of the victims, said the priest began sexually abusing him when he was about 11 years old. “He wanted me to kiss him, he would get on top of me, he would say you can do better than that,” Gonzelez, 48, told the Times. “He would make me touch him in his private parts.” As the abuse continued, Mr. Gonzalez, who is now a hairdresser, dropped out of high school and at one point attempted suicide, he said.

What kind of irony is that a pedophile priest successfully covers his dark past (of course, with the help from the church), while victims want but cannot escape from past’s demons.





Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic

Sessions’ Jaded Justice

From Caged But Undaunted Stanley Cohen with a piece on Jeff Sessions originally published in CounterPunch Magazine print version vol 24 #5 Nov. 201.

Indeed, rumor has it, the most powerful cop in the US raced more than once to take “selfies” as he posed against the large TV screen in his office with his smiling cultural offspring, perched just behind him, making monkey sounds during their recent virtual family get-together in Charlottesville.

Once rejected for a federal judgeship on the grounds of a well documented record as a racist, who better to take over the mantle of leadership at DOJ, for Donald Trump, than a proud supremacist who’s seen his life’s work as maintaining racial, ethnic and religious purity in the United States.

Of all the seats of discretionary and arbitrary power in a president’s circle of friends, the one with the most unbridled and destructive reach is the head of the Department of Justice.

Be assured, Beauregard has used every day of his own personal Fantasy Island at DOJ to give meaning to “arbitrary” and “capricious” in his effort to wage an all out attack on any semblance of civil rights and justice in this country.

To date, in many ways, he’s proven to be one of a kind as he strives to re-set the clock to days that stretch back well before the death of Jim Crow.

For those of us experienced in the hallways of federal criminal justice, it’s a short walk from courtroom door to the expanse of government discretion in selecting the nature and extent of charges which prosecutors can seek against an accused.

Under the Trump owned DOJ, it’s been all downhill as prosecutors have once again been unleashed to target non-violent drug offenses… including marihuana possession and distribution charges.

Make no mistake about it, there’s nothing at all new about DOJ’s reignited “war” on drugs. Years ago, the Clinton Administration began it as so much a simple, but popular, electoral tease. Not to be bested by an earlier “progressive”, Obama sent more people of color to federal prison for getting high, or helping others to do so, than any other president.

When it came to drugs, it took years of reeducation for Obama to finally evolve from “tough” on crime to real on life. As a result, during his second term, sweeping new policies at DOJ prohibited federal prosecutors from pursuing charges that would trigger mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain categories of drug offenders even when convictions for far more serious charges could otherwise be had.

Unlike decades of mindless charging doctrine, those now caught even with large amounts of drugs were to be charged with less serious offenses that didn’t unleash mandatory minimum sentences if, among other things, the crime was not one of violence and the accused did not have a long criminal history.

Not long into his tenure, Sessions directed federal prosecutors to undo these changes and to, once again, seek the most severe penalties possible; including mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses as he aims to repack prisons with persons of color.

In addition, the Attorney General recently sought Congressional leave to target and prosecute medical marihuana providers otherwise protected under various state laws.

Not to worry. There will be plenty available cellblocks to absorb expected increases in our federal prison population, in the years to come, as Sessions has sought to re-institute use of private prisons which were in the process of being phased out as little more than inhumane corporate profit making ventures.

Rife with systemic corruption and wide spread abuse that often targeted vulnerable prisoners for physical and sexual assault, on occasion, inmates were found dead in these private facilities… typically under “mysterious” circumstances.

In other ways, DOJ is aiming to increase prison population through announcing it will crackdown on leaks coming from within the Trump administration… and said it would consider going after reporters who receive and publish leaked material.

The Attorney General also announced DOJ is reviewing guidelines related to subpoenas of journalists which raises the distinct specter of civil and criminal contempt citations and prison for those who take serious not just their First Amendment protection but professional obligations pursuant to the journalist-source privilege.

In the past, such dares would often go untested as numerous police departments found themselves bound by consent decrees, sought by DOJ and approved by federal courts, to reign in what had been widespread long-term police abuses throughout the Country.

Among others, police departments in Baltimore, Miami, Newark, Cleveland, Ferguson, Seattle and Chicago found themselves subject to federal court oversight for a wide variety of unconstitutional police tactics ranging from excessive, often deadly, force against mostly youth of color, hitting suspects in their head with weapons, unnecessary use of stun guns on handcuffed people, race based pedestrian and automobile stops, false arrests based on race, heritage and “disrespectful” speech to improper internal investigation of allegations of police misconduct.

Under Sessions, DOJ will move to undo consent agreements, reached with rogue police departments, to remove external limits on police abuse and corruption in an effort to ensure they do not “adversely impact” the Trump administration’s priorities of combating violent crime and “promoting police safety and morale.” The Attorney General will also refuse to enter into any additional consent decrees in the future.

Indeed in what was to prove to be a dire precursor of events to come not long after a meeting with the National Fraternal Order of Police, on March 31 Sessions issued a memo notifying Justice Department officials, including those in the Civil Rights Division, that “It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.”

Just recently, the Sessions memo of intent became official DOJ practice as it refused to involve itself in the explosive matter of Freddie Gray whose inexplicable killing, several years ago, at the hands of police ultimately led to federal oversight of the Baltimore Police Department.

Indeed, no event sums up better, or worse, the decision by this administration to walk, even run, away from its obligation to ensure local police forces comply with their constitutional obligations than the police murder of Freddie Gray.

Gray, a twenty five year old African American resident of Baltimore, elected to run past police officers when encountering them on a street. Having been “chased” by them on bicycles, according to a court document, Gray came to a stop, voluntarily, without the need of police to use any force. Although a knife was recovered from him during a search… without probable cause… as it turned out, the knife was entirely legal.

Nevertheless, Gray was arrested for possession of a “switchblade.” Offering no resistance, he was pinned to the ground and placed in a “tactical hold” with his hands cuffed behind his back. Before the arrival of a transport van, Gray’s request to use an inhaler was ignored. Likewise, police refused to obtain medical attention for Gray, an asthmatic, who was obviously going through significant distress… repeatedly asking for medical assistance as he screamed-out for help.

Dragged from the street, Gray was loaded, head first and on his stomach, into the police van. In violation of Baltimore police department regulations, he was not restrained by a seat belt. Later, he was placed in leg irons after becoming “irate.” Apparently, at some point while in transit, Gray suffered a neck injury. Upon arrival at a police station, he couldn’t talk and wasn’t breathing. Subsequently, he was pronounced dead.

Following an autopsy which concluded Gray’s death was caused by a “high-energy” injury to his neck and spine that likely occurred as he was thrown about the moving van without a seatbelt, the medical examiner ruled Gray’s death a homicide.

Gray’s murder, which became a symbol of the black community’s mistrust of police, and triggered days of protests and riots in Baltimore, led to an Obama-era Justice Department review of the police force which found a widespread pattern of abuse and misconduct by the Baltimore Police Department.

Like so many other instances which ultimately led to consent decrees and federal oversight of other police departments, DOJ concluded, in Baltimore, police routinely stopped, searched and arrested residents without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, disproportionately targeted black residents, and frequently resorted to unnecessary physical force during these interactions, and others, with persons exercising their free speech and filming rights involving police.

Ultimately, six police officers were charged with depraved homicide, and other charges, in the killing of Gray. After trials in which three of the officers were found not guilty, state prosecutors dismissed all charges against the remaining police.

In keeping with the clear message and intent of the Sessions memo, the Department of Justice recently announced it will not pursue federal civil rights charges of any sort against the officers.

While some might wonder how costly or dangerous the prospect of unshackled policing might become under Sessions, local police forces will not want for either a lack of money or weapons to meet their task. The Attorney General recently rolled back a series of extant curbs on civil-asset forfeitures, thereby, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from citizens without first bringing criminal charges against them.

As one observer noted, “civil-asset forfeiture is tantamount to policing for profit, generating millions of dollars annually that [federal and local police] agencies get to keep” and use as they wish.

Apparently, Sessions unilateral reinstatement of civil forfeitures goes on even though, very recently, the House unanimously voted on 3 amendments to a spending bill which would, once again, curtail the program… effectively eliminating the Sessions expansion. Pending action by the Senate, DOJ thefts will continue.

No doubt, all that extra cash will come in handy to subsidize the dramatic increases in arrests of immigrants, by ICE, following Trump’s inauguration.

Thus, on the basis of new immigration priorities, in the early days of this administration, agents arrested 38% more undocumented immigrants than they seized during the same period last year, increasing the number from approximately 30,000 to 41,300. At roughly the same time, there was a 150% increase in the number of undocumented aliens detained by ICE for “non criminal arrests” growing from 4,200 in 2016 to 10,800 in 2017.

On the other hand, to give credit where credit is due, in terms of deportations during essentially the same period of time, the administration did reduce their number by all of 1.2 percent removing “only” 54,741 aliens from the United States.

Because increased policing can necessarily mean increased “risk” for local police forces, in particular, the president has removed restrictions previously imposed upon militarization of local police across the country.

Under new policies, the Trump administration is lifting limits on transfer, from the federal government to local police, of surplus military equipment including grenade launchers, bayonets, large-caliber weapons and armored personnel carriers… some the size and power of tanks.

In other ways, Sessions has moved quickly to ensure that notions of justice and civil rights lose traction in Trump’s full-time race to play to his supremacist base.

Thus, Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to improve forensic standards that, in the past, had contributed to thousands of wrongfully obtained convictions across the country.

He will also end an expanded review of countless other cases in which FBI techniques and testimony had come under belated challenge while numerous other prisoners await an honest day in court.

In but six months of tenure, Sessions has managed to undo, or walk away from, the legacy of a wide range of civil rights priorities within the DOJ. In addition to police reform and on-going school desegregation, among other efforts no longer a priority, DOJ has begun to roll back decades of progress on civil rights and voting rights, equal protection for the disabled and more recent successes around issues of LGBTQ rights.

Indeed, not long after taking office, the administration withdrew in-place protections for transgender students in public schools that let them use bathrooms and facilities corresponding with their gender identity. Recently DOJ argued to the Supreme Court that a Christian baker could refuse a cake for a gay couple… ignoring long settled protections under the Interstate Commerce Clause; the very vehicle used to break the back of much of Jim Crows “private” discrimination practices years ago.

At the same time, the Trump administration prepares to redirect resources of the DOJ’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities with affirmative action admission policies.

DOJ has also moved to obstruct enforcement of federal voting rights laws and recently sided with Ohio’s voter purge program. Under this program, Ohio can continue to remove “infrequent voters” who fail to cast a ballot over a six-year period yet otherwise remain citizens of the same state at the same address.

Just this past week, DOJ refused to defend DACA as an unconstitutional reach of the Executive Order power of the president… at the very time it supports the Muslim ban Trump moved to implement through an identical EO practice.

Not sufficiently pleased with a presidential pardon for Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio, convicted for contempt in willful and multiple failures to obey a federal court order demanding he cease unconstitutional practices of racial profiling, harassment, and detention, in a palpably clear political act, earlier this week, Sessions moved to support Arpaio’s motion to vacate his underlying conviction… obtained by Session’s own office.

These are but a few of many issues within criminal justice and civil rights spheres where this administration has sent a loud, clear, and unprecedented message that justice is tough, prisons are good, and civil rights are for those who can afford to pay to play.

Elsewhere, this administration has moved, with reckless abandon, to undo generations of priorities and protections which range from those that extend to our environment, our public schools, women and family rights, Native American rights, subsidized food and housing programs, and regulations intended to end unfettered corporate and banking greed.

While not nearly as exhaustive as the catalogue of abuse and abandon in the halls of the DOJ, they still provide a powerful glimpse of an administration that has chosen to walk, indeed, flee from, or target, the most vulnerable among us.

Nowhere, however, has the attack on constitutional and civil rights and safeguards been more glaring, or immediate, than it has been under the Department of Justice headed, now, by one once found by the US Senate to be too racist to serve in the federal judiciary, but apparently, now, just xenophobic enough to become the top cop in this country.


Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.

Follow Stanley Cohen on Twitter @StanleyCohenLaw

Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 2 December 2017

Martin Galvin with details of this weekend's broadcast from Radio Free Eireann.

Radio Free Eireann will broadcast this Saturday December 2nd on wbai Radio 99.5FM or wbai.org at 12noon-1pm New York time or 5pm-6pm Irish time or anytime after the program on wbai.org/archives.

As Brexit, or Britain's exit from the European Community reaches a critical point in negotiations, the Democratic Unionist Party is now threatening to bring down Theresa May's slim Conservative majority unless Britain insists on a full customs and immigration border across Ireland. Derry based journalist Eamonn Sweeney will give up to the minute coverage of where the negotiations between the European Community and Britain stand and why unionists would rather see a border that threatens economically disastrous consequences than remain in a special trade and travel arrangement in Ireland.


John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.

Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.

It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.

Pernicious Hydebank

Statement From Republican Prisoner Christine Connor, read by Sharon Jordan to the Saoradh ard fheis.
A Chairde

Hydebank Gaol has undergone an overhaul. Gone are the days of relative calm, and in its place, a power equation.

I have heard it said that time will bring a resolution but time is not a remedy. In the 4 months since my return to Hydebank. I have battled daily with an administration who possess the domesticity of assiduous bigotry. The intractable position of Gaol authorities has culminated in a practice of blatant discrimination and unfair treatment.

Visits that were previously allocated to Republican Prisoners have been significantly reduced, with the current stance being that the statutory entitlement is to 1 visit every 4 weeks, and anything beyond this, is at the discretion of the governor.

Educational opportunities are non-existent and access to craft is not comparable to those on offer to fellow Republican Prisoners in Maghaberry.

By virtue of being the only Republican Prisoner in Hydebank, essentially held in defacto isolation; an environment confounded further by the deliberate disregard for my welfare.

The well established principles of the Steele Report, clearly states political prisoners most remain at all times separated from the gaol population, but on several occasions now, I have been placed in situations that potentially could have jeopardized my personal safety.

To date the prison service has been unwilling to provide a comprehensive policy regarding separated females and of defined practices, decisions that have been disproportionate and ad hoc at best.

I have been met with an iron fist; an approach that is undoubtedly a custom of criminalization but this behaviour is of futile utility.

The security measures that are in place for external hospital consultations are excessive and degrading, resulting in the cancellation of all appointments.

I am one prisoner but the failings of the prison service, will only serve to fortify my determination to succeed in challenging the sectarian mentalities of those intent on continuing on this trajectory of marginalization and equality.

The hostile attitudes from those facilitating my imprisonment, is a daily occurrence and despite efforts by my legal team to elicit constructive engagement, the situation is further crystalized with each passing hour.

The presence of governors on the wing is simply intolerable and I refuse to barter for my rights. I expect nothing, other than what I am entitled to and I will not settle for less. The “numbers game” that seems to be at play means nothing to me because whether I remain the sole Republican woman in Hydebank or not, I will not allow anyone free rein to diminish my rights.

The changes in Hydebank are punitive by nature and have been designed by a pernicious administration with an axe to grind.

To end, I would like to send solidarity greetings to Maghaberry and Portlaoise, and to wish Saoradh the best of luck in their political endeavors in the year ahead.

Christine Connor

Hydebank Gaol

They Killed The Ice Cream Man

Christopher Owens reviews a book on Britain's Dirty war in Ireland.


The murder in the ice cream parlour sounds like a plot from a Val McDermid novel, but has all the real life complexities of a Dashiell Hammett hard boiled paperback.

They Killed the Ice Cream Man, as you can guess from the subtitle, is about the murder of his brother (an RUC officer) John by the IRA, in the family ice cream shop on the Lisburn Road in 1988 (later eulogised by Michael Longley in verse form).
Interestingly, after the publication it became clear that there seemed to be a divide in the Larmour family. Gavin Larmour (John's son) was recently quoted in the News Letter (in relation to a review of this book) as saying "I had previously paid little attention to the book and tried to remain positive thinking that any publicity could help my cause, but...I want to clarify a few things. I have never had much contact with my uncle George ... Nothing would have gotten this far if I hadn’t persisted."
Obviously, I am unaware of what the driving issue is that made Gavin feel he had to distance himself from this book. He is certainly mentioned in glowing terms, and is given credit for uncovering facts that the HET were seemingly unable to do (such as uncovering that one of the weapons used was lying in an evidence bag in Belgium as it had been used to murder two Australian backpackers in Holland, mistaken for British soldiers).
Anyway, onto the review.
This is a book that provokes many an emotion. At the heart of it is a brother attempting to come to terms with what has happened, the impact it has had on his family and his search for justice. On a purely humanitarian level, it is impossible to not feel sympathy for him.
Where the book really hits home is his descriptions of dealing with the Historical Inquiries Team, the PSNI and the Ombudsman. Not only does it clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the original RUC investigation, but it also highlights the PC, nondescript world of civil servants that made up the HET, wanting to avoid taking responsibility for anything, using words like "possibly" and "likely" in the hope that this will quench the thirst of the victim's families.
Larmour depicts all his dealings with these bodies in a manner where it seems pulling teeth would be much easier. He asks for DNA profiling to be done on one of the weapons, which leads to a consultation with Queen's lawyers over the legality of such a practise. Eventually, such tests are conducted but there are no DNA samples available of the two suspects and apparently the "current circumstances" do not allow for them to be brought in for DNA samples.
It's made abundantly clear, the HET was nothing more than an exercise in spin, with arresting and charging people considered a secondary feature (unless it was clear that there were no "difficult" elements to a particular case). Instead of putting victim's families first, they were barely considered.
And the reason for such inaction? 
It's quite simple: the planner (a very well known republican) was brought in for questioning after the murder. One of the safe houses (provided by Joe Fenton) had been bugged, so the Special Branch were able to playback the recordings relating to the murder to said republican, who then became an informer, and later rose to the Army Council.
Huge embarrassment potential for the Provos (especially considering his role in the 1997 ceasefire), and awkward questions for Special Branch.
When dealing with this, They Killed the Ice Cream Man is a fascinating, compelling read.
However, there are problems: the characterisation of his brother's killers in the opening chapter are so stereotypically "baddie" like, that I half expected to read that one of them said "muahahaha" straight after the shooting. While it's understandable (from Larmour's point of view) that he portrays them this way, it gives the description of the murder a somewhat cartoon like quality which I have no doubt was not intended.
Certain lines invoke a heavy amount of eye rolling, such as "Here we were, two ordinary people, one Protestant, one Catholic, who, through a simple act of birth, were considered to be on opposite sides of the sectarian divide." I was waiting for the inevitable "why can't it all be like Corrymeela" line but thankfully it never emerges.
His theory (which links his brother's murder with the death of Pat Finucaine) isn't very convincing, and he even prefaces the theory by admitting that he can't say beyond any doubt that he is correct. I'm not sure if it is something he genuinely believes, or whether it was concocted for the book in order to help lift it beyond the realm of "misery lit."
Finally, his description of the Troubles as "grubby, sectarian" is odd considering his discovery that a well known IRA member involved with the planning of the murder became an informer because of this. Surely, that would be more than enough to make him realise that the conflict was a lot more than "Catholics vs. Protestants and British as piggy in the middle?"
And, along similar lines, he recounts the tale of an Australian film crew confronting Donna Maguire (one of the people involved in the Holland attacks), and the last line of it is him describing the film crew asking Maguire if she thought her past would catch up with her.
The general feeling after reading this particular section is that there are people out there who are aghast that such people involved in conflict are not walking about in sackcloth and ashes, cutting themselves ritually every night before bed. It's a tired stereotype, based on people's rigid perspectives on a person's actions. 
Nonetheless, as a testimonial to the steely determination of a man who wants answers, and for showing that the victims issue isn't going to be going away (or resolved) any time soon, it's an uneven but moving and thought provoking read.
George Larmour, 2016, They Killed the Ice Cream Man: My Search for the Truth Behind My Brother John's Murder, Colourpoint Books, ISBN-13: 978-1780731049


Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.

Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212

Pickled Cucumbers

The Uri Avnery Column looks at tension between the Israeli Prime minister and President.



This Monday the Knesset reassembled for its winter session after a long (and blessed) vacation. On such occasions, the president of the state and the prime minister are invited to speak. The speeches are supposed to be festive, full of pious platitudes. In one ear and out the other.

Not this time.

Seated next to the Speaker, the President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, made a speech that was unprecedented in every respect. He attacked the Likud-dominated government coalition and accused it of undermining the rule of law, the Attorney General and the police.

The President is no leftist, by any means. He belongs to the nationalist right. His ideology is that of "the whole of Eretz-Israel". He is a member of the Likud party.

To understand him, one has to go back to Vladimir Jabotinsky, who in the 1920s founded the Revisionist Party, the foremother of the Zionist Right. Jabotinsky was born and brought up in Czarist Odessa, but studied in Italy, when the Risorgimento was still fresh in everybody's mind. This movement was an unusual mixture of extreme nationalism and extreme liberalism, and Jabotinsky took this with him.

Jabotinsky’s portrait hangs in every Likud office, but his teachings have long ago been forgotten by the Likud membership, except for old-timers like Rivlin, who is 78. He was born at the outbreak of World War II. He belongs to a special group of people: descendants of East European Jews who came to Palestine long before the Zionist movement was born. His father was an expert on Arab culture.

Rivlin is one of the nicest people I know. Everybody likes him. Everybody, that is, except Netanyahu, who, with rare foresight, objected to his nomination.

Netanyahu Listened to Rivlin's speech with a frozen face. Then he rose to make his own speech – a speech which was prepared long before the session, but which sounded as if Rivlin had listened to it before preparing his own text.

The Prime Minister attacked the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Chief of Police, the media and the left, as if all these were meeting in secret to prepare his downfall. This was quite extraordinary, since the attorney general and the police chief were his own personal choices. According to him, all these were conspiring to bring him down in an anti-democratic plot, a putsch by police investigators and criminal prosecutors. The frequent leaks from these investigations, which have been widely published in the media, were – according to Netanyahu – all part of the plot.

And indeed, the public has been well informed about the investigations, one of which concerns expensive presents given by multi-millionaires to Netanyahu, who is himself quite rich. The presents include very expensive cigars, and therefore this bribery investigation is called the "cigar case".

The same and other millionaires also gave expensive presents to Sarah, Netanyahu's very unpopular wife. These include pink champagne, so this investigation is called the "pink champagne case".

But these are bagatelles compared to a black cloud approaching Netanyahu and called the "submarines case". It concerns the acquisition of submarines and surface vessels from a German shipyard. Since German armament producers are known for paying huge bribes to the chiefs of backward countries, nobody was really surprised by rumors of many tens of millions of Euros being paid to Israeli politicians, admirals and middlemen. But where did the euros stop? Before they reached the top?

Netanyahu's Reactions speak louder than the rumors. They have replaced his obsessions about the Iranian nuclear bomb, the terrible danger of Hezbollah and even the treacherous Israeli left. They seem to be his main preoccupation.

In order to neutralize the cabal, Netanyahu and his minions have come up with a simple solution: to adopt the "French Law". This is now the main effort of the Israeli government and the Likud party, to the detriment of everything else. It says simply that no criminal investigation or prosecution shall be conducted against a "sitting prime minister".

On the face of it, there is some sense in this. Our prime minister must conduct the affairs of the state, plan the next war (there is always a next war) and promote economic growth – all functions which suffer when he is fully occupied with dozens of criminal cases. But on second thoughts, it means that a criminal can serve in the highest office and that the prime minister – he and nobody else in the country – is exempt from investigation.

True, according to this law the investigations are only postponed until the prime minister becomes a normal citizen again. But Netanyahu is in his fourth 4-year term, and all the signs are that he fully intends to have a 5th, 6th and 7th, if God - may He be blessed - prolongs his life accordingly.

No other leader in the democratic world enjoys such a privilege, except one. It is called the French Law – but there are huge differences. The French law does protect the president from prosecution while in office – but not the prime minister. Also, and that is a very big also, the terms of office of the French president are limited to two – so that the postponement is not too long.

At This moment, the entire government machinery is being mobilized to turn this legal abomination into law.

Some of the Likud's coalition partners are balking. This coalition consists of many parties – six, if my count is right – and if one of them abstains, there may be trouble. At present, two have announced that they are giving their members "a free hand".

Incensed, Netanyahu's chief whip is threatening to break up the government and declare new elections – a dire threat to all coalition partners, who may face perdition.

In the Likud party itself there is not a single voice of dissent, not a single brave rebel like the two Republican senators who defied President Trump this week.

But President Rivlin condemned the proposed law in the strongest terms, and the Attorney General called it "absurd".

So Where do I agree with Netanyahu? On one point: he attacked the left for possessing a "factory of depression", which create a sour mood.

In Hebrew we have a term for sour foods, such as pickled cucumbers. It may be loosely translated as "souries". Netanyahu said that the left is creating a public "mood of souries", in order to topple him.

Some readers may remember that I have accused the left of the same malaise, but from a different angle. There is a mood of depression within wide stretches of the Israeli peace camp, a mood of desperation, indeed a sour mood.

This mood leads to the impression that we can do nothing to save our state, which is being led to disaster by Netanyahu and his minions. A rather convenient mood, since it means that we can do nothing and need not risk anything, because the battle is lost anyhow.

Some draw the conclusion that the battle must be fought somewhere else, far away from us, such as the fight of the BDS for the boycott of everything Israeli. These days the battle has reached absurd heights, when a US town that was grievously hit by the hurricane announced that its citizens will receive compensation only if they undertake not to boycott Israel. Indeed, a country of unlimited absurdities.

(By the way, Haaretz disclosed this week that our government has hired an international US law firm to fight against BDS.)

A Sour mood does not create fighters. A happy mood creates fighters. When the situation is bad, when it looks hopeless, a bunch of happy warriors can turn the outcome of the battle.

There is no reason to despair. History is not made by God. It is made by us.

Speaking of the French president – let's remember that Emmanuel Macron appeared from nowhere, founded a new party and on the first attempt won an absolute majority. If the French can, we can too.

Desperation, depression, they are all luxuries we cannot afford. We must return to the battle with hope and self-assurance.

As the man said: Yes, we can.

Let's be in good spirits. Let's rejoin the battle joyfully.

The above-mentioned Jabotinsky wrote a historical novel about the Biblical hero Samson. Just before bringing the Philistine temple down on himself, he bequeathed his people a testament of three commands: Chose a king, Collect iron, and – Laugh!



Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
What we Need is a new start.

Has Ten Years Been Enough?

Martin Galvin with a letter in The Irish News on 27 November 2017.


A decade into the Troubles, the slogan "Ten years is enough " appeared on walls, left by British Army patrols. Republicans answered by reminding why they resorted to armed resistance. "But 810 years is too much" they painted underneath, referring pointedly to British rule.

Jim Gibney writes (November 8th) after the "failed experience" of ten months of futile talks with the DUP "Republicans will be asking if the north is ungovernable". Ten futile months might be enough to ask. Ten preceding years of what Gerry Adams described as "deliberate provocation, arrogance and disrespect" should be too much to ask for more.

Jim's question, about the six counties being ungovernable under power-sharing, or any form of British administration, is not new. Books are written about the north being a 'failed political entity'. Unionist columnists like Alex Kane explained why Stormont power-sharing would inevitably collapse. Republicans once professed, that because British hegemony was based on sectarian divisions and privileges, it made the six counties inherently ungovernable, or irreformable.

Sinn Fein sought to remove partition and build a national democracy that could give equality and parity of esteem to all, precisely because it did not rely on sectarian differences. They tried to make power-sharing and partnership at Stormont a platform for building cooperation and trust.

Greeting English royals, 'sorry' initiatives, "Towards an Agreed and Reconciled Future" etc. were all supposed to build goodwill with DUP members and, eventually, dispel unionist fears about a united Ireland. In May 2007,the late Martin McGuinness became Deputy First Minister. His credentials enabled him to offer concessions beyond anyone else's ability. 
Instead of good faith and cooperation, the DUP took concessions as weakness, or insulting bribes to lure them into a united Ireland. They think themselves entitled to their favored status indulged by British ideology.

Today the DUP profess faith in British courts but block funding because British courts and inquests might prove Britain's legacy is not so innocent. They deny Irish influences warrant an Irish language act then go home to places named Derry, or Enniskillen, or Fermanagh. Agreements get made then renegotiated, never implemented.

Britain's interests are secured. The DUP can block any moves towards unification. The British decry a lack of agreement while fostering the sectarian system and ideology which insure disagreement.

Sinn Fein may have proven that a six county administration is irreformable or ungovernable, even with Sinn Fein making unbelievable efforts to reform or govern it. Ten months of futile talks is enough. Ten years of "deliberate provocation, arrogance and disrespect" are too much to ask for more.


Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.

Fighting For The Truth

Daniel Bradley continues his quest for truth in the case of his brother Seamus, slain by the British Army in 1972.





Seamus was a volunteer as was Robbie and Gerry and they were devoted to the freedom of Ireland. Robbie was killed Jan 13th 1972 by an army saracen, and they claimed that it was an accident and no one could prove different. 

Six months later Seamus was shot and captured at 4.20am on the 31st July 1972. There is no doubt in my mind that British intelligence had information on Seamus and it was given by a top IRA officer, someone that Seamus knew and trusted - not knowing that he was going to be betrayed by this person. 
When Seamus was asked to swear in he was told to give his English name, James Oliver Bradley so that the informer could use this information to his handlers. As well as giving his name, he also needed a photograph to give to his handler. At exactly 4.20 am Seamus ran down Bishops field to protect others including his comrades, to be shot twice and then taken prisoner. 
When captured Seamus was taken to Blighs lane as he had been identified by the photograph to be a member of the IRA. Due to the ballistics report I can confirm that Seamus was stripped naked and shot a further three times at close range. He was badly beaten and tortured. The pain rendered him unconscious. 
At approx. 5.20am the hospital was phoned to come and collect an injured youth, at St Peters school. Seamus was then placed in the back of a Saracen and on the way to St Peters school Seamus came conscious and jumped out of the Saracen. He had an army strap of a rifle around his neck and strangled. When the Saracen entered St Peters a medical officer confirmed that Seamus was dead and also confirmed bullet holes in Seamus jeans. As Seamus had been naked when shot the other times the medical officer would not have seen those wounds. Seamus was then taken to Altnagelvin where the cover up began, saying that Seamus had been up a tree when shot. 
Myself and others seen Seamus fall in Bishops field. Sadly no one but myself came forward to make statements. Seamus gave his life to protect others that night and its sad that no one came forward. Sadder still, I asked his commanding officer to help me. I was told to go Creggan after receiving a phone call and was met by 2 IRA men and was told The IRA hasn’t gone away you know.  Their threat didn’t bother me and once again I knocked on Martin McGuinness’s door and told him i had names: “can I use them?” his answer was “no.”
Between the police, MI5, and the IRA they tried very hard to stop me investigating my brothers case, and now I have the right as a true republican to challenge the Provisional IRA about where their loyalty lies. Because from where I am standing all they see is money and power and communicating with the British government. The British have a motto Divide and Conquer. In 1969 the true republicans were the Official IRA. So, the British government needed the official IRA to be destroyed. After Operation Motorman in 1972 the Official IRA lost its power to the Provisional IRA, and as we can see through history the Provisional IRA was full of informers and MI5 were deeply involved with those informers. 







Maybe the real republican of the Provisional IRA should look at these photographs of Vol. Seamus Bradley and ask the question: what were M Mc G and G A hiding when I challenged them about Operation Motorman?




Daniel Bradley is a Derry justice campaigner.

Some Form Of Resistance

Tony Mc Philips with his take on the legitimacy of partition.

Having outlined my belief as above I should also expand on that by stating that I have come to the conclusion that armed actions, sporadic in nature, as they are at this moment in time, are in my opinion counter productive to attempts to rebuild a meaningful and relevant Irish Republican platform and that they only feed the prejudices of those who oppose Irish Republicanism. There has always periods in our history where armed insurrection against the occupying power have being both appropriate and necessary but the present circumstances dictate and indeed are conducive to building a political republican campaign to end British rule on the island and to seek to build an Ireland completely different than the one that we have now.

It is important to remember that what we have at the moment are two British imposed statelets, as of 1921, on this island, neither of which command real democratic legitimacy.

I outline all of the above as a premise to what I now have to say about questions on Brexit. I might initially state that as an Irish republican who believes in the sovereignty of a nation and its people I welcome the decision of any nation to remove themselves from what is nothing more than an undemocratic, bureaucratic, Franco/German power grab that seeks to build a United States of Europe where sovereign nations would no longer exist and where the people would have their lives dictated to by demagogues who are only interested in world domination to the detriment of a nation and its people.

The question of a hard border or soft border here in Ireland is in my opinion an irrelevance because the border imposed by partition in 1921 is still in existence and in all of this debate that is the "elephant in the room". I have outlined to you before that in terms of an effective and a strategic armed campaign to be resurrected here like in the past it requires a clearly identified catalysis as in the denial of Civil Rights in the late 60s or Bloody Sunday etc. Now some would suggest that the continued existence of British rule here is in itself a catalysis, however I don't believe that it is seen as a sufficient catalysis to engender what would be required to prosecute that effective and strategic armed campaign.

Having said all that, this is where it gets interesting, if the British sought to impose a more public manifestation of their occupation by the imposition of a visible militarised border on the island then I believe that this in itself could indeed be the catalyst required to embolden an armed republican campaign. Regarding your question as to whether there are people or groups capable of engaging in this, well you have only to look at our history for the answer to that.

In conclusion it is worth pointing out that when Britain and the Freestate joined what was then the EEC in 1973, they were joining a trading bloc, which is a far cry from what it has evolved into today. I am opposed to all forms of imperialism and unlike former republicans I am not seeking to replace British imperialism on our island with European imperialism.

Note: I am 54 year old I have being involved in the promotion of Irish republicanism from I was 18 years of age, in various ways. I was an independent republican councillor on FDC and I opposed the GFA in 1998, addressing public meetings and press conferences throughout Ireland on the matter. I subscribe to the ideals contained within "Eire Nua", presented by the late Ruairí Ó Bradáigh and the late Dáithí O Conaill as the way forward for our island.
Follow Tony Mc Philips on Twitter @dixie1916