Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1174
November 23, 2017
Stop Religious Law's Assault On Women
From Maryam Namazie's et al a statement protesting the repression of women by Sharia Law.
A close examination of the workings of ‘Sharia’ Councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal reveal serious failings that flout principles of the rule of law and undermine the rights of women in fundamental ways. These forums use fundamentalist and ultra-conservative definitions of ‘Sharia laws’ in highly selective and authoritarian ways; they seek to impose a social culture of ‘Zina’ which compel women to resolve marital and family disputes using ‘Sharia laws’ or risk becoming social outcastes and worse.
Evidence from the UK and elsewhere shows that such religious arbitration bodies function primarily as a means of exercising control over female sexuality and autonomy. They do not treat women as full persons before the law, but instead subject them to degrading questions and investigative procedures and impede them from leaving violent relationships even if they experience torture or ill-treatment and are at risk of losing their lives. The emphasis is centrally on reconciliation even if this conflicts with the protection principle and gender equality. Questions of marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial and children arrangements as well as polygamy and other cultural forms of harm, must be determined by the civil and criminal laws of the land and not so called ‘religious laws.’ This also means that all religious marriages must be registered by law.
Politicians and lawyers would do well to listen to the voices of over 300 abused minority women who signed a letter last year describing how their rights are violated on a daily basis. Any incorporation and recognition of religious forums would sanction the place of religious leaders in making decisions about women's lives and normalise deeply patriarchal value systems.
We therefore urge caution in accepting the suggestion that a ‘compromise’ involving regulation and training provides a way forward. Regulation is neither desirable nor viable for the following reasons:
The sheer diversity of religious interpretations would make regulation unachievable; Parallel legal systems create and legitimise arbitrary systems of ‘justice’ which means less scrutiny by state institutions out of fear of ‘causing offence’; There will not be sufficient resources to offer impartial judicial oversight of religious arbitration bodies to ensure compatibility with anti-discrimination and human rights law; In the wider society there is continuing public scrutiny and revision of law and policy and under a democratic parliamentary process but religious law is not open to such scrutiny; There is no political will to reform from within – religious forums around the world have been resistant to progressive reforms on women; Self regulation through bodies such as The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) and the Board of Sharia Councils has failed to ensure the rights of women and children are protected; The accommodation of such forums, will amount to state sponsorship of fundamentalist and authoritarian forms of governance that encourage intolerance, misogyny and homophobia.
As black and minority women, we demand adherence to one legal system grounded within universal human rights principles. We cannot and will not settle for anything less.
Signatories:
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Yasmin Rehman, Trustee, Centre for Secular Space
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Houzan Mahmoud, Cofounder, Culture Project
Rahila Gupta, Writer and Journalist
Sara Khan, CEO, Inspire
Nasreen Rehman, Forced Marriage Commission
Marieme Helie Lucas, Founder, Secularism is a Woman's Issue
Fatou Sow, International Director, Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space
For more information, contact:
Pragna Patel
Director of Southall Black Sisters
pragna@southallblacksiste rs.co.uk
0208571959 5
Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie
Spokespers ons of One Law for All
onelawforall@gmail.com
0771916673 1
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer.
Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter @MaryamNamazie
A close examination of the workings of ‘Sharia’ Councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal reveal serious failings that flout principles of the rule of law and undermine the rights of women in fundamental ways. These forums use fundamentalist and ultra-conservative definitions of ‘Sharia laws’ in highly selective and authoritarian ways; they seek to impose a social culture of ‘Zina’ which compel women to resolve marital and family disputes using ‘Sharia laws’ or risk becoming social outcastes and worse.
Evidence from the UK and elsewhere shows that such religious arbitration bodies function primarily as a means of exercising control over female sexuality and autonomy. They do not treat women as full persons before the law, but instead subject them to degrading questions and investigative procedures and impede them from leaving violent relationships even if they experience torture or ill-treatment and are at risk of losing their lives. The emphasis is centrally on reconciliation even if this conflicts with the protection principle and gender equality. Questions of marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial and children arrangements as well as polygamy and other cultural forms of harm, must be determined by the civil and criminal laws of the land and not so called ‘religious laws.’ This also means that all religious marriages must be registered by law.
Politicians and lawyers would do well to listen to the voices of over 300 abused minority women who signed a letter last year describing how their rights are violated on a daily basis. Any incorporation and recognition of religious forums would sanction the place of religious leaders in making decisions about women's lives and normalise deeply patriarchal value systems.
We therefore urge caution in accepting the suggestion that a ‘compromise’ involving regulation and training provides a way forward. Regulation is neither desirable nor viable for the following reasons:
The sheer diversity of religious interpretations would make regulation unachievable; Parallel legal systems create and legitimise arbitrary systems of ‘justice’ which means less scrutiny by state institutions out of fear of ‘causing offence’; There will not be sufficient resources to offer impartial judicial oversight of religious arbitration bodies to ensure compatibility with anti-discrimination and human rights law; In the wider society there is continuing public scrutiny and revision of law and policy and under a democratic parliamentary process but religious law is not open to such scrutiny; There is no political will to reform from within – religious forums around the world have been resistant to progressive reforms on women; Self regulation through bodies such as The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) and the Board of Sharia Councils has failed to ensure the rights of women and children are protected; The accommodation of such forums, will amount to state sponsorship of fundamentalist and authoritarian forms of governance that encourage intolerance, misogyny and homophobia.
As black and minority women, we demand adherence to one legal system grounded within universal human rights principles. We cannot and will not settle for anything less.
Signatories:
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Yasmin Rehman, Trustee, Centre for Secular Space
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Houzan Mahmoud, Cofounder, Culture Project
Rahila Gupta, Writer and Journalist
Sara Khan, CEO, Inspire
Nasreen Rehman, Forced Marriage Commission
Marieme Helie Lucas, Founder, Secularism is a Woman's Issue
Fatou Sow, International Director, Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space
For more information, contact:
Pragna Patel
Director of Southall Black Sisters
pragna@southallblacksiste rs.co.uk
0208571959 5
Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie
Spokespers ons of One Law for All
onelawforall@gmail.com
0771916673 1
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer.Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter @MaryamNamazie
War And An Irish family
Matt Treacy reflects on the formative influences in his own republican odyssey.
Conor Cruise O’Brien, who would have been 100 this week had he lived, once ascribed republican militancy to the influence of mothers who passed on what he obviously considered to be a malign gene to their offspring. In my case it was my grandmother.
When I was a child she would tell me stories about 1916 and the Tan War. She was a fierce Collins woman and voted Fine Gael all her life despite my grandfather having been involved in a number of strikes and her sons tending to the republican side of the equation. She was not, however, unsympathetic to the Provos.
Which some might consider a rather strange combination but I have found that it is not unusual. When I was on the run one of the few trusted conduits of messages between me and Dublin was a died in the wool blueshirt. The common factor was old family involvement in the revolutionary times, and an instinctive dislike of British soldiers wandering about any part of Ireland.
I was at a family christening the day Lord Mountbatten and the paratroopers were killed. One of the guests leaned over my granny’s shoulder as we watched the RTE news and said “Isn’t that terrible Missus Treacy.” My granny had a booming voice and announced to all assembled that she did not recall “anyone ever asking them to come over here.” She was especially proud of her own family’s involvement in the troubled times. And before that.
Her family were Dublin Fenians and apparently her grandfather had worked with Joe Brady, one of the Invincibles executed for the killing of the Chief Secretary and Undersecretary for Ireland in May 1882. My favourite granny story, however, is that her grandmother named Mulvany had been James Stephen’s “chaperone” for a time after he escaped from Richmond Prison in 1865 and took a boat to Kilmarnock, allegedly disguised as a woman.
Well, that was my granny’s story anyway, and I was not going to contradict her. Some of the details certainly match the historical record. Her brother Dan Hannon was a member of the Active Service Unit as was her brother in law Jack Dunne. Both were “out” on Bloody Sunday. As I think was her cousin Johnny Wilson. Her brother was arrested at the burning of the Custom House and sent to Ballykinlar camp in Down. Under an assumed name as he might have been sentenced to death had they known who he was.
All three like my granny took the Free State side in the civil war, and her brother was in Kerry with the Dublin Guards. Byrne was thrown out of the army after the Army Mutiny in 1924 when unreconstructed Collins people attempted to stage a coup in reaction to the failure of the new state to pursue the “national objective.” Wilson I think rose to fairly high officer rank in the new army.
One thing my granny never spoke about was the Civil War, although she made it apparent that her bete noir was de Valera. Even almost a half century later the wounds from that tragedy had not fully healed. One of my uncles, Declan now sadly passed away, once told me that when he arrived into the house in his Fianna Éireann uniform that my granny’s sister Kathleen who was visiting swung him around the kitchen! Fine Gaelers were not so effete in the 1950s obviously.
My grandfather Treacy from Tipp was a good friend of Paddy Kinane who were neighbours in Upperchurch. Kinane had been the OC of the IRA Brigade in that part of Tipp and was later elected as a Clann na Poblachta TD in 1948. My grandfather, same name as myself except Mattie rather than Matt, had a very strange back story.
Not sure how he managed it, as they were small farmers on top of a hill in north Tipp, but he became a seminarian in Kimmage Manor, training to be a Holy Ghost priest. He was expelled when he was reported to the college for smuggling probably messages from Dublin to Paddy Kinane. Seminarians wore a surplice and even the Tans apparently observed a sort of hands off approach to searching them. Just as well for the rest of the Treacys I suppose that he was thrown out.
He became variously a barman and insurance agent and played hurling for Dublin. I have no idea how they met although I suspect it was through the GAA. When Tipp beat Dublin in the 1961 hurling final my father was with my granny at the final and when they arrived home, granny pointed at my granddad who was puffing at his pipe looking pleased with himself and announced: “Not one word out of you Mattie Treacy.”
On my mother’s side, her mother who was from Gowran in Kilkenny remembered the house being raided by the Tans. in fact I suspect what she remembered was the house being raided by the Free Staters as her brother Peter was locked up during the Civil War. Of course the Tans might have been there previously. On my wall is a piece of wood he carved in jail which reads: “Peter O’Neill, Kilkenny Prison, Dec. 1922. Diehard.”
Like many republicans he could not get work after the civil war and emigrated to Preston in Lancashire. He died before I was born but his wife and son used to visit every year. I wondered if they ever knew about his history as I seem to recall that they were devoted to the British royal family. Not that it matters. Republicans have had somewhat strange relations with the Windsors over the years.
Anyway, what prompted this was reading something by a former prisoner from Belfast about his family and experience over the years. The pervading sense was one of disappointment. That is what I recall about my grandmother. Apart from not talking about the Civil War, it was clear that her dreams of youth had not been fulfilled. Such is life, I suppose.
Matt Treacy’s book on the 2013 All Ireland championship is available on Amazon.
Matt Treacy’s book A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish Republican Army is also available @ Amazon.
Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
Conor Cruise O’Brien, who would have been 100 this week had he lived, once ascribed republican militancy to the influence of mothers who passed on what he obviously considered to be a malign gene to their offspring. In my case it was my grandmother.
When I was a child she would tell me stories about 1916 and the Tan War. She was a fierce Collins woman and voted Fine Gael all her life despite my grandfather having been involved in a number of strikes and her sons tending to the republican side of the equation. She was not, however, unsympathetic to the Provos.
Which some might consider a rather strange combination but I have found that it is not unusual. When I was on the run one of the few trusted conduits of messages between me and Dublin was a died in the wool blueshirt. The common factor was old family involvement in the revolutionary times, and an instinctive dislike of British soldiers wandering about any part of Ireland.
I was at a family christening the day Lord Mountbatten and the paratroopers were killed. One of the guests leaned over my granny’s shoulder as we watched the RTE news and said “Isn’t that terrible Missus Treacy.” My granny had a booming voice and announced to all assembled that she did not recall “anyone ever asking them to come over here.” She was especially proud of her own family’s involvement in the troubled times. And before that.
Her family were Dublin Fenians and apparently her grandfather had worked with Joe Brady, one of the Invincibles executed for the killing of the Chief Secretary and Undersecretary for Ireland in May 1882. My favourite granny story, however, is that her grandmother named Mulvany had been James Stephen’s “chaperone” for a time after he escaped from Richmond Prison in 1865 and took a boat to Kilmarnock, allegedly disguised as a woman.
Well, that was my granny’s story anyway, and I was not going to contradict her. Some of the details certainly match the historical record. Her brother Dan Hannon was a member of the Active Service Unit as was her brother in law Jack Dunne. Both were “out” on Bloody Sunday. As I think was her cousin Johnny Wilson. Her brother was arrested at the burning of the Custom House and sent to Ballykinlar camp in Down. Under an assumed name as he might have been sentenced to death had they known who he was.
All three like my granny took the Free State side in the civil war, and her brother was in Kerry with the Dublin Guards. Byrne was thrown out of the army after the Army Mutiny in 1924 when unreconstructed Collins people attempted to stage a coup in reaction to the failure of the new state to pursue the “national objective.” Wilson I think rose to fairly high officer rank in the new army.
One thing my granny never spoke about was the Civil War, although she made it apparent that her bete noir was de Valera. Even almost a half century later the wounds from that tragedy had not fully healed. One of my uncles, Declan now sadly passed away, once told me that when he arrived into the house in his Fianna Éireann uniform that my granny’s sister Kathleen who was visiting swung him around the kitchen! Fine Gaelers were not so effete in the 1950s obviously.
My grandfather Treacy from Tipp was a good friend of Paddy Kinane who were neighbours in Upperchurch. Kinane had been the OC of the IRA Brigade in that part of Tipp and was later elected as a Clann na Poblachta TD in 1948. My grandfather, same name as myself except Mattie rather than Matt, had a very strange back story.
Not sure how he managed it, as they were small farmers on top of a hill in north Tipp, but he became a seminarian in Kimmage Manor, training to be a Holy Ghost priest. He was expelled when he was reported to the college for smuggling probably messages from Dublin to Paddy Kinane. Seminarians wore a surplice and even the Tans apparently observed a sort of hands off approach to searching them. Just as well for the rest of the Treacys I suppose that he was thrown out.
He became variously a barman and insurance agent and played hurling for Dublin. I have no idea how they met although I suspect it was through the GAA. When Tipp beat Dublin in the 1961 hurling final my father was with my granny at the final and when they arrived home, granny pointed at my granddad who was puffing at his pipe looking pleased with himself and announced: “Not one word out of you Mattie Treacy.”
On my mother’s side, her mother who was from Gowran in Kilkenny remembered the house being raided by the Tans. in fact I suspect what she remembered was the house being raided by the Free Staters as her brother Peter was locked up during the Civil War. Of course the Tans might have been there previously. On my wall is a piece of wood he carved in jail which reads: “Peter O’Neill, Kilkenny Prison, Dec. 1922. Diehard.”
Like many republicans he could not get work after the civil war and emigrated to Preston in Lancashire. He died before I was born but his wife and son used to visit every year. I wondered if they ever knew about his history as I seem to recall that they were devoted to the British royal family. Not that it matters. Republicans have had somewhat strange relations with the Windsors over the years.
Anyway, what prompted this was reading something by a former prisoner from Belfast about his family and experience over the years. The pervading sense was one of disappointment. That is what I recall about my grandmother. Apart from not talking about the Civil War, it was clear that her dreams of youth had not been fulfilled. Such is life, I suppose.
Matt Treacy’s book on the 2013 All Ireland championship is available on Amazon.
Matt Treacy’s book A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish Republican Army is also available @ Amazon.
Matt Treacy blogs @ Brocaire Books.
Follow Matt Treacy on Twitter @MattTreacy2
November 22, 2017
Medhi Hasan On Islam
Mehdi Hasan makes the case that Islam is not a religion of extremism and violence.
Once Again The Red Poppy Thought Police Are On The Rampage
Mick Hall with a piece from last month on the imposition of the poppy.
In a sea of red poppies the white peace poppy
prospers
Once again the yearly red poppy charade of concern for the UK’s military war dead and wounded is upon us.
Those who appear on British TV are pressurized to wear one. I noticed a character in the Soap Eastenders is even wearing one. Given the programme would have been recorded six weeks ago it shows the pressure to wear the red poppy the programme makers are under.
Professional footballers have them stitched into their shirts and woe betide if they refuse to wear them. When a couple of years ago Ireland international Jimmy McClean refused to wear a remembrance day poppy it created a media frenzy against him.
Never mind he hails from Derry and his reasoning was perfectly understandable as he said at the time: “For those in Derry, scene of the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre, the poppy has come to mean something very different.”
McClean grew up on the Creggan estate in Derry, where six of the people killed on Bloody Sunday lived. He has since said he would wear the poppy if it was restricted to honouring only soldiers who died in the World Wars, many of whom were Irish. He will not wear one for the British government's imperialist adventures and occupation of Irish streets
What the above demonstrates is whenever the British military goes to war jingoism raises its ugly head in it's wake, and common sense and personal choice goes out the door. The ruling class obsession with wearing the red poppy is an extension of that, nothing more nothing less. As to was Cameron's decision to celebrate the years of WW1.
Whether you wear one or not, the ‘Red Poppy,’ and those like the British Legion and the Tory government who stand behind it glorify war in all its putridity. It's bad enough the ‘red poppy’ emerged after WW1 as a front for a charitable organisation, when the government of the day had all but forgotten the military victims of the Great War, preferring instead to build a mini Cenotaph in every city, town and village while the needs of the veterans were all but ignored.
It's a national disgrace such a charity still exists today to help meet the needs of members of the military who have some form of disability, etcetera, due to having served in Britain's many wars and illegal military interventions overseas.
The UK treats its ex-servicemen and women in a shabby way compared with how the USA, and other north European countries treat their own when they leave the service.
If these men and women are held in such high regard in the UK, as the media suggests, then the State and the politicians who sent them to war should provide services which meet their every need.
This ‘charity status' sends out all the wrong messages about warfare and the responsibility of government to look after those who have served them in the military. Over the last two decades British government's have spends many billions of pounds fighting what most of us now regard as unnecessary wars. But when it comes to looking after military widows, the wounded and veterans in need, it tells us they must partially rely on the charity of the collecting tin. Shameful hardly begins to describe it.
At this time of year the mainstream media churns out countless articles demanding we have a duty to support the British Legion and fill its collecting tins. We're told the red poppy is not a badge of militarism, but a token of the bond between the living and the dead. As one Tory propagandist put it "a collective expression of gratitude to those who served and to those who fell."
The men and women from these islands who had their lives stolen in warfare did not fall, they didn't trip over a kerb or pothole the council had forgotten to fill in. They were killed violently in an armed conflict often in the most appalling manner and not of their choosing.* Why is it those who support the red poppy seem unable to state this simply truth.
One of these gallant scribes who write so heroically about Britain's past wars, never having been within the sound of gunfire or the whiff of cordite, wrote justifying Britain's involvement in WW1:
And after this he still claims this was not a war about imperialist expansion which was fought by the majority to benefit the few. * As far as his type are concerned it was OK for the British Empire to have hegemony over millions of people across the world and control of the seas, but if another nation claims the same right there is no alternative but war.
Is it any wonder the British media has become the main cheerleader for ever more military interventions overseas? From the British empire to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which set the middle east ablaze.
The best thing we could do today is stop sending the UK military overseas to engage in hopeless wars which have nothing to do with national security; that cost a fortune of taxpayers coinage and which bring absolutely no benefit to the ordinary people of the UK, and which tragically have costs far too many people their lives within the military and the ordinary citizenry.
As Alex Snowdon wrote on this subject:
* In WW1 conscription was introduced in January 1916, targeting single men aged 18-41. Within a few months World War 1 conscription was rolled out for married men.
White Poppies Are For Peace
The idea of decoupling Armistice Day , the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppy as a fundraising tool in Britain.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
In a sea of red poppies the white peace poppyprospers
Once again the yearly red poppy charade of concern for the UK’s military war dead and wounded is upon us.
Those who appear on British TV are pressurized to wear one. I noticed a character in the Soap Eastenders is even wearing one. Given the programme would have been recorded six weeks ago it shows the pressure to wear the red poppy the programme makers are under.
Professional footballers have them stitched into their shirts and woe betide if they refuse to wear them. When a couple of years ago Ireland international Jimmy McClean refused to wear a remembrance day poppy it created a media frenzy against him.
Never mind he hails from Derry and his reasoning was perfectly understandable as he said at the time: “For those in Derry, scene of the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre, the poppy has come to mean something very different.”
McClean grew up on the Creggan estate in Derry, where six of the people killed on Bloody Sunday lived. He has since said he would wear the poppy if it was restricted to honouring only soldiers who died in the World Wars, many of whom were Irish. He will not wear one for the British government's imperialist adventures and occupation of Irish streets
What the above demonstrates is whenever the British military goes to war jingoism raises its ugly head in it's wake, and common sense and personal choice goes out the door. The ruling class obsession with wearing the red poppy is an extension of that, nothing more nothing less. As to was Cameron's decision to celebrate the years of WW1.
Whether you wear one or not, the ‘Red Poppy,’ and those like the British Legion and the Tory government who stand behind it glorify war in all its putridity. It's bad enough the ‘red poppy’ emerged after WW1 as a front for a charitable organisation, when the government of the day had all but forgotten the military victims of the Great War, preferring instead to build a mini Cenotaph in every city, town and village while the needs of the veterans were all but ignored.
It's a national disgrace such a charity still exists today to help meet the needs of members of the military who have some form of disability, etcetera, due to having served in Britain's many wars and illegal military interventions overseas.
The UK treats its ex-servicemen and women in a shabby way compared with how the USA, and other north European countries treat their own when they leave the service.
If these men and women are held in such high regard in the UK, as the media suggests, then the State and the politicians who sent them to war should provide services which meet their every need.
This ‘charity status' sends out all the wrong messages about warfare and the responsibility of government to look after those who have served them in the military. Over the last two decades British government's have spends many billions of pounds fighting what most of us now regard as unnecessary wars. But when it comes to looking after military widows, the wounded and veterans in need, it tells us they must partially rely on the charity of the collecting tin. Shameful hardly begins to describe it.
At this time of year the mainstream media churns out countless articles demanding we have a duty to support the British Legion and fill its collecting tins. We're told the red poppy is not a badge of militarism, but a token of the bond between the living and the dead. As one Tory propagandist put it "a collective expression of gratitude to those who served and to those who fell."
The men and women from these islands who had their lives stolen in warfare did not fall, they didn't trip over a kerb or pothole the council had forgotten to fill in. They were killed violently in an armed conflict often in the most appalling manner and not of their choosing.* Why is it those who support the red poppy seem unable to state this simply truth.
One of these gallant scribes who write so heroically about Britain's past wars, never having been within the sound of gunfire or the whiff of cordite, wrote justifying Britain's involvement in WW1:
The pre war belligerence of Germany, the Napoleonic ambition of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and his desire for continental hegemony were such that it is hard to envisage a peaceful resolution to these tensions would have looked like. Britain’s fear of a radically enlarged German navy roaming the North Sea and French ports was real, and justified.
And after this he still claims this was not a war about imperialist expansion which was fought by the majority to benefit the few. * As far as his type are concerned it was OK for the British Empire to have hegemony over millions of people across the world and control of the seas, but if another nation claims the same right there is no alternative but war.
Is it any wonder the British media has become the main cheerleader for ever more military interventions overseas? From the British empire to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which set the middle east ablaze.
The best thing we could do today is stop sending the UK military overseas to engage in hopeless wars which have nothing to do with national security; that cost a fortune of taxpayers coinage and which bring absolutely no benefit to the ordinary people of the UK, and which tragically have costs far too many people their lives within the military and the ordinary citizenry.
As Alex Snowdon wrote on this subject:
In so many ways, remembrance is about the present and the future not just the past. Those who rule over us know it all too well. Their fetishisation of the whole business is in many ways a symptom of their weakness. We should be clear and unambiguous in offering an alternative vision of the past, present and future. We should politely but firmly, say no to the obligatory wearing of a red poppy and explain why, and defend those who are attacked for not complying with the enforced style of ‘commemoration’.
* In WW1 conscription was introduced in January 1916, targeting single men aged 18-41. Within a few months World War 1 conscription was rolled out for married men.
White Poppies Are For Peace
The idea of decoupling Armistice Day , the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppy as a fundraising tool in Britain.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
November 21, 2017
A New Start
The Uri Avnery Column thinks little of the Israeli Labor Party.
That happens to this party every couple of years. The party is in bad shape. It looks more like a political corpse than a living organism. Wanted: a new leader, charismatic, energetic, enthusiastic.
So they found Avi Gabbay.
Why him? Nobody is really sure.
Avi Gabbay has no visible qualities of political leadership. No charisma at all. No special energy. No enthusiasm himself and no ability to inspire enthusiasm in others.
After serving as a government employee dealing with the mobile phone industry, he himself became the successful director of the largest mobile phone concern. Then he went into politics and joined a moderate right-wing party, and was appointed Minister for the Protection of the Environment. When the extreme right-winger Avigdor Lieberman was appointed Minister of Defense, Gabbay resigned from the government and his party and joined Labor. That was only a year ago.
He has one significant asset: he is a Mizrahi, an oriental Jew. His parents are immigrants from Morocco, he is the seventh of eight children. Since the Labor party is considered a Western, Ashkenazi, elitist grouping, these passive attributes are important. Up to a point.
Gabbay Did not waste time in presenting his political identity card.
First he made a speech asserting that he will not sit in the same government with the "Joint List".
The Joint List is the united (or disunited) list of the Arab community in Israel. It joins together the three very different “Arab” parties: the Communist party, which is overwhelmingly Arab, but includes some Jews (including a Jewish member of parliament), the Balad party, which is secular and nationalist, and a religious Islamic party.
How come these diverse parties created a joint list? They owe this achievement to the genius of the great Arab-hater, Avigdor Lieberman (see above), who saw that all three parties were small and decided to eliminate them by raising the electoral threshold. But rather than perish separately they decided to survive together. There is no doubt that their list represents the vast majority of Israel's Palestinian citizens, who constitute more than 20% of the population. Strange as this may sound, every fifth Israeli is an Arab.
The simple numerical fact is that without the support of the Arab members in the Knesset, no left-wing government can exist. Yitzhak Rabin would not have become prime minister, and the Oslo agreement would not have come into being, without the support "from the outside" of the Arab bloc.
Then why did they not join Rabin's government? Both sides were afraid of losing votes. Many Jews cannot envision a government including Arabs, and many Arabs cannot envision their representatives sharing "collective responsibility" in a government mainly occupied with fighting Arabs.
This has not changed. It is highly unlikely that the Arabs would join a Gabbay government if invited, and even more unlikely that they would receive such an invitation.
So why make such a declaration? Gabbay is no fool. Far from it. He believes that the Arabs are in his pocket anyhow. They could not join a Likud government. By making a blatantly anti-Arab declaration, he hopes to attract right-wing voters.
His predecessor, Yitzhak Herzog, publicly complained that too many people considered the Labor party to consist of "Arab-lovers". Terrible.
If Anyone hoped that this was a one-time anomaly, Gabbay put them right. After the first blow came more.
He declared that "we have no partner for peace". This is the most dangerous slogan of the populists. "No partner" means that there is no sense in making an effort. There will never be peace. Never ever.
He declared that God promised the Jews the entire land between the sea and the Jordan. That is not quite correct: God promised us all the land from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt. God never made good on that promise.
Last week Gabbay declared that in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians, not a single Jewish settlement in the West Bank would be evacuated.
Until now, there has been tacit agreement between Israeli and Palestinian peace activists that peace will be based on a limited exchange of territories. The so-called "settlement blocs" (clusters of settlements near the green-line border) will be joined to Israel, and an equivalent area of Israeli territory (for example, along the Gaza Strip) will be ceded to Palestine. This would leave some dozens of "isolated" settlements in the West Bank, generally inhabited by fanatical religious right-wingers, which must be evacuated by force.
Gabbay's new statement means that after a peace agreement, these islands of racist extremism will continue to exist where they are. No Palestinian will ever agree to that. It makes peace impossible, even in theory.
In general, Gabbay agrees to the "two-state solution" – but under certain conditions. First, the Israel army would be free to act throughout the demilitarized Palestinian state. The Israeli army would also be positioned along the Jordan River, turning the Palestinian "state" into a kind of enclave.
This is a "peace plan" without takers. Gabbay is much too clever not to realize this. But all this is not devised for Arab ears. It is meant to attract right-wing Israelis. Since a Labor-led "center-left" coalition needs rightist or religious votes, the reasoning looks sound. But it isn't.
There is no chance whatsoever that a significant number of rightists will move to the left, even if the left is led by a person like Gabbay. Rightists detest the Labor party, not since yesterday, but have done so for generations.
The Labor party was born a hundred years ago. It was the main political force that led to the creation of the State of Israel, and led it for almost thirty years. Its power was immense, many (including me) accused it of dictatorial tendencies.
During all these years, the main occupation of the Zionist leadership was the historical fight against the Palestinian people for the possession of the country. Except for a tiny minority, the party was always nationalist, even militaristic. It was left-wing only in its social activities. It created the Jewish workers movement, the powerful trade union (the "Histadrut"), the Kibbutzim and much more.
This social network has long since degenerated. Corruption became endemic, many scandals were uncovered (mainly by my magazine). When the right-wing under Menachem Begin finally took over, in 1977, the Labor Party was already a living corpse. It has changed its name many times (its current name is "the Zionist Camp") but it has dwindled from election to election.
Avi Gabbay was called in as a savior. His nationalist declarations are conceived as patent medicines. No chance.
Can The Labor Party be saved at all? I doubt it.
In the last elections, after a powerful, spontaneous social upheaval, there seemed to be a new chance. Some of the young leaders, female and male, who had appeared from nowhere, joined the Labor Party and entered the Knesset. They are genuine leftists and peace activists. Somehow, their voices became quieter and quieter. Instead of inspiring the party, the party subdued them. It seems to be beyond repair.
A question never asked is – does the party really, really want to assume power? On the face of it, the answer is yes, of course. Isn't that the supreme prize of politics?
Well, I doubt it. The existence of a parliamentary opposition is a cozy one. I know, because I was in that situation for ten years. The Knesset is a good place, you are coddled all the time by the ushers, you get a good salary and an office, you have no responsibilities at all (unless you create them for yourself). You must, of course, make an effort to be re-elected every four years. So, if you are not particularly keen on becoming a minister, with all the work and responsibilities and public exposure that this entails, you just stay put.
What Is the practical conclusion? To forget the Labor Party and create a new political force.
We need new leaders, young, charismatic and resolute, with clear-cut aims, who can energize the peace camp.
I do not subscribe to the picture of a public divided between a right-wing majority and a left-wing minority, with the orthodox on one side and the Arabs on the other.
I believe that there is a right-wing minority and a left-wing minority. Between the two there is the great mass of the people, waiting for a message, desiring peace but brainwashed into believing that peace is impossible ("there is no partner").
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
What we Need is a new start.
That happens to this party every couple of years. The party is in bad shape. It looks more like a political corpse than a living organism. Wanted: a new leader, charismatic, energetic, enthusiastic.
So they found Avi Gabbay.
Why him? Nobody is really sure.
Avi Gabbay has no visible qualities of political leadership. No charisma at all. No special energy. No enthusiasm himself and no ability to inspire enthusiasm in others.
After serving as a government employee dealing with the mobile phone industry, he himself became the successful director of the largest mobile phone concern. Then he went into politics and joined a moderate right-wing party, and was appointed Minister for the Protection of the Environment. When the extreme right-winger Avigdor Lieberman was appointed Minister of Defense, Gabbay resigned from the government and his party and joined Labor. That was only a year ago.
He has one significant asset: he is a Mizrahi, an oriental Jew. His parents are immigrants from Morocco, he is the seventh of eight children. Since the Labor party is considered a Western, Ashkenazi, elitist grouping, these passive attributes are important. Up to a point.
Gabbay Did not waste time in presenting his political identity card.
First he made a speech asserting that he will not sit in the same government with the "Joint List".
The Joint List is the united (or disunited) list of the Arab community in Israel. It joins together the three very different “Arab” parties: the Communist party, which is overwhelmingly Arab, but includes some Jews (including a Jewish member of parliament), the Balad party, which is secular and nationalist, and a religious Islamic party.
How come these diverse parties created a joint list? They owe this achievement to the genius of the great Arab-hater, Avigdor Lieberman (see above), who saw that all three parties were small and decided to eliminate them by raising the electoral threshold. But rather than perish separately they decided to survive together. There is no doubt that their list represents the vast majority of Israel's Palestinian citizens, who constitute more than 20% of the population. Strange as this may sound, every fifth Israeli is an Arab.
The simple numerical fact is that without the support of the Arab members in the Knesset, no left-wing government can exist. Yitzhak Rabin would not have become prime minister, and the Oslo agreement would not have come into being, without the support "from the outside" of the Arab bloc.
Then why did they not join Rabin's government? Both sides were afraid of losing votes. Many Jews cannot envision a government including Arabs, and many Arabs cannot envision their representatives sharing "collective responsibility" in a government mainly occupied with fighting Arabs.
This has not changed. It is highly unlikely that the Arabs would join a Gabbay government if invited, and even more unlikely that they would receive such an invitation.
So why make such a declaration? Gabbay is no fool. Far from it. He believes that the Arabs are in his pocket anyhow. They could not join a Likud government. By making a blatantly anti-Arab declaration, he hopes to attract right-wing voters.
His predecessor, Yitzhak Herzog, publicly complained that too many people considered the Labor party to consist of "Arab-lovers". Terrible.
If Anyone hoped that this was a one-time anomaly, Gabbay put them right. After the first blow came more.
He declared that "we have no partner for peace". This is the most dangerous slogan of the populists. "No partner" means that there is no sense in making an effort. There will never be peace. Never ever.
He declared that God promised the Jews the entire land between the sea and the Jordan. That is not quite correct: God promised us all the land from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt. God never made good on that promise.
Last week Gabbay declared that in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians, not a single Jewish settlement in the West Bank would be evacuated.
Until now, there has been tacit agreement between Israeli and Palestinian peace activists that peace will be based on a limited exchange of territories. The so-called "settlement blocs" (clusters of settlements near the green-line border) will be joined to Israel, and an equivalent area of Israeli territory (for example, along the Gaza Strip) will be ceded to Palestine. This would leave some dozens of "isolated" settlements in the West Bank, generally inhabited by fanatical religious right-wingers, which must be evacuated by force.
Gabbay's new statement means that after a peace agreement, these islands of racist extremism will continue to exist where they are. No Palestinian will ever agree to that. It makes peace impossible, even in theory.
In general, Gabbay agrees to the "two-state solution" – but under certain conditions. First, the Israel army would be free to act throughout the demilitarized Palestinian state. The Israeli army would also be positioned along the Jordan River, turning the Palestinian "state" into a kind of enclave.
This is a "peace plan" without takers. Gabbay is much too clever not to realize this. But all this is not devised for Arab ears. It is meant to attract right-wing Israelis. Since a Labor-led "center-left" coalition needs rightist or religious votes, the reasoning looks sound. But it isn't.
There is no chance whatsoever that a significant number of rightists will move to the left, even if the left is led by a person like Gabbay. Rightists detest the Labor party, not since yesterday, but have done so for generations.
The Labor party was born a hundred years ago. It was the main political force that led to the creation of the State of Israel, and led it for almost thirty years. Its power was immense, many (including me) accused it of dictatorial tendencies.
During all these years, the main occupation of the Zionist leadership was the historical fight against the Palestinian people for the possession of the country. Except for a tiny minority, the party was always nationalist, even militaristic. It was left-wing only in its social activities. It created the Jewish workers movement, the powerful trade union (the "Histadrut"), the Kibbutzim and much more.
This social network has long since degenerated. Corruption became endemic, many scandals were uncovered (mainly by my magazine). When the right-wing under Menachem Begin finally took over, in 1977, the Labor Party was already a living corpse. It has changed its name many times (its current name is "the Zionist Camp") but it has dwindled from election to election.
Avi Gabbay was called in as a savior. His nationalist declarations are conceived as patent medicines. No chance.
Can The Labor Party be saved at all? I doubt it.
In the last elections, after a powerful, spontaneous social upheaval, there seemed to be a new chance. Some of the young leaders, female and male, who had appeared from nowhere, joined the Labor Party and entered the Knesset. They are genuine leftists and peace activists. Somehow, their voices became quieter and quieter. Instead of inspiring the party, the party subdued them. It seems to be beyond repair.
A question never asked is – does the party really, really want to assume power? On the face of it, the answer is yes, of course. Isn't that the supreme prize of politics?
Well, I doubt it. The existence of a parliamentary opposition is a cozy one. I know, because I was in that situation for ten years. The Knesset is a good place, you are coddled all the time by the ushers, you get a good salary and an office, you have no responsibilities at all (unless you create them for yourself). You must, of course, make an effort to be re-elected every four years. So, if you are not particularly keen on becoming a minister, with all the work and responsibilities and public exposure that this entails, you just stay put.
What Is the practical conclusion? To forget the Labor Party and create a new political force.
We need new leaders, young, charismatic and resolute, with clear-cut aims, who can energize the peace camp.
I do not subscribe to the picture of a public divided between a right-wing majority and a left-wing minority, with the orthodox on one side and the Arabs on the other.
I believe that there is a right-wing minority and a left-wing minority. Between the two there is the great mass of the people, waiting for a message, desiring peace but brainwashed into believing that peace is impossible ("there is no partner").
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush ShalomWhat we Need is a new start.
Norway, The New Pawn In US War Games
Eva Sennesvik returns again to No Bones About It to speak about the strong rising presence of the US army in the her native Norway. She writes in a personal capacity.
Norway is known to be a relatively peaceful corner of the world. We have strict laws against racism, sexism and hate-speech. We flourish in our multi-cultural community as we always have. But we have a serious threat to all of this, and that is our own government.
The previous Conservative government somehow managed to be re-elected, despite plans to make severe cuts in budget that will only affect those of our weakest, most needing help. Support centers for immigrants, homeless, women's aid shelters, community support groups etc. Stealing 300 million NKR from benefits to fund the 300 million NKR tax-relief they gave to shareholders.. And now wanting a staggering 500 billion to improve our military, without declaring the details around usage.
The most worrying side of this is their excess use of secrecy. We have rarely seen so many cover-ups or downright secret transactions from any government since WW2. Using the secrecy-act on more and more decisions made. What are they hiding from us?
What are they so afraid we will find out?
Well, one thing is the escalation of US military presence here, which is infuriating most thinking Norwegian! US Navy on Norwegian soil. Our government is in regular, secret meetings with the US military leadership. Only leaks and (thankfully) the US's inherent need to boast, gives us an eerie picture of what is to come.
In January of this year, 300 US Navy corps marines were placed at Værnes military-base in Central-Norway. Our government, and the US, calls this a training-camp, lasting one year at a time. But the fact the US are planning major expansions at that base is worrying. Most of the plans are heavily censored, so we don't know much. But it is a major expansion made for permanent presence, with hangers for US F-35 jets, MV-22 helicopters and even C-130 carrier planes.
The US already have 8 huge military equipment storage halls in Norway, hidden in our mountains somewhere. That is: 8 that we know about.
A letter written in 1949, by our then PM Gerhardsen, used to be the Norwegian stance on any military escalation on Norwegian soil. He wrote it to calm a worried Russian government back then, and the idea has been brought forward by activists today.. He wrote:
Our current government is the first to break this partial promise.
The US has about 800 military bases on foreign soil as it is! So far we have been spared this sort of invasion. Because that's how we see it. Because they are actually here now, because our government gave us no time to react or at least have a say in the matter and it became evident that this was only one of many military moves that had been planned for a long time in secret.
With our government's refusal to keep the public informed, their tendency to cloud every new leak with lies and robotic repetitions of old lies to the extent they actually look like they themselves know nothing, and their secret meetings with the US military, leaves us to wonder about what actually is the end-plan to the US military presence here?!
The following bragging from Military.com, gave us a clue of what happened next, they wrote:
And the bombshell: They are opening yet another base here! This time at Setermoen in Troms, Northern Norway.
400+ men will be based there, and they are coming during this winter 2017-18.
Inching their way closer to our Russian border.
Not only making Norway a prime target for terrorist attacks, but also threatening the relatively peaceful co-existence we have had with our huge neighbour to the East. They are not exactly pleased.
The Russian embassy here writes:
Our government is a US's lapdog, there is no doubt about that. But we do not need the US to make us pawns in a horrid war-game with Russia!! We do not need the US to make more plans of permanent bases here, bringing more 'Marine corps elements' on Norwegian soil!! Because they do want that.
Many of our older generation still remember the US stance on Norway during WW2 (they couldn't care less until someone told them about our heavy-water), and our seniors do not like seeing US marines here.
They also remember and are grateful for the Russians liberating Northern Norway from the Nazis. And these sentiments are shared by the younger generations too. Seeing US navy personnel here, does not give any of us reassurance of a safe and peaceful future. Rather the opposite. It's a dangerous and aggressive power play set in motion by the US, using our corrupt government and the general population here, to anger and threaten Russia. Nothing more.
The proposed military budget for Norway this year is a staggering 55 billion NKR.
Some has been spent in the US on F35s and CV90s. But a large portion of the sum will be used near the Russian border up North. The budget-debates are ongoing, but a lot of wheels have been set in motion by our Military, and will be hard to stop.
We are afraid of this escalation of both US and Norwegian military force, the aggressive rhetoric against Russia and anyone who are opposed to the US bases. It feels like we are heading straight for an Orwellian police state like in Nineteen Eighty Four or worse. We are already seeing people being forced out of their homes near air force-bases here. The government says: "For their own good. The new F35s are far louder than the current fleet, and noise-pollution is a danger to peoples health."
So where will this end? How will it end?
Honestly: with our current government we have no idea. Chances are it will not end well!
But we keep fighting because there is no other option than to fight. This is an ongoing invasion of sorts of Norway, blessed and facilitated by our government.
Image shows the US plan for Værnes, grey areas are the censored parts.
Norway is known to be a relatively peaceful corner of the world. We have strict laws against racism, sexism and hate-speech. We flourish in our multi-cultural community as we always have. But we have a serious threat to all of this, and that is our own government.
The previous Conservative government somehow managed to be re-elected, despite plans to make severe cuts in budget that will only affect those of our weakest, most needing help. Support centers for immigrants, homeless, women's aid shelters, community support groups etc. Stealing 300 million NKR from benefits to fund the 300 million NKR tax-relief they gave to shareholders.. And now wanting a staggering 500 billion to improve our military, without declaring the details around usage.
The most worrying side of this is their excess use of secrecy. We have rarely seen so many cover-ups or downright secret transactions from any government since WW2. Using the secrecy-act on more and more decisions made. What are they hiding from us?
What are they so afraid we will find out?
Well, one thing is the escalation of US military presence here, which is infuriating most thinking Norwegian! US Navy on Norwegian soil. Our government is in regular, secret meetings with the US military leadership. Only leaks and (thankfully) the US's inherent need to boast, gives us an eerie picture of what is to come.
In January of this year, 300 US Navy corps marines were placed at Værnes military-base in Central-Norway. Our government, and the US, calls this a training-camp, lasting one year at a time. But the fact the US are planning major expansions at that base is worrying. Most of the plans are heavily censored, so we don't know much. But it is a major expansion made for permanent presence, with hangers for US F-35 jets, MV-22 helicopters and even C-130 carrier planes.
The US already have 8 huge military equipment storage halls in Norway, hidden in our mountains somewhere. That is: 8 that we know about.
A letter written in 1949, by our then PM Gerhardsen, used to be the Norwegian stance on any military escalation on Norwegian soil. He wrote it to calm a worried Russian government back then, and the idea has been brought forward by activists today.. He wrote:
The Norwegian government will not sign or be a part of any contract with other states, that lets foreign powers open military bases on Norwegian soil, as long as Norway is not under attack or real danger of an attack.
Our current government is the first to break this partial promise.
The US has about 800 military bases on foreign soil as it is! So far we have been spared this sort of invasion. Because that's how we see it. Because they are actually here now, because our government gave us no time to react or at least have a say in the matter and it became evident that this was only one of many military moves that had been planned for a long time in secret.
With our government's refusal to keep the public informed, their tendency to cloud every new leak with lies and robotic repetitions of old lies to the extent they actually look like they themselves know nothing, and their secret meetings with the US military, leaves us to wonder about what actually is the end-plan to the US military presence here?!
The following bragging from Military.com, gave us a clue of what happened next, they wrote:
Only months into what will be a year long trial period for rotating Marine corps elements through this sleepy base in Central-Norway, Marine leaders are eager to expand the partnership, eying a plan to more than double the services presence here.
And the bombshell: They are opening yet another base here! This time at Setermoen in Troms, Northern Norway.
400+ men will be based there, and they are coming during this winter 2017-18.
Inching their way closer to our Russian border.
Not only making Norway a prime target for terrorist attacks, but also threatening the relatively peaceful co-existence we have had with our huge neighbour to the East. They are not exactly pleased.
The Russian embassy here writes:
We see the escalation as a further military preparation from the US, reinforced by anti-Russian propaganda hysteria. Current government (Norwegian) is professing a sustained aggressive rhetoric against Russia. The non-existent dialogue between the two military leaderships (Russian/Norwegian), forces us to take necessary actions to safeguard our country.
Our government is a US's lapdog, there is no doubt about that. But we do not need the US to make us pawns in a horrid war-game with Russia!! We do not need the US to make more plans of permanent bases here, bringing more 'Marine corps elements' on Norwegian soil!! Because they do want that.
Many of our older generation still remember the US stance on Norway during WW2 (they couldn't care less until someone told them about our heavy-water), and our seniors do not like seeing US marines here.
They also remember and are grateful for the Russians liberating Northern Norway from the Nazis. And these sentiments are shared by the younger generations too. Seeing US navy personnel here, does not give any of us reassurance of a safe and peaceful future. Rather the opposite. It's a dangerous and aggressive power play set in motion by the US, using our corrupt government and the general population here, to anger and threaten Russia. Nothing more.
The proposed military budget for Norway this year is a staggering 55 billion NKR.
Some has been spent in the US on F35s and CV90s. But a large portion of the sum will be used near the Russian border up North. The budget-debates are ongoing, but a lot of wheels have been set in motion by our Military, and will be hard to stop.
We are afraid of this escalation of both US and Norwegian military force, the aggressive rhetoric against Russia and anyone who are opposed to the US bases. It feels like we are heading straight for an Orwellian police state like in Nineteen Eighty Four or worse. We are already seeing people being forced out of their homes near air force-bases here. The government says: "For their own good. The new F35s are far louder than the current fleet, and noise-pollution is a danger to peoples health."
So where will this end? How will it end?
Honestly: with our current government we have no idea. Chances are it will not end well!
But we keep fighting because there is no other option than to fight. This is an ongoing invasion of sorts of Norway, blessed and facilitated by our government.
Image shows the US plan for Værnes, grey areas are the censored parts.
November 20, 2017
Answers Wanted
Daniel Bradley persists in his quest for justice in respect of the British Army slaying of his brother in 1972.
Now Here Is What I Shout Back - I Haven't Gone Away.
I am Daniel Bradley, the brother of vol. Seamus Bradley, a deep republican at heart, and call on the Provisional IRA to investigate Operation Motorman and Operation Carcan where the republicans received these plans.
But more so to investigate both commanding officers Belfast and Derry and their talks with the British government, early July 1972, and why the Official IRA wasn't given the information that the Provisional IRA had to allow them time to get their weapons out before the invasions of the British troops in Northern Ireland.
By not telling them in time they put the Official IRA lives in danger. You see my brother was Official IRA before the split and therefore the official IRA were his comrades as well.
As Mr Adams is still alive I would like an answer to what I have said.
Daniel Bradley is a Derry justice campaigner.
Now Here Is What I Shout Back - I Haven't Gone Away.
I am Daniel Bradley, the brother of vol. Seamus Bradley, a deep republican at heart, and call on the Provisional IRA to investigate Operation Motorman and Operation Carcan where the republicans received these plans.
But more so to investigate both commanding officers Belfast and Derry and their talks with the British government, early July 1972, and why the Official IRA wasn't given the information that the Provisional IRA had to allow them time to get their weapons out before the invasions of the British troops in Northern Ireland.
By not telling them in time they put the Official IRA lives in danger. You see my brother was Official IRA before the split and therefore the official IRA were his comrades as well.
As Mr Adams is still alive I would like an answer to what I have said.
Daniel Bradley is a Derry justice campaigner.
Strike When Iron Is Hot
Staff the Northern Ireland Office with Northern Ireland Westminster MPs with East Derry MP Gregory Campbell as Secretary of State, and Sinn Fein has to take its Commons seats to get Ministerial posts in the new-look NIO. That’s the hard-hitting proposals from controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, in his latest Fearless Flying Column.
Molyneaux and Powell were committed integrationists, meaning they wanted Northern Ireland-elected Westminster MPs to hold the various ministerial posts in the Northern Ireland Office, rather than see a return of some botched Sunningdale-type power-sharing devolution arrangement.
You can spin Brokenshire’s bill whatever way you like, but Direct Rule is now back in force in Northern Ireland and for the meantime, the experiment known as the Northern Ireland Assembly has been politically mothballed.
The DUP has many more concessions it can squeeze out of Theresa May’s Conservative administration. The DUP possesses two huge ace cards. Firstly, it is the majority Unionist party with 10 MPs; something the election-battered rival Ulster Unionist Party used to laud over the DUP.
In numbers terms, it has the MPs to fully staff a Direct Rule administration in Northern Ireland, in the same way as the Tories and Labour staffed the NIO with mainland MPs following the axing of the original Stormont Parliament in 1972 until the restoration of devolved government in the UUP’s David Trimble era.
The second ace card possessed by the DUP is Sinn Fein’s dogmatic adhering to its traditional policy of abstentionism at Westminster in the form of taking Commons expenses, but not allowing MPs to take their seats in the actual Chamber.
This is in stark contrast to Sinn Fein’s policies in other parliaments and chambers, such as local government, the Dail, Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament. As the Provisional IRA’s Army Council wields increasingly less power over Sinn Fein policy and more ‘draft dodgers’ appear in the ranks of Sinn Fein elected representatives (that is, Sinn Fein elected representatives who have not served an apprenticeship in the IRA or who have not been jailed), the importance of abstentionism as a traditional stance becomes less viable.
The Scottish and Welsh nationalist movements as well as republicans within the Labour Party have all advanced their respective causes by taking their Commons seats.
This automatically sparks the debate within the republican movement – under what circumstances and conditions could Sinn Fein be persuaded to take its Commons seats? After all, such debates allowed Sinn Fein to take its seats in the Dail in the 1980s and Stormont in the 1990s?
Indeed, it can also be pointed out that the late Martin McGuinness – once a senior IRA commander in Londonderry – eventually entered a power-sharing Stormont Executive with the DUP’s Rev Ian Paisley, holding the position of Deputy First Minister.
Sinn Fein currently has seven Commons MPs, so what is essentially the problem of the DUP and Sinn Fein staffing a new-look NIO until these two main parties could agree a deal on devolution? At least Northern Ireland budgets would be administered by accountable MPs who had been elected by the Province’s voters, not run by unelected MPs from mainland constituencies.
While this may work on paper, there is still the problem of meeting the price of persuading Sinn Fein MPs to take their Commons seats. It does seem very politically hypocritical for Sinn Fein ministers to have operated a partitionist parliament at Stormont, yet potentially refuse to participate in a system which could see Sinn Fein MPs carry out those same roles in health, education and roads as NIO ministers!
The DUP should strike now while the Westminster iron is hot and campaign for the NIO to be staffed by its Northern Ireland MPs, with perhaps East Derry MP Gregory Campbell becoming Secretary of State; East Antrim MP Sammy Wilson as Education Minister, and Ian Paisley Junior from North Antrim becoming Economy Minister, allowing North Down Independent MP Lady Sylvia Hermon – widow of the former RUC Chief Constable Sir John – becoming Security Minister.
Of course, Sinn Fein will then scream that this is Unionist majority rule – not Direct Rule – by the back door. But the republican movement has only itself to blame if this scenario arises and Sinn Fein is wrong-footed politically by the DUP.
It may well take the diplomatic skills of Labour supremo Jeremy Corbyn to tempt Sinn Fein into ditching abstentionism. In the meantime, the DUP is boasting about how many millions of pounds its deal with the Tories is netting for Northern Ireland, and like the two Irish teams after the recent football qualifiers, the Ulster Unionists and SDLP can only watch from the sidelines.
With the Tories rapidly descending into party civil war over Brexit, another Westminster General Election could be on the cards in 2018. Even with Corbyn’s popularity rising, Labour may not be able to win enough seats back from the Scottish nationalists to hand Comrade Jeremy the keys to 10 Downing Street. Like Theresa May, Corbyn may need to look to Northern Ireland MPs to form a coalition government.
It would be a supreme political irony if Corbyn – always viewed as having a close working relationship and admiration for Sinn Fein – needed the votes of seven Sinn Fein MPs to become Prime Minister, but because of outdated abstentionism, he had to deal with seven DUP MPs to get his Commons majority!
Perhaps the political impasse is all down to accountability. In spite of what looks like a fairly positive Brokenshire budget on paper, and with the DUP crowing about its looming millions, 2018 will see the reality of a period of severe austerity in Northern Ireland. No Northern Ireland-based politician wants to be the one to announce that Ulster workers are losing their jobs.
It makes you wonder if the DUP/Sinn Fein-dominated Stormont Executive fully realised what was coming down the tracks in terms of future austerity and decided that rather than face the wrath of voters, they would rather indulge in a blame game and sacrifice the Assembly?
But Sinn Fein needs to be careful it does not over-egg the abstentionist pudding. For years, the SDLP was able to taunt Sinn Fein at the amount of influence its MPs could wield at Westminster because the moderate nationalist party took its Commons seats even though the SDLP was not organised on an all-Ireland basis like Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein may dominate the republican family map for the time being – just as the SDLP and Nationalist Party did in the past. But with Fianna Fail planning to contest Northern elections, could a situation arise post Brexit that Fianna Fail MPs elected in Northern Ireland take their Westminster seats and push Sinn Fein into the sidelines?
John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist. Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
November 19, 2017
The End Is Not Nigh
Anthony McIntyre with a brief assessment of the announcement by Gerry Adams to relinquish the presidency of Sinn Fein.
When Gerry Adams announced that he intends to stand down as Sinn Fein president no effort whatsoever was needed to resist regurgitating Stalin’s terse comment upon learning of the death of Hitler: “that’s the end of the bastard.” It is anything but.
Gerry Adams has devoted copious time and other people’s lives to the advancement of his political career. In today’s world Robert Mugabe readily springs to mind as being comparable in terms of power lust. Adams may be stepping aside but hardly away.
I was somewhat surprised by the imminence of his relinquishing of the presidency, having expected him to state that he would stand aside in 2066, allowing a new leader to assume control in time for the 150th anniversary of the Easter Rising.
In recent months despite signs that the iron fist with which he imposed his authority on the party was starting to rust, there were few indications from him that he intended to go. In August he undertook to lead Sinn Fein into the next election. When last year Eoin O’Broin opined at the McGill Summer School in that there would be a new party leader within five years Adams tetchily snapped "he must know something that I don't know."
The likelihood is that Gerry Adams intended hanging on for as long as he could. However, the culture of bullying which he relied on so much to enforce his writ was increasingly coming under public scrutiny. Those the party were dependent on for expansion in the South were more and more refusing to be bullied. With a disappointing election last time around with the party not coming remotely close to usurping Fianna Fail, something had to give.
But that doesn’t mean the political career of Gerry Adams has run out of road. The symbolism of both he and Martin Ferris declining to stand for re-election to the Dail was clear. The Provisional IRA’s Army Council was at last leaving the electoral stage, allowing the vacuum to be filled by those with no military baggage.
Adams may now be calculating that the party under a different helm - where scandal rooted in the past military career of its leader will rapidly abate - shall open up new opportunities, particularly if the party enters coalition. How Sinn Fein fare in those changed circumstances might reconfigure the political landscape so significantly, draining Sinn Fein of toxicity, that Adams, possibly shed of the stench of secret graves, might well bid for the presidency in 2025. He has denied any interest but like his denials of having been an IRA member, that doesn't merit a rat's ass.
Don't expect Adams to go silently into the night. Do expect a period of reinvention where the image of elder statesman will be cultivated, away from the cut and thrust and mire of daily political life. A writer, poet, after-dinner speaker, international peace maker, human rights luminary, critic of terrorism, robust supporter of the state and its institutions, ad nauseum. All to ensure that from from the Ashes of 1969 arose Phoenix Park.
We have not heard the end of the Great Misleader.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
Interview with Allie Jackson – CEO, Atheist Republic Part 1
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Recently, the Atheist Republic Facebook page was shut down. Why was that? How can Facebook do that without necessarily letting you know or with authorization?
Allie Jackson: Isn’t that a good question? We would love to know why. We were shut down, not once but twice, in less than 24 hours without warning. Normally, we know when there is a problem because Facebook will let us know they removed some post for some reason.
This has happened for years. They used to send us a picture letting us know which post was removed. We had a post removed that no one could tell what it was. This has been happening for quite some time now.
We post about once per hour, sometimes more and sometimes less. They say, “We removed this post for violating our terms.” We can’t know which post because they didn’t send a picture. Oftentimes, what they removed is innocent. It didn’t break terms of service. But we’ve learned to live with that.
So, leading up to this ban, they stopped showing us what they were removing from our page. We didn’t get an indication that a post was removed, then we’ve got this notification that we’d been restricted.
Some features had been restricted [Laughing]. It is mind-boggling. We click the notification. It takes us to the page. It is very normal, but then we realized that our posts weren’t reaching people and nobody was able to see our post unless they went to our page.
That went on for a couple of hours. We ended up putting in an appeal, of course. We ended up rallying the community because we saw that the Ex-Muslims of North America got a notification saying this restriction will last for one week and because the post was against the terms of service.
Something that I hadn’t heard before. So, a couple hours before we put in the appeal. It was the next day, but not the full 24 hours. Our page was completely taken down and unpublished. No reasons, again, and no posts were removed, just – boom! – “we’ve unpublished your page.”
It is frustrating because we don’t know what we did wrong. It is the same process. When we have a post removed, we want to improve things. We understand Facebook is a private company. We understand they have a right to run their own company.
It was not illegal, but I feel what they did was unethical. To take a paying customer and then remove the platform from 1.6 million people who want the content that we’re putting out there; that is not a very business-like way of doing things, I think.
It was very frustrating on that level.
Jacobsen: Once you get past 1.5 million, there aren’t that many groups. They are there, but not many. 1.6 million, given all of Facebook, it is relatively small, but given the community, it is relatively large. The fact that it happened for a Facebook group housed, in essence, in Canada is rather remarkable.
Jackson: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: The first time when they took it down, they said you lost some features. Did they specify any at all?
Jackson: They didn’t specify anything. It popped up, like a notification if somebody liked a photo or commented on something that you commented on. It popped up in a notification, not explaining what features were removed.
We had to go through and figure it out. There were two: the speak now button and the news feed. People could not leave messages, and no one could get our posts.
Jacobsen: Has Facebook done this to ex-Muslim or ex-anything groups before?
Jackson: Absolutely, the most we hear about are ex-Muslim groups, especially Arab ex-Muslim groups.
Jacobsen: Is this regardless of location, whether Saudi Arabia or America?
Jackson: Absolutely. It is so sad too. This is a small group without a platform. They can’t say this is a big problem. We get these people coming to us and saying, “Wow, I had 17,000 people in a group. Facebook removed the group.”
Or another is that Facebook removed the group because we post scientific stuff and have “atheist” in the title. I am on a secret Facebook group with other admins of other groups. Many have had their pages down for six months now, with no reason or warning.
Many of them hadn’t even had a post removed. All of a sudden. Poof! They are gone. It is hard working from our platform and point of view because there are pages that I know – because I follow them [Laughing] – were not violating any terms of service.
If the offense is now a violation of terms of service, then let’s shut down Facebook because everything can be offensive. I look at things as far as terms of service and community standards. Those are two things I have engulfed the knowledge about.
We have a group with many members. It is a big Facebook group. So, we are dedicated. If anybody looks at our rules that we lay out for the group, we are dedicated to prevention of hate speech and make sure that everything is in line there.
On the page, though, things are different. We can control what we post, but not what others post. On a page of 1.6 million, Facebook could easily find them. Every single post we’ve put out has never had anything to do with hate speech.
People want to say hate speech is an opinion. In reality, it is not. If you look at its definition, it talks about inciting violence or hatred toward people or a group of people. We are not setting out to hurt anyone.
We don’t want anyone hurt, even their feelings. We attack ideas, not people. So, it is really difficult when people say, “You’re hateful.” No, we have a platform with anyone free to fight an idea.
We don’t ban theists or Muslims, or Christians, or any specific groups. If somebody doesn’t like what we say, maybe, they can educate us. They are free to do that.
Jacobsen: Do you think the equivalent opposite case happens when Muslim groups will state openly that atheists are going to hellfire or some equivalent, and they don’t get taken down – even though that would be about people rather than others such as on Atheist Republic criticizing the authenticity of a text and the validity/soundness of arguments for one particular faith?
Jackson: Yes, I think it is outrageously unfair. We have received, over the years, so many death threats. The rainbow Kaaba was probably one of the most controversial things we’ve shared. The whole purpose and point was love should be free for everyone.
Everyone, anywhere should be able to love anyone the way they want. We got so much support from the Muslim community, “Please don’t share my name, but I am gay and Muslim, and I can’t tell anyone my name. Your message gave us a lot of hope.”
It is not like we focus on atheist problems or only atheists. We focus on a lot of problems that stem from religious indoctrination, such as the hatred against the LGBTQ+ community by some people. Most Muslims support the community.
Unfortunately, they face criticism from their own community for doing that, but for me to get back to the hate speech, that happens. We have people who have sent us a man who was tied to a cross with his head cut off and his head laying at his feet. They said, “You’re next.”
We get people saying, “What is your physical address? Do you remember what happened to Charlie Hebdo? You’re next.” I have had someone say, “I am going to chop off your head and rape your neck hole.”
Facebook says, “Thank you for sending this. It doesn’t violate our terms of service or community standards. We can’t do anything, but you can ban them.” Armin and I both got banned once because he posted my picture and said, “Allie was sent to us from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen.”
That got mass reported and we got banned from our accounts for it. I am seeing this. This is just what I am seeing. I am not saying this is backed because I am seeing it. But from my perspective, it seems like there is some sort of bias.
It is very frustrating.
Jacobsen: The particular case you gave with Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, is stating a parody religion’s “deity”. In the other case, it is directed at someone. One is a direct threat to a person.
One is to you. Another is directed playfully at an idea. People would seem to be insecure enough to find that threat enough to report en masse. People don’t want to be considered a block: all Christians, all Muslims, and so on. But then they want to take pride in saying, “We are one of the biggest religions, and so on.”
I have heard this. I am sure you have too. But even more, there is a population of over a billion called the religiously unaffiliated, but, maybe, there may need to be a coalition of some form. It is like “herding cats.” I am sure you’ve heard it.
Jackson: [Laughing] It is so true. We are tied only by the lack of belief in God. Other than that, an atheist can believe in reincarnation, in ghosts, in Karma. So, when you see different organizations of atheists...
I am a big friend, to me, of an organization called Mythicist Milwaukee. They don’t believe the Biblical Jesus existed. Then you look at people like Bart Ehrman. There was a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Price, both who have different beliefs. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Ehrman completely disagree with each other.
Often, they write back and forth about their disagreement. You have these different groups of atheists that know what needs to be done for social justice around the world. So, it is hard. It is hard to take these people and bring them together.
The religious are lucky. They have a book and rules, which says, “All will think this way because it says in the text.” Even they can’t get it right. We have tons of Christians who love the LGBT community, then we have Christians at the Westboro Baptist Church [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Jackson: They have more to tie them together. That’s what I love about the Atheist Republic. Even if we disagree with an idea, we are a volunteer team of 300 people. We have different beliefs on politics. We have different views on many things.
We don’t restrict our page to be about one topic. We don’t just dump on one thing, or take one political side. People get upset when we make jokes about Donald Trump. We make the same jokes about Hillary Clinton.
We joke. We have fun. We have different beliefs. That brings us together more than anything. Atheist Republic puts that out there. Even if we don’t believe in it, we will be a platform for you. That is a mentality for bringing all of us atheists together.
Jacobsen: To your own experience, what made atheism seem obviously true – an argument, a disenchantment with traditional religious structures, a cranky parent, not taking the myths seriously, and so on?
Jackson: I was a strong Christian. I prided myself on being a child of God. I talked about my high school summer vacations. While my friends were partying and drinking, I was reading the Bible. I was reading it for Bible school.
I talked about it with people. I loved God. It was my senior year in high school. Things started clicking with me. I was never really allowed to question things growing up. I lived in a very conservative household. I watched Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, [Laughing] probably more than I’d like to say.
They hated homosexuals. They hated anyone different. It was around that time that I said, “I have a friend at school who is gay. I never even really questioned my own sexuality. I was straight because that’s what the Bible said I was to be.”
I never really questioned anything. But at that moment, I was saying, “I don’t want to hate people.” The second I said that, something clicked. When I left my family, and when I started studying at a Catholic university, I would stay in the library and study the Bible.
I loved being God’s child but it began to be more difficult for me. Social media began to boom. It wasn’t big in high school [Laughing]. I saw friends posting these awful things about Jesus, so I would immediately unfriend them. It hurt.
Once I was honest with those images, I decided I might be hurting because the images hold some truth. Things became harder. I began reading the story of Samson in the library. How Samson gathered 300 foxes, tied their tails together, and marched them into town to destroy.
It was so unreal. In my head, and I am sorry, I said, “This is bullshit.” I immediately got scared. At that moment, I immediately said, “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t do this anymore.”
Jacobsen: I want to dig a little deeper. I think there is an important moment there. Where Samson pulls the foxes into town, and you realize how unreal this is and say, “This is bullshit,” then there was fear, what was the fear?
Jackson: Questioning God, questioning God, that I would burn in hell. The days following, it brings me to tears just thinking about it. It was such a draining moment of my life. I prayed to a god I no longer believed in, begging him to give my faith back.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Jackson: I spoke to God on a personal level. I truly thought I felt God in my heart, not understanding that that was my own compassion that I was showing myself. I truly thought that was God loving me, being there for me in my tough times, and I didn’t want to live with the thought of not being God’s child anymore – and losing God.
I was praying to a god I no longer believed in, to give me my faith back, because I was so lonely. After that, I didn’t feel God anymore. It took years to realize I was an atheist after that. I didn’t tell anybody. I didn’t believe anymore.
I stopped going to churches – sorry. I am choking up.
Jacobsen: It’s okay.
Jackson: I stopped doing things that normal Christian people do. I slowly stopped doing it. Then I had this fight inside me. I feared hell. I knew I was going to hell. I knew somehow the world had corrupted me.
This sounds crazy. Right?
Jacobsen: No, it doesn’t. It is telling me something very deep. Rarely, people lose complete worldviews at once. You’re describing emotional reactions that are still in place, but you’re consciously losing bit-by-bit. So, you lose the belief in God, but still have the belief in prayer – and the efficacy of it.
But when you lose that, you still had the belief in hell. So, the fear was still there. The way you ordered it was a fear I no longer had in God, but also, following that, was a fear of hell. So, I am noticing that bit-by-bit. It is almost like a jigsaw puzzle where you’re removing the pieces rather than an orb that just melts.
That’s not crazy.
Jackson: I was then scared when I realized I was an atheist. That, suddenly, I might start doing something bad because I don’t have any morality.
Jacobsen: Go to hell to morality.
Jackson: Absolutely. Why do I have compassion? God gave me that. I am going to hell, even though I stopped believing in hell. I couldn’t shake it. It was still there in the back of my mind. We live our lives as Christians.
When I take myself back to the mind frame, we live our lives for the afterlife. This doesn’t matter.
Jacobsen: What was the branch of Christianity?
Jackson: Southern Baptist. If everything is for the afterlife, why do anything for this life? It was an amazing transformation. I was a girl who helped other Christians. I volunteered at the church. I was a good girl.
To where I am now, where I help and run a one-on-one support group through Atheist Republic, we help people all around the world. We don’t have the resources unfortunately to pay a lot of money to help them with those needs.
We volunteer our time. We could be at the movies.
Jacobsen: Your Sundays are free now.
Jackson: [Laughing] That’s true. There is nothing that drives us to do that as far as a spiritual being is concerned. There is no reward that we will get from him. We know there is no physical reward for it.
We know we will be making the world a better place one person at a time. If we didn’t help someone out of a funk, we could find them resources for a doctor if they didn’t have insurance, or that an ex-Muslim is cared about by someone – right here, right now, let’s cry together.
Tell me everything. For the first time in their lives, in their own country where they can’t tell anyone about their atheism, that changes their world.
Jacobsen: In the back of my mind, when you said, “This is bullshit,” I was thinking about the power of words. Of not only that, but of the spoken word for an individual, either to hear someone else say, “I don’t believe this,” or to say, “This is bullshit,” [Laughing] in more colloquial terms.
I feel as though religious authorities, and more religiously authoritarian countries, know this quite deeply. So, they label, as in Saudi Arabia, atheists as terrorists – or ideological threats [Laughing]. I think that one-on-one work is very powerful for a lot of people.
Jackson: That it is. I can’t imagine doing anything else. It is my true passion. It is what I love doing. I couldn’t imagine anything else.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
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.
