Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1189

Myth Either Fires Or Fails

Anthony McIntyre's piece from last week's Belfast Telegraph argues that for the myth of a United Ireland to continue to have purchase the Stormont Assembly needs to be up and running. Irish unity needs the Northern Ireland Assembly to be firing on all cylinders
Currently, in the North, the British Secretary of State James Brokenshire and Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney are scurrying around, seemingly oblivious to the “busy fool” concept. James as he views his broken shire is said to be feverishly working behind the scenes in a bid to pull it all back together again by having the main protagonists meet in secret.

More upfront, Simon Coveney has taken to gallivanting from one part of the Bantustan to another, meeting him, her and Uncle Tom Cobley. By now he must understand that the term Minister for Foreign Affairs is most apt when he visits a place like the North, where he is certain to be confronted with its mish mash of alien ideas, archaic attitudes and an insufferable political narcissism which helps comfortably blinker out of view what the chief executive of Co-operation Ireland, Peter Sheridan, referred to as “the rights of the other community.”

If both ministers express optimism, even if only for the optics, about a rapid resumption of the Executive, they remind us of another concept they have forgotten: that in the North no pessimist was ever proved wrong. While each behaves like the character from a Seán Ó'Faoláin's short story "who hadn't got a spare sixpence of an idea to fumble for”, the North’s political class continues doing what has long defined it – procrastination.

It is hugely enamoured to the notion of delay and defer, which was ingrained in their collective psyche by Tony Blair, who visited the place around forty times, almost certainly more than he travelled to Iraq, where he both started and waged an unjust war. The lesson learned by the political class was that if it throws the rattle out of the pram and howls enough it will attract attention and copious quantities of pacifiers. Having established a pattern of penultimate deadline by endless postponement, the two governments should at least desist from expressing displeasure at the monkey when it reaches out for low hanging fruit.

The DUP, as usual, has taken to blaming Sinn Fein for the administrative hiatus. The nationalist party, stands accused by Sammy Wilson of having “demands and red lines ... so unrealistic that there is not going to be an agreement.”

While it might come as no surprise to learn that Roy Beggs of the UUP backed Wilson, an eyebrow or two might be raised in the direction of the SDLP’s Claire Hanna who earlier this week tweeted that “Danny Morrison today gives SF thinking in a nutshell - killing Good Friday & handing us all to Tories is worth it to make point to the DUP.”

So, in a nutshell of a different sort, it is all Sinn Fein’s fault: the party prefers direct rule to a power sharing executive; its eye, more on power in the South than progress in the North.

How representative Morrison is of what Sinn Fein believes prior to the commission of the party’s approved thinking is not as readily apparent as Hanna might hypothesize. He has often been behind the curve on these matters. He is not a policy maker but someone who often wrongly anticipates what way the cat might jump and leaps first, only to find the cream has soured. Hence his serious errors of judgement about IRA weaponry decommissioning and the party response to visits from British royalty. Morrison is much more adept at falling into line with party policy than he is at predicting it, as is evidenced from his reading of the party’s relationship with the DUP at the “moment of creation”. Writing prior to the DUP-Sinn Fein coalition in 2007 he opined that:

Increasingly I think we must need our heads examined. Just because he represents the largest party might entitle him to be First Minister – but, in truth, who could work with this one-man Executive? He is ill-mannered, arrogant, pompous and bigoted. We want the North to change, to modernise, and not to be stuck in the sixteenth century having the Protestant Reformation shoved down our throats. What an advertisement he would be around the world. We would be a laughing stock. We would be building on gas.

In short, Morrison is not a reliable barometer of Sinn Fein policy. 
Party luminary Jim Gibney waxes somewhat more sanguine than Morrison. He is also more in tune with what is being thought within the party, even if he inherits ideas rather than patents them. His view is that “it is difficult to say if the north's executive, assembly and all-Ireland ministerial council will function again in the foreseeable future.” He has floated the fanciful notion that if observers look past the DUP “there is clearly some new and fresh thinking taking place among a section of unionist opinion.”

This is a regurgitation of the old Sinn Fein shibboleth, supported by strategic nothingness, of identifying a unionist de Clerk. It is not born not of acuity but of aridity. Courtesy of Tory misfortunes the DUP is in the ascendancy and there is nothing for Sinn Fein to look past other than the wilderness of direct rule, which the vastly experienced Ken Bloomfield suggests is the most likely option should the shouting fail to reach a mutually agreed conclusion.

Better for Sinn Fein as suggested by Morrison? Hardly. It only makes political, strategic and indeed historic sense for Sinn Fein to “smash Stormont” if in its stead there was to be a move towards more rule from Dublin and less from London, even with latter remaining the dominant partner: an incremental rolling transfer of sovereignty where power shifts incrementally from London to Dublin. There is not the slightest sign of this happening.

Because Sinn Fein is so heavily focussed on the South - it has little strategic choice - it does not follow that the Northern institutions can simply be permanently upended. For if the party is to succeed in its pretence that a united Ireland of sorts - just not the one “traditionally envisaged" to cite Adams - can be put in place, it requires the apparatus in the North to be firing on all cylinders. Sans executive resumption at some point prior to the next Southern general election, Sinn Fein, with its ceiling of ambition limited to propping up Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, merely becomes a strain of the Labour Party. The latter’s death by deception will serve as a salutary warning to Sinn Fein.

While Morrison’s observation that the Sinn Fein the base has shifted seems accurate, there has been no party leadership in the island more capable of getting the base to slaughter sacred cows, than the current camarilla and cabal heading Sinn Fein. If there is no groundswell against the politically promiscuous search in Dublin for any suitor no matter how conservative, it is difficult to image the base continuing to hold the line against a resumption of the Executive, no matter how weak the terms, at a point when it is most conducive to leadership ambitions.

From Charlottesville To Palestine

Anti-Fascist Resistance and the Struggle to Defend Human Rights in #Charlottesville and #OccupiedPalestine // @TheAngryindian Speaks with US Attorney Stanley Cohen APNS Public RadyoListen / Download: — 00:00:00 — (mp3) / (ogg) Indigenist Talk Media for Intelligent Aboriginals by aboriginalpress Summary: The United States is facing a serious, sociopolitical crisis of national identity following the right-wing terrorist killing of anti-fascist/anti-racism activist Ms. Heather Heyer during a neo-Nazi #UniteTheRight event held in Charlottesville, Virginia USA. And the tacit support such organisations are receiving from the Trump administration; the US Justice Department; the Republican Party; police officials and their supporters is sending a message of hate and division across the nation and across the world. 

Stanley Cohen
Even the creator of ‘Argumentum ad Nazium, reductio ad Hitlerum’, or, ‘Godwin’s Law’, writer Mike Godwin, says: ‘It’s OK to call Charlottesville white supremacists Nazis‘ while the US president argues that there are ‘Good People’ amongst the far-right, neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan members that heavily populate his narrow-minded support base and those who wilfully participated in the pro-fascist, domestic terrorist activities that occurred in Charlottesville.

To help dissect this exceedingly complex subject, FWR host @TheAngryindian speaks with North American attorney-at-law Stanley Cohen, a well-known – if not infamous – political figure recognised for his legal work defending many US progressive movements; social justice activists and human rights/anti-colonial causes occurring in North America and Occupied Palestine. Raised in an orthodox Jewish family and shaped by a formal Hebrew education, Mr. Cohen has legally represented members of the Hamas (Gaza Strip); Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Assad (Syria) governments; provided consul to relatives of Osama Bin Laden (Saudi Arabia) and to the American-born sheikh, Abdul Rahman Yasin, said to have engineered the World Trade Center attack of 1993.

Aside from defending notorious world actors, a number of other, lesser-recognised clients closer to home have also used his services, such as the Legal Aid Society; VISTA (volunteer services); the Winnebago, Omaha and Santee Sioux Nations and he has worked alongside prominent, pro-People attorneys such as the (late) William Kunstler and has legally defended a member of the Weather Underground with the (late) Lynne Stewart. As quoted in an article by Jessica Schulberg for the newrepublic, Mr. Cohen calls it an honour to be voted the “world’s number one self-hating Jew”, and on FWR he discusses unpopular subjects such as: the rise of fascism in the United States under the Trump administration; the silence of the Zionist movement regarding racialism and Judeophobia within the Trump White House; Rojava and the question of Kurdish independence and western apathy; American Exceptionalism; Homophobia, Sexism and Feminism within the Arab and Muslim Worlds and how this paradox relates to the US taxpayer-funded state of de facto Apartheid within Israel/Occupied Palestine and the questionable, undue pressure human rights activists in the US and Canada face when addressing Indigenous/First Nations; Afro-American and Native Palestinian issues. This discussion is exceptional for Mr. Cohen’s debunking of false (and racist) allegations suggesting that the US ‘created’ Islamic extremist groups in Western Asia and explains why the American left-wing needs to get its act together.

All this and much more on, 4WR.

The official internet radio broadcast of the Aboriginal Press News Service/ANG


*(Our apologies to Mr. Cohen and our listeners for the poor audio quality within some parts of this broadcast.)

Forward us your suggestions as to how Aboriginal & African communities can effectively, non-violently and intelligently respond to our respective issues. Your suggestions and audio responses might be mentioned/played on future dispatches.

By Definition Any Killing Is Murder

From The Transcripts Michael Reade speaks to Sinn Féin president and TD for Louth, Gerry Adams, via telephone about the 1991 IRA execution/murder of Co. Louth farmer, Tom Oliver. (begins time stamp ~ 1:08) Audio Player.

The Michael Reade Show
LMFM Radio Louth(begins time stamp ~ 1:08)
Gerry Adams The Michael Reade Show 31 August 2017


Michael: In July of 1991 the IRA executed a thirty-seven year old farmer from Co. Louth because, it said, Tom Oliver was an informer. A statement in An Phoblacht at the time read: 

The IRA has a duty to protect its organisation, its Volunteers and the back-up provided by its supporters. Tom Oliver’s death was due to his willingness to act as an agent for the Dublin government’s Special Branch.

The Gardaí in Ardee have re-opened the investigation into the killing of Tom Oliver and there are appeals for information. Sinn Féin’s president and TD for Louth, Gerry Adams, issued a statement this week saying that the shooting of Tom Oliver was a grievous loss for his family and was unjustified. Like all victims the Oliver Family deserves supports and this includes the right to truth. And Gerry Adams is on the line with us this morning. And a very Good Morning to you and thank you, indeed, for joining us here on the programme this morning. I think the Oliver Family are probably listening to us this morning and are anxious to hear what you mean by that – how can they get the truth that they so desperately seek?

Deputy Adams: Well Good Morning, Michael. I want to deal with two issues here if I may. The substantive issue being how the family of Tom Oliver can get to the truth. The other issue, which I’ll come to later if you let me, is the opportunistic and very cynical way that other local representatives, I think they’re Peter Fitzpatrick and Declan Breathnach, have seized upon this issue to attack Sinn Féin. Now, there have been thousands of people killed in the conflict. The victims, the families who have suffered, and Thomas Oliver had a large family, that their loss is very, very grievous. They deserve to get to the truth. The processes that have been established to do that go back to the initial proposition which came from Sinn Féin which was to put in place an independent international body to establish a commission to look at all of these killings and inquire into what happened and get explanations for families. Now, that’s still the Sinn Féin position but other parties and the two governments did not– the British government did not agree to that so we then moved to bring forward a series of other propositions – and we actually agreed a series of measures which was in December of 2014 at Stormont at the Stormont House Agreement and that is to put in place an information retrieval process which would give any family that wants it the opportunity to get information and which would be put together in a way which would actively encourage and, I suppose, persuade those who may have information to come forward on that basis. Now that remains, both of those propositions, in my view, the best way for any family which seeks the truth – and they’re absolutely entitled to that – to get to that truth.

Michael: You say that the shooting was unjustified. He was shot several times in the head and obviously brutally tortured as well. Do you believe that the killing of Tom Oliver was murder?

Deputy Adams: Well by definition any killing is, in fact, murder. Obviously this is a politically motivated killing and we’re into the very vexed issue and you know – this’ll write the headlines for the yellow press in the next few days and the Independent group of newspapers will have a little field day which serves no one at all – it doesn’t serve anybody, it doesn’t serve the Oliver Family, it doesn’t serve the greater search for truth, it doesn’t serve any of these propositions. There was a conflict. The conflict, thankfully, is over. As I’ve said many, many people died as a consequence of that. They come from all sections. They come from the combatant section, if you like – from the British Army, from the state forces, from the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary), from An Garda Síochána, prison officers, IRA Volunteers, those involved with Unionist paramilitaries. The IRA, of course, perpetrated many of these incidents and events and you know I have a longstanding position while not accepting everything that the IRA did of accepting the general legitimacy of an armed response to the occupation that was ongoing in The North at that time. Things were really…

Michael: …And Tom Oliver was killed ‘on command’. You believe that was a legitimate command?

Deputy Adams: Well I’m not going to get into all of that, with respect…

Michael: …Okay, well I’m not going to ask you to write ‘tabloid headlines’ as you put it but…

Deputy Adams: …No, Michael, but, Michael, more important…

Michael: …you disagree with me then. Well, I think…

Deputy Adams: …Michael, Michael…

Michael: I’m sorry, Mr. Adams, but we have been contacted by the Oliver Family and I believe that it is important to the family that I ask you to address this question as to whether it was an act of war on command and that that command was legitimate.

Deputy Adams: Well first of all, when I said to you I’m not getting into all of this I’m quite prepared to answer questions but there has to be a purpose behind the question. It’s clear, the IRA acknowledged the…

Michael: …Okay, well let me…

Deputy Adams: …Sorry, sorry…

Michael: …Well, well, well – let’s shoot forward. The question is…

Deputy Adams: …Michael, are you going to let me finish this? You have to let me answer…

Michael: Well, you asked me – okay, okay, okay, okay – and I will, but…

Deputy Adams: …You have to let me answer…

Michael: …the reason I was interrupting you is because you asked me if there was a purpose to the question, I was about to explain the purpose of the question which is that the Oliver Family would like to hear from the IRA, or from the IRA through Sinn Féin, that Tom Oliver was not an informer.

Deputy Adams: Well first of all, the IRA have gone. That’s Number One. Second of all Sinn Féin have no information on any of this. Third of all, it is a matter of historical fact that you read this at the beginning of this report that the IRA acknowledged that it shot to death Tom Oliver, it made allegations at that time that he was acting for the Special Branch – that’s there, that’s the assertion that was made at that time – that’s not me endorsing that, that’s not me justifying that, that’s me simply saying, as you said at the beginning of this report – that that is the fact. Now, the allegation of an informer, of anyone being an informer, notwithstanding everything else that has happened, is still a deeply wounding one for loved ones of those who have been killed. I know that myself. I’ve met the families of those who have been the victims of all sides but including the victims of the IRA so I understand how the family feels about this issue but the fact is, as you read out at the beginning of the report, the IRA killed the man, the IRA gave its reasons for killing the man – and that’s the historical record.

Michael: Do you believe that Tom Oliver was an informer? Or do you have a view on that? Because there appears to be two contradictory stories told about Tom Oliver. One was that he aided and abetted the IRA campaign by providing them with sheds so that they could store weapons and explosives and that over a six year period he was giving information to the Gardaí. Another story is that that never happened – that he didn’t had these links or if he did he never informed on the IRA but what happened was that he discovered a barrel with weapons inside, he didn’t know what was inside the barrel, he reported this to the Gardaí. They discovered weapons and some IRA members were arrested as a result. What’s your understanding of the history behind this?

Deputy Adams: I have no information. I have no information whatsoever on any of those matters. My information on this is limited to what I read about at the time and what was, generally speaking, in the public arena at the time. I have no other information on this.

Michael: People listening, and I’m not making an accusation here but I am making an assumption and I would imagine it’s probably right to say that people listening will be very sceptical that you haven’t got information or that you haven’t sought to get information given the links that you have to the IRA, Gerry Adams, and the close association that you have had with them and that this has been an issue for over a week at this stage. Last Wednesday we discussed on the programme how the Gardaí had to re-open this investigation and we had made continuous calls to Sinn Féin in the intervening period.

Deputy Adams: Well first of all I don’t have any other information. It’s not my responsibility investigate any of these matters – that’s a matter for An Garda Síochána. I don’t intend, if you don’t mind me saying so, investigating any of this. I’m a public representative. I have a responsibility to support An Garda Síochána and the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) and to cooperate with them and I do that to the best of my ability and I’ve put my neck on the line on many, many occasions to do that. So let’s not muddle the roads here and let’s get back to what is at the core of all of this: Do the family of Thomas Oliver deserve the truth? Yes, they do. Is there a way of getting the truth for them? Yes, there is. I have outlined that at the beginning of this interview. It may or may not succeed. There are many, many, many people, unfortunately, in exactly the same position and all we can do is, as an act of solidarity with them, is to do our best to create a climate and to put in place structures and processes – which is what the two governments and the other parties have done. They’re not working at this point. Why are they not working at this point? Because the British government refuses to bring forward the legislative basis to put in place that information retrieval process that was part of the Stormont House Agreement and they refuse to do that. And I mean I spoke to the British Secretary of State on this in Washington just a month ago because they are exercising what they call a ‘national security veto’ and they have completely snookered the whole process which would create a context where those who may have information on any of these issues would feel able to come forward and to give that information.

Michael: Can I ask you what you mean when you say you won’t investigate this? Are you saying that you won’t approach the IRA or your contacts in the IRA to get clarification on why Tom Oliver was shot? And if, perhaps, that was a mistake and if it was a mistake, as his family would contend, that a statement would be issued to the effect that Tom Oliver was not an informer. Because if you are saying that that’s not something that you’re willing to do people will ask well why were you willing to contact the IRA about other killings, historical killings – you took the Stack Family, for example, to meet members of the IRA.

Deputy Adams: And that ended very badly.

Michael: Yes.

Deputy Adams: As you may know, and I made it clear after that, that my ability to assist the families of victims was severely undercut by the way that whole initiative played out. So I’m very, very clear in my own head in this. My responsibility as a public representative is to create the structures and to create the climate and to actively encourage anyone with any information which can help any victim’s family, including the family of Tom Oliver, that they should do that. I’m not going down the road that I’ve been down before which was exploited grievously by Sinn Féin’s political opponents which jeopardised any authority that I may have and influence that I may have within the broad Republican constituency – because remember, in the Stack case, that I did go and get a former IRA person to assist in a little process which was done in good faith and that didn’t work out. Now, I have no regrets about that. I think I did the right thing but that has severely undermined any way of dealing with these issues informally. Secondly, and I repeat what I said earlier and please don’t ignore this, Michael, the IRA has gone. The IRA as a structure, as an organisation and so on and so forth, no longer exists. Yes, there are lots of former IRA people about the place getting on with their lives and so on and so forth and many of them, I think, would be willing and would be prepared to help in these processes but there needs to be in place the measures which have been agreed – these are not ‘makey-up’ measures – these are thoughtful conflict resolution measures which have been put in place after lots of research, after lots of learning from other processes and after lots of discussions and they’ve been actively blocked, they’ve been actively blocked at this time by a British government which was up to its neck in killings and in organising others to do killings – including in Co. Louth by the way as well as in Dublin and Monaghan and right across The North and including many members of Sinn Féin and their family members – so as someone who negotiated the release from prison of the people who shot me, of the people who bombed my home and so on I’m totally committed to getting families truth but it has to be done in a structured way which everybody signs up to and which is not open to the type of cynical, opportunistic attacks on Sinn Féin that we’ve seen in the recent past.

Michael: You speak about this from a number of perspectives – one of those perspectives is as a public representative in a constituency where a man was shot dead. Do you believe that the people who shot Tom Oliver dead should be prosecuted for murder or do you believe that they should be pardoned under some extension of the Good Friday Agreement?

Deputy Adams: No, I the Good Friday – part of the Good Friday Agreement allowed for the release of political prisoners and obviously that was a very, very important element of it. Now families are fully entitled – as they want to see investigations and they want to see prosecutions and…

Michael: …Do you believe that…

Deputy Adams: …sorry, let me finish my point. And part of the recent measures which Sinn Féin agreed to include that so we have signed up for that. At the same time, filling the prisons again – and you know not all families want prosecutions by the way – but filling the prisons again, putting people back into prison – and people could not go to prison for any more than two years – I don’t think would be counter-productive but at the same – I don’t think would be productive but at the same time I absolutely uphold the right of a family wishes to see prosecutions – of course, they’re entitled to that.

Michael: Do you believe that the IRA Volunteers who shot Tom Oliver dead should be charged with murder and would you ask people in your constituency who undoubtedly have information about the people who were involved in that killing should assist the Gardaí and come forward with that information?

Deputy Adams: Well first of all, I would have a very strong position, while defending the right of a family to prosecutions – and I think all of us have a duty to cooperate with the Gardaí in that regard – I repeat what I said a moment ago – I think it would be totally and absolutely counter-productive. I don’t think it would assist the wider process that all of us are engaged in but of course families are entitled to that so we have these two conflicting imperatives and I think what we have put forward thoughtfully seeks to put victims first and deal with their concerns and their needs but at the same time understanding the huge challenges that all of this presents for those of us who have invested a huge amount of time in building a peace process.

Michael: Gerry Adams, thank you, indeed, for…

Deputy Adams: …Sorry, sorry Michael. Michael, I just want to make a point as I said at the beginning.

Michael: About the political comments that were made?

Deputy Adams: Yes. Yes. I have no problem with the Fianna Fáil TDs or indeed the Fine Gael TDs appealing for people to come forward with information but as Peter Fitzpatrick has made an appeal to Sinn Féin – that’s opportunism, that’s totally and absolutely cynical. He and Declan Breathnach have said that he believes, and I’m quoting from an LMFM report, that there are people living in the Cooley area who know exactly who killed Thomas Oliver. Now, has he gone to the Gards? It was also said, contrary to what I have said, that the IRA is still active in Co. Louth. They’re not. Has he gone to the Gards? Has he brought this information forward? These remarks are entirely negative, they’re opportunistic, they’re cynical. Of course we all have a responsibility to help the families of victims but we also have a responsibility not to play party politics with these issues.

Michael: And we have to take everything every politician says as a political statement. On the other hand, I’m sure you’ll accept that the statements that were made were following meetings that the two TDs you mentioned had with the Oliver Family and, indeed, that we here on this programme were contacted by the Oliver Family and they asked that Sinn Féin, specifically yourself, Mr. Adams, would make a statement in relation to this.

Deputy Adams: And I did that.

Michael: Yes.

Deputy Adams: And I did that. But I am not dealing here with the legitimate positions of Thomas Oliver’s family. I’m dealing with what I see as the completely opportunistic and cynical remarks – you know, there must be an election pending – we saw it in the first election I contested, we saw it in the last election and they make these allegations, they make these assertions and does anybody ask them – I didn’t hear your interviews with them, Michael, did anybody ask them what’s the basis of their allegations? Did anybody say: Have you got proof? Has anybody said to them: Did you go to the Gardaí? I mean, have they gone to the Gardaí?

Michael: As I say, they have met with the family and I believe that the statements that they made on the programme were representative of the family’s views.

Deputy Adams: No, no, well sorry, sorry, Michael, if I could just come back to you again and this is…

Michael: …Okay…

Deputy Adams: …and I’m reading from one of your reports…

Michael: …Yes…

Deputy Adams: Deputy Fitzpatrick says he believes that there are people living in the Cooley area who know exactly who killed the Louth man.

Michael: Yes.

Deputy Adams: Right?

Michael: Well that also follows reports at the time that there were two men that brought Tom Oliver to his executioners and that their business was shunned in local pubs so it follows that there are people locally who at least suspect those who were involved.

Deputy Adams: No, you’re better at this than me but that’s – look at what your report says: Deputy Fitzpatrick says he believes there are people living in the Cooley area who know exactly who killed the Louth man. So he believes this, he has information in this – has he gone to An Garda Síochána with this information?

Michael: Okay, we’ll ask him that specifically then.

Deputy Adams: Thank you, Michael.

Michael: Thank you, indeed. Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin president and TD for Louth.

(ends time stamp ~ 23:59)

Vaaxed Article Highly Misleading

M. Dennis Paul, PhD, in the following contribution takes to task the author of an earlier piece on the topic of vaccinations. M. Dennis Paul is a retired Counselor and ADR Specialist with 30 years practice; 12 of which in direct work with Autistic children. He is also a lifelong activist who has worked with the BPP, WU and other groups of the 60's and 70's, has composed articles and cartoons for underground papers of that era and more recently for Salem-News.org and his own blog, rebel.lio. He also edits articles for, and maintains the excellent blog of, International Human Rights Attorney, Stanley L. Cohen... Caged but UndauntedWhy the Case Presented by Rowan Clarke Regarding Vaxxed (Pensive Quill Aug 29, 2017) is Highly Misleading



With considerable disapprobation, having read through Rowan Clarke's severely misinformed editorial regarding the controversial film “VAXXED”, I find myself responding to clear up much of his espoused nonsense.

I reject, based upon his comments, the claim that he viewed this film with an open mind and that he has any genuine knowledge of the issues it presents.

To begin, he states the film is centered around the “anti-vaccination movement” and that it's writer is the “progenitor of the anti-vaccine phenomenon”. Had he any knowledge of anti-vaccine movements, he would have acknowledged their existence since the time of Jenner (1796). I can assure that Wakefield et al are not that old... though some have retired. This movement began in response to fears and concerns about small-pox vaccination and, as important, compulsory vaccination. VAXXED is hardly “centered” around any movement beyond that which seeks the following (from the Producer's own statement):
1. That Congress subpoena Dr. William Thompson and investigate the CDC fraud.2. That Congress repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and hold manufacturers liable for injury caused by their vaccines.
3. That 3 separate, univalent vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella be made available immediately.
4. That all vaccines be classified as pharmaceutical drugs and tested accordingly.

Dr. William Thompson is a whistleblower at CDC who disclosed that the CDC both lied about MMR study results and went so far as to destroy documentation. Due to increasing reports of vaccine injury, disability and death, Congress passed an industry protection bill limiting, and ending (in some instances) liability by the manufacturers. The title of the bill is markedly deceptive. Far from being “anti-vaccine”, both Dr's Wakefield and Thompson fully support vaccination in the prevention of disease. Common sense dictates that there be a rational and reasonable oversight of vaccines and vaccine production. Further, it is essential that new and ongoing research be conducted and protected and that scientific concerns regarding formulae, potential underlying and unobserved concomitant weaknesses in immunity, as well diseases, be more cautiously studied and reported, that timing and scheduling of vaccines be more cautiously regarded and, among numerous other cautions, issues with live component vaccines be more thoroughly studied and reported upon.
I strongly urge parents to study the very real and potentially disastrous direct and side effects of any drug the place inside their, or their children's, bodies. Many, if not most, reactions to vaccines are inflammatory... effecting major organs... especially the brain. The layman might not associate such reactions as breathing difficulty, shaking, etc. with the brain. They are, however, deeply connected.

It is also exceptionally important to know, as in the case of flu vaccines, how effective any current offering might be. Year after year, the CDC reports the overall ineffectiveness of the previous season's vaccine which means millions of dollars wasted and millions of people misled into believing they were protected. (There is only one way to accurately test the effectiveness of a vaccine, any vaccine. It is by challenging every individual inoculated with the antigen for which it was designed. This is never done which leaves widely disparate formulae for statistical rendering of effectiveness).

I have been wearing an elephant talisman for 60+ years and have yet to be harmed by an elephant.. Therefore, the elephant talisman affords a consistent 100% protection. Of course, I was only challenged once by the presence of a caged elephant while visiting a zoo as a child. He took a peanut from my hand.

Mr. Rowan goes on to claim that Dr. Wakefield (having earned his degrees, he is fully entitled to be called “Doctor” regardless of any intended slights by Mr. Rowan and others) claimed there was “...a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism”. This is inaccurate and misleading. Dr. Wakefield et al conducted an initial study to see if they could find a link between MMR, bowel disorders and Autism based on observations related to presenting symptoms post inoculation. That is what studies are for. Researchers see a possible link, investigate it through studies and report on their findings... most often with conclusions that offer recommendations for further studies.

None of the authors of the study stated that there was a causal link between the MMR and Autism. It appeared there may well be some connection but all the participants knew the study, as small as it was, would prove inconclusive yet might point them, and others, in directions which might either prove or disprove this hypothesis. I suggest that Mr. Rowan gain some understanding of what “hypothesis” means. What Doctor Wakefield acknowledged on his own, was that he, personally, could not disregard the close relationship between time of inoculation and disease symptoms and, compared to studies of effect from mono-inoculation, could not stand behind the MMR at that time. Far from being “anti-vax”, he was cautiously recommending a return to a known, safer, method.

First, do no harm

Mr. Rowan continues that Dr. Wakefield was found to have acted unethically with other charges levied against him. Neglecting to relate any of his comments to the co-author (lead) of the study, Dr. John Walker-Smith, who was also wrongly discredited for the same charges and subsequently exonerated is another instance of misleading readers. By association, Dr. Wakefield, the 2nd researcher/author, is technically also exonerated. However, by law, Dr. Wakefield would need to personally challenge his case to receive the same official result. At the time, he could not afford to do so as he was not funded for appeal by his carrier. Dr. Walker-Smith was covered. If one reads the appeal findings, it becomes clear that the authors were singled out by a single journalist who, it becomes apparent, was inaccurate and largely incorrect in his interpretations of medical reports.

The BMJ has stood by this journalist despite his own recession from statements made and continues to ignore that not only this journalist, but BMJ itself, are compromised by association either financially (through advertising and grants) or through administration (Murdoch Publications, whose owner sits on GMC boards as well reliant on Pharmaceutical advertising) with the manufacturers of vaccines.. including MMR. BMJ and this journalist have consistently accused Dr. Wakefield of fraud. He has never been charged with fraud and were he to be charged, Dr. Walker-Smith would also have been so charged. The false allegations have lead to further false allegations and the myths about the study and Dr. Wakefield have been played and replayed throughout the largely Pharma reliant media... and resurface whenever the topic of vaccines and autism arise. Again, I strongly urge all to investigate the effects, direct and indirect, of vaccines and to take a close look at the MMR. At the same time, look at the accepted defining symptoms of autism and other forms of PDD. It is difficult to dismiss the seeming correlations in need of much further investigation. (BMJ often displays seemingly absurd studies such as this.)

Further, the depth of false allegations against Dr. Wakefield extend to blaming him for a decrease in vaccinations in the UK. No such decrease occurred as people initially took Dr. Wakefield's opinion for a return to mono-vaccines to heart and did so... thus the vaccination rates did not, as claimed, drop precipitously upon the publication of the MMR study. It was, in fact, a later act of the UK which made the mono-vaccines unavailable and that lead to a drop in rates. The linked video also offers Dr. Wakefield's response to false allegations regarding financial gains resulting from his work on the study.

I suggest that Mr. Rowan also research the history of false claims against doctors and researchers throughout history and the resultant damage to reputations such false claims produced. Beriberi, SMON, scurvy and pellagra immediately come to mind. Were it not for the tenacity of such doctors and researchers, we would still be in the dark ages of these conditions.

It is notable that Mr. Rowan claims debunking and disreputation of facts presented in VAXXED yet apparently had watched something else as he did not realize the film was centered on a CDC whistleblower, apparently did not know that the researchers on the study, the doctor at the center of the film and Dr. Wakefield are not anti-vaxxers. He also made no effort to name any of the professionals whom he follows behind.

As his casket was lowered into the cruel earth, all his wife could recall was the practitioners words as she and her husband left his clinic. “Trust me... I'm a doctor”. Cures are not determined by edict. They are discovered through inquiry.

What many are as yet unaware... and perhaps shall remain so... is that communicable diseases have cycles of growth and recession which are entirely natural... no proven links being providable through belief in vaccines. It has been claimed that polio was eradicated, small-pox, and other diseases, by vaccine. I direct the reader, and Mr. Rowan, to the following from an old friend, Jon Rappoport . Mind Boggling FDA Confession About Small-Pox Vaccine. Variably, vaccines are, by their manufacturers and by researchers, NIH, CDC, WHO, considered viable in 30 to 70% of those inoculated... and the duration of effect varies from person to person. It is therefor impossible to make any claim to 100% eradication of an antigen. Further, it is well known that live vaccines, once injected into a body, can be communicated to surrounding susceptible bodies and that injectees can, and do, come down with symptoms of the disease for which they were inoculated. Things to consider.

Mr. Rowan continues his missive with ramblings about his personal experience with autism and I feel for him. Having 12 years of providing counseling, therapy and care for Autistic children, I do know the ups and downs quite well.

From there, he selects a few supporters of anti-vax groups in Ireland and the UK. I ask if there were more reputable and noteworthy proponents that were purposely not listed. Still, this is not really about anti-vaxxers but about rational vaxxers. Those who believe the “professionals” Mr. Rowan believes vs. those who question the timing, formulation and scheduling of vaccines... such as Dr. Thompson, Dr. Walker-Smith and Dr. Wakefield.

From this point, Mr. Rowan delves into alternative treatment. Many, I will agree, are bollocks. However, Mr. Rowan, had he a background in science or medicine, would be aware that chelation is a widely used and approved therapy for the removal of heavy metals from the human body. It's most common use is for removing lead in heavily exposed children and adults. It is also used to remove a myriad of heavy metals from machinists who inadvertently consume sizable amounts through handling lubricants used in machining. It involves the injection of a synthetic amino acid into the blood stream. Other uses are controversial only in that there are differing schools of though as to how it acts in the body. Many, many people attest to its efficacy and their well being post treatment. Vaccines have, variably, as components, forms of aluminum and mercury which are questionable with regard to vaccine damage. The concern increases as ever greater clusters of inoculations occur and combination vaccines come into market.

Bleaching is a very bad idea which evolved from a good one. Food grade peroxide has been used with no ill effect for generations Neutrophils in the body produce hydrogen peroxide as a first line of defense against infection and disease. The MMS “bleach” sold by hucksters should be removed from the market place. There are numerous other therapies that have been tried and rejected over the years with regard to autism. It is a strong caveat to do the research before trying anything.

With regard to Mr. Rowan's fear message about a return of TB, TB vaccines are not required in the US due to overall ineffectiveness in the population. BCG vaccine has a claimed effect against meningitis and disseminated TB in 20% of children. Further, in children who do become infected, it is said to prevent roughly half from developing the disease. It is not proven to prevent primary infection and, more importantly, does not prevent reactivation of latent pulmonary infection, the principal source of bacillary spread in the community. Like most diseases, TB tends to disappear as environments for living improve. Bernard, from whom Pasteur stole most of his work, understood that “it is not the germ but rather the terrain”.

The remainder of Mr. Rowan's missive I will disregard as it is extraneous babble in my honest opinion. I may be a bit harsh in presenting my rebuttal but it is not my intention to belittle Mr' Rowan. I do wish him to see that he is vastly unqualified and unknowledgeable in too may areas to go on the attack of someone who rightly questions science and conducts appropriate research to help move the discussions forward. The doctor under attack for purportedly being an anti-vaxxer and a fraud is the exact opposite. It is dishonest and irresponsible to present such claims absent any genuine comprehension of the subject(s) or the nature of science and research. I sincerely hope Mr. Rowan will truly open his mind and understand the errors of his perceptions and claims. Perpetuation of myths and other forms of misinformation, intentional or otherwise, is a disservice to everyone.

Tactical Voting & Top Dogs

The jungle drums are hammering out the beat that more elections could be on the way in the North. Political commentator, Dr John Coulter, uses his Fearless Flying Column to explore the view that it’s not republican unity which Unionism fears most, but tactical voting which could see Sinn Fein overtake the DUP as the North’s top dog. Tactical voting – that’s Plan B for Northern Catholics now the Sinn Fein and SDLP leaderships have failed to deliver any crop of unity candidates.

Things have moved a long way in the nationalist camp since the smart move by South Belfast Shinners some years ago in withdrawing ex-Lord Mayor Alex Maskey. Then, this move assured victory for the SDLP’s Alasdair McDonnell.

But this is no longer the case. The electorate has shown it wants both republican unity and unionist unity as the last Westminster poll clearly demonstrated with both Sinn Fein and the DUP emerging with 17 of the North’s 18 Commons MPs.

However, we still don’t have Stormont up and running. If the DUP is batting clever, it should push for a temporary period of Direct Rule and let Theresa May’s Tories take the blame for implementing biting cuts to the North’s NHS and schools.

After all, Sinn Fein is still – unlike the SNP – not taking its Commons seats so it is effectively politically neutered when it comes to challenging the DUP at Westminster. Sinn Fein is more interested in the next Dail showdown than another Stormont poll.

Besides, a period of Direct Rule – given that both the SDLP and UUP lack any Commons seats – will practically spell the death knell for both parties. That could have a knock-on effect politically in any future Assembly election following a new deal between the DUP and Sinn Fein.

If both the SDLP and UUP are reduced to single-figure MLA representation, it leaves the DUP/Sinn Fein power-sharing Stormont Executive with a new brand of ‘majority rule’ across Northern Ireland.

When Catholics see their ballot papers at the next Stormont poll and are confronted by two nationalist candidates and a unionist unity, or strong unionist runner – they have two choices.

They can follow their hearts and vote for their preferred nationalist, hoping they get enough votes to pip the Unionist.

Or, they could follow the so-called Mallon Model of plumping for the nationalist best placed to halting a Unionist victory.

This was clearly demonstrated in Newry and Armagh during the 1986 Commons by-elections caused by Unionist MPs’ anger at the previous year’s Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Three years earlier, the UUP’s Jim Nicholson – now an MEP – squeaked the seat on an evenly split nationalist vote.

Next time round it was simple – a few thousand Catholics simply switched from Sinn Fein to the SDLP, and Seamus Mallon, later Stormont deputy First Minister to Trimble, romped home.

Nationalists pulled the same tactical voting trick a year later in the ’87 General Election, robbing veteran Unionist and controversial MP Enoch Powell of South Down.

And in 2001, nationalists voted tactically for Sinn Fein’s Pat Doherty in West Tyrone to snatch the seat from Unionist Willie Thompson.

Likewise, in the Westminster battles, just because Fermanagh South Tyrone has two nationalists and an agreed Unionist does not mean the seat will fall again to Unionism.

If Catholics use the gossip grapevine to vote for Sinn Fein MP Michelle Gildernew rather than anyone the SDLP can produce, the seat will remain dark green.

In bygone years, this mobilisation of the Catholic vote would have been easy. It was done through chapel pulpits.

But those pulpits have been severely tarnished by the child abuse cover-up scandals and many Catholics no longer feel confident in taking advice from clerics.

At first reading, any plea for unity candidates in North and South Belfast makes perfect sense from a nationalist point of view with the DUP holding the seats.

So why does the supposedly tough-talking SDLP consistently pour ice cold water on unity candidates? Maybe, like the UUP, it has learned the bitter electoral lesson that voting Mike doesn’t get Colum?

In fact, open Catholic unity candidates could act as a red flag to the Orange bull.

Decades ago, the Order played a major role in which Protestant candidates got selected and elected.

With the Orange making a complete tit of itself in the past, especially among significant sections of Protestant opinion because of its anti-pope rhetoric, nationalists don’t want Unionists to react to green unity candidates by putting up their own red, white and blue versions.

But the Orange Order has since learned from its mistakes, and if the DUP should ever ‘go liberal’ like the election-battered UUP, it is only a matter of time before we see Loyal Order candidates as pro-Union candidates on the ballot papers.

Over many decades, Unionists saw multiple Protestant candidates on the ballot paper as a chance to gut each other politically.

But nationalists have become more disciplined in their voting, both in their choice of candidate and turnout.

In many cases, multiple nationalist candidates on the ballot paper are merely clever ploys not to provoke Unionists.

Look at the success of this policy. In 1974, 11 of the dozen Commons MPs were Unionists. Now almost half of the North’s 18 seats are nationalist.

The once influential West Ulster Unionist Council is a forgotten force. It’s not republican unity candidates which Unionists fear most, but nationalist tactical voting strategies.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter

On Disability ... And They Turned Off The Lift

From The Transcripts, Martin Galvin speaks to Kate Nash via telephone from Doire about the sit-in protest occupying the Museum of Free Derry (MOFD).

Radio Free Éireann
WBAI 99.5FM Pacifica Radio
New York City
Audio Player
(begins time stamp ~ 37:41)


Kate Nash RFÉ 2 September 2017
Martin: And with us on the line we have Kate Nash. Kate, welcome back to Radio Free Éireann.

Kate: Thank you very much, Martin.

Martin: Kate, some time ago, just a short time ago, we had you on and you were talking then about just some of the discontent that you and some of the families had about – families of victims of British forces – about the Free Derry Museum. And you said that at time you did not want the names of family members listed among the names of British troops, among the names of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), British forces. I know that that happened in Glasnevin Cemetery in Dublin where the names of Irish patriots were listed and there was a lot of bad feelings about that. How can you put them on the same pedestal, on the same places, if the names of those who were victims or those who died fighting for freedom would be the same and remembered equally with those who were trying to deny that freedom or to take innocent life? And we were hoping that that protest would be resolved. I know you had a petition. I signed it; a number of people signed it. And you were trying to work to get this done. But this week I heard that there was a dramatic new escalation – there’s actually an occupation of the Free Derry Museum. Could you tell us what’s going on and why?

Kate: Yes. Yes, my sister and my good friend, Helen Deery, who lost a brother to the Army of course on the nineteenth of June 1972 – just look – we were on the phone quite often asking and we were just told the same thing: Look, call back next... they were call back next week or give us a ring and just excuses, excuses all the time. And they said they we were doing a consultation. The petition we did do did force them into that – doing a consultation. And they sent out a two page form for families to fill in who wanted it up and who wanted it down. And my family actually filled it out then. And eight of the families actually wanted it down and four of them were happy enough with it. So we sent it back in, you know, this is how they work anyway – Sinn Féin, the majority – that’s what they seem to talk about over there – but however, this went on and on and there was no sign, they said that, they kept kept telling us that people hadn’t really sent the form back and you know they were waiting to see – and that’s what we were listening to the whole time, Martin, we were – and that’s was a couple of months – and this has been going on that long, a couple of months. And so eventually we thought, we took a decision last Sunday that we’d had enough of it. And the girls know, the girls know – we decided that I would stay outside and organise and the girls would go in and occupy the building. And that’s exactly what they did last Tuesday at one forty.
Artist: Carlos Latuff

And they haven’t been treated very nicely, I can tell you, by the Bloody Sunday Trust. They’ve had no, they’d no access, they have had no access to facilities, for instance, until last night. They turned off the lift. One of the girls would have a walking problem, you know, she’s on disability - Helen - and they turned off the lift. They brought various people in, and I witnessed one of them, one of those people, they brought various people in and allowed them to hurl abuse at the two girls, the two ladies. And all the staff are refusing to speak to them despite being, despite only being only a couple of feet away.

And they released a statement last night without even speaking to them. They talked about mediation. They wanted to offer mediation but said at the same time: We won’t move an inch. And Helen actually answered that and said: Well, in that case we’re not moving an inch, either. Obviously, they’re not serious about trying to resolve this problem. And look, we’re simply asking them: Please take my brother’s name out of there. Helen wants her brother’s name out of there.

Daniel Hegarty
There’s another family, the Hegarty Family, young Daniel Hegarty, fifteen, was shot on (Operation) Motorman and they want their brother’s out of there. While we were there yesterday, for instance, there was a man came in, too, demanding artifacts that he had donated to the museum. He demanded those back. He said in support of the occupation done by the two women. He completely supported them. So that’s where we’re at…

Martin: …Alright…

Kate: …that’s really where we’re at…

Martin: …I mean, both of them are pensioners…

Kate: …Yes, they are…

Martin: …Helen Deery’s fifteen year old brother, Manus, was shot. Your brother, Linda’s brother, nineteen year old William, was shot on Bloody Sunday…

Kate: ..Uh huh, that’s right. Yes.

Martin: …and they’re there in overnight bags, sleeping bags…

Occupy MOFD #TakeItDown

Kate: …Yes, well it was actually, they’ve got blow-up beds now so they’re just a wee bit more comfortable. What they did say, the museum people, did say then yesterday as they have agreed – just suddenly they changed tact then yesterday and they have agreed to give them water. They recognise, they said, the protest and they would allow me in with their medications and stuff that they use you know, via me, but do you know what? They’re actually making faces – you know, trying to goad them, you know? And one of the younger members of staff – once a visitor, by the way, who had brought them in a couple of bags of sweets – sprayed them with air freshener! I mean, choking them! Do you know what I mean? He sprayed that much, a nineteen year old that works in there. And that’s the sort of treatment – you know that’s the sort of treatment! That’s where we’re at. I think that I’m (inaudible) at the moment. But I mean we intend to, and the two ladies intend, to stay in there until they take those names down.

Manus Deery
Photo: The Derry JournalMartin: Okay. Well I’m just reading a very emotional statement by Helen Deery who is one of the people inside. She said:

We’re occupying the Museum of Free Derry. We’re not coming out until that display is down. We’ve tried every other form of protest to have them take our loved ones’ names down. I’ve told them on numerous occasions of the hurt and anxiety that this is causing me and other family members. I’m staying here until they take this down. I have eight pins in my legs, a spinal injury and I’m sore this morning but I’m adamant that I’m not leaving. I am Manus’ voice now. His next of kin. I want to keep his name sacred. He was just a child.

And, of course, Linda…

Kate: …Helen made that – it’s very emotional but a very powerful statement, yes.

Martin: Okay. Just tell our audience again: What is the Museum of Free Derry? What is it supposed to represent?


Linda Nash & Helen Deery inside MOFDKate: Well, according to them, according to them it’s a museum it’s now representing from 1969 to 1972 the civil rights – or the Free Derry, the Free Derry time and basically that’s it. You know I mean on the charity status, for instance, the Bloody Sunday Trust, they say that they exist to assist the Bloody Sunday families, you know, and to keep the memory of you know Bloody Sunday with respect. You know, so.

Martin: Alright. But now here is the list of names, names of British troops, names of Royal Ulster Constabulary and mixed in with that is Helen Deery’s brother…

Kate: …Can I explain, Martin, to you about that? They say that those names – that is simply a list – a chronological list. But anybody looking at that display – for instance, where they don’t have a photograph there’s a cross – there you are -that’s a sacred thing. That’s a memorial. There’s also a short biography of each person down below. On one of the soldiers, for instance, it actually says that his wife was pregnant at the time and that she went on to have the baby. So there you are – they’re humanising that. Do you know what I mean? So that is a memorial. That is not a list.

Martin: Well what concerns me, two things: Number One, as a family member of William Nash, as a family member of Manus Deery, certainly you should have the right to say how your family or how you react to it and that it’s hurtful and gets heard. But beyond that when the names of British forces were put up, the ones killed in 1916, were put along side the names of people like James Connolly and Pádraig Pearse and the other patriots of that time – all Republicans made a statement about how angry they were that the names of patriots are not equal or should not be among, should not be remembered along side as if they were the same as, no different than, those who were trying to deny freedom who would execute the men of 1916, they would jail people and now it seems like the same thing is happening in Free Derry Museum.

Kate: Yeah. Well that’s the British government via Sinn Féin. I mean, what we’re facing now, what we’re challenging is The Establishment – and that’s the British government. And this is what their psychological thing is – they actually try and get us to, to attempt to get us, to be used to think that soldiers are okay and so on and that’s what that is attempting to do. But I have to say, too, Sinn Féin and their workers, what they’re, what they, if they meet certain criteria, for instance ‘inclusive’ – then they will get funding. And it’s about that, too. It’s about greed.

Martin: Alright, funding from whom?

Kate: Well, the government. They get funding from the government. The council – they actually get money from the council as well. I believe there’s one part of it’s a charity and then the museum is a business.

Martin: Right. They charge an admission, they make money, people get paid wages…

Kate: …Oh, yes. Four pound a head…

Martin: …and they get money from the British government. Now I think what…

Kate: …That’s right. Yeah. They got funding to build that, you know to build that – I think they got over two million, didn’t they?

Martin: Alright. I think one of the proposals that you and the other people who have the protest have made is for mediation and I think, correct me if I’m wrong, that you had or someone had suggested that Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey would be acceptable…

Kate: …Absolutely, yes, we did. But it was dismissed.

Martin: Well nobody played a bigger part in that whole period, 1968 to 1972, than Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey…

Kate: Absolutely! Well she’s not mentioned. I haven’t seen, you know when I’ve been in there with the girls, I haven’t seen anything about Bernadette Devlin in there. And strange – I haven’t seen anything about John Hume either, you know – quite odd.

Martin: Well how would you tell about that period in history? She was a leading political figure…

Kate: …Yeah, and leave them out…

Martin: …she was – she was the person elected to Parliament from that area…

Kate: …that’s right, yeah…

Martin: …who attacked a British official who tried to apologise or defend Bloody Sunday. She was involved with so many civil rights marches that are involved in that period. She would have been involved in Bloody Sunday very much. How do you leave her out?

Kate: She was there – she was actually there on Bloody Sunday.

Martin: Right. Wasn’t she due to be one of the speakers?

Kate: I suppose actually, yeah. They had to jump down from the stage, you remember! They had to jump down from the stage when the bullets started.

Martin: Alright. Why wouldn’t she, for example – if you have a mediator they don’t impose a settlement they’re just supposed to bring people together. She’s somebody that’s been heard on this programme on these airwaves many times. Why would Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey not be acceptable? It doesn’t have to be the sole mediator but as one of the mediators to try and resolve an (inaudible) situation?

Bernadette McAliskey - Photo: Belfast TelegraphKate: …Well I’ll tell you what – I mean we’re going to pursue that you know and ask if, you know formally ask – you know it’s just been, unofficially, it’s just been discussed in there, do know what I mean?

But I don’t think they want her. I don’t think they want Bernadette. But I mean we’re going to sort of ask officially: Could Bernadette mediate? We trust that lady – I mean of course we do.

Martin: Okay. Is there anything else that can be done to get a resolution? I know there was a petition. I was one of the signatories, it was up…

Supporters outside Occupy MOFDKate: Well actually that was an online one. We actually did one on the street here in Doire. We actually polled the people in the Bogside and got them to sign one. And every single door we went to in that entire Bogside signed it.

We took in a thousand names to them, you know? And it was only weeks later when, weeks later they said – they dismissed it at the time – but it was only weeks later then they said: Look, because of that, because of that petition, we will do a wider consultation. And then a month later they come back to us and says: We’re only going to do the families. Now we did ask, too, does mean that you’re going to contact soldiers’ families and RUC families and stuff? Absolutely not. They’re not going to contact them. But herein lies the deeper problem. They consult nobody. I mean people are just treated with total disrespect and no caring whatsoever in it. Total disrespect.

Martin: You’re dealing, you’re dealing with people who lost loved ones, who feel very strongly about it, whose loved ones were killed by British troops, who – they’ve been there for a number of days. How do they – they stay in overnight, they sleep in either sleeping bags or just the accommodations that you’ve said. How do they get food?

Kate: Well I tell you what – determination. Because what – how they get through that is because what’s happening to them is hurtful and I mean it’s so hurtful that determination drives them. And you know what? You just find strength. You find strength from that determination. You know so…

Martin: …Alright…

Kate: …it means so much, Martin, it means so much that that doesn’t happen. We cannot let that equivalent stand between soldiers and innocent people. We simply can’t let that display go.

Martin: Okay, Kate, is there anything…

Kate: …We have to do something about it.

Martin: And we’re taking to Kate Nash whose brother was one of the people killed on Bloody Sunday and whose sister is Linda, is one of the people inside occupying the Free Derry Museum. Is there anything in particular that people in the United States can do?

Kate: Well do you know what? I think it would be terribly helpful – support’s always a wonderful thing – I think it would be terribly helpful if they were to, say, email for instance, the Museum of Free Derry and show their support for what we’re trying to do – or show you know, just tell them they do something or talk to the families and do what makes them happy – what they can, you know what they can – what they want – what they want, really.

Martin: Okay. Kate, could I suggest: Next week, we just had Gerry McGeough on, there’s a weekend of events in Tyrone.

Kate: Yeah, I heard about that, yeah.

Martin: I’m sure he would give you some kind of facility. They’re going to have hunger strikers families honoured. It’s a Hibernian Day parade. I know they would be very sympathetic to victims of, relatives of victims who were killed by British troops. If this is still going on – if you can’t get a proposal, a mediation, something that satisfies everybody and allows Linda, your sister Linda Nash, and Helen Deery to come out of that building, and I heard there are other families talking about joining – I’d suggest you have somebody there at that event. I’m sure Gerry McGeough and the others would be interested in what’s going on and interested in supporting you and that is going to be a big weekend next week. I can’t speak for him but just knowing Gerry I’m sure he would give you that facility.

Kate: Oh, that’s great. Thank you very much.

Martin: Okay. We’ve been talking to Kate Nash. Kate, we wish Linda and Helen and you all our best. And the names of your family members, those victims, innocent victims, should not be there along side British troopers. And we’re going to give you – we hope there’s not a big update next week to have to follow through on and that this can be resolved in some way that satisfies you and the other family members.

Kate: Thank you very much, Martin. We really appreciate your support and all your listeners. Thank you very much.

(ends time stamp ~54:37)

White Helmets

With Syria's White Helmets about to receive the Tipperary Peace Prize, a TPQ piece by Alec McCrory from 2016 raises serious concerns about the body.



The organisation has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and this has caused consternation in many quarters. The reason for the concern is the well documented involvement of the White Helmets in brazen and brutal acts of violence and torture against captured Syrian soldiers and civilians.

Three investigative journalists who went to Aleppo to monitor the activities of this group exposed its real role as a actor in the war on the side of the anti-government forces. Their accounts of subterfuge and gross misrepresentation revealed the propaganda that surrounds the organisation.

Footage supplied by the White Helmets of alleged attacks carried out by the government were often shown to have been manufactured for mass public consumption. The western cable news networks carry these images without question as to their accuracy and/or veracity.

Simply put, the White Helmets are a proxy group supported by the Americans and it's regional allies. It is being used to create the impression that the humanitarian crisis is the sole responsibility of the government and the Russians.

The truth is that the White Helmets work hand in glove with the Islamist insurgents and many of its members are armed. For this reason, it can only be found to be operating in the rebel held parts of Aleppo and nowhere else. It calls for the overthrow of the government and opposes Russia.

Pity The Paras: They Are Victims Too, You Know

Carlos Latuff, a Brazilian political cartoonist, with a powerful and evocative depiction, thrusts his sharpened pen into the heart of policy and management at the Museum of Free Derry / Bloody Sunday Trust.

Out of the Ashes: An Oral History Of The Provisional Irish Republican Movement

On reading Robert White's latest work Simon Smyth found Out Of The Ashes a compelling read. Simon Smyth is an avid reader and collector of books.


Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of The Provisional Irish Republican Movement is an accessible yet challenging book examining the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein as a social movement. 
It isn't necessarily an easy book to read and can be more cerebrally challenging than say works by Martin Dillon or Tony Harden or even Ed Moloney. Despite this it is less of an emotive work than, for example, The Shankill Butchers. It takes a strictly academic approach but is nonetheless very readable and never feels like a chore.

This social movement study of Republicanism describes the uniqueness of the Provisionals but describes similarities with other social movement organisations.

The book begins with an explanation of the approach taken, with Chapter One entitled "Social Movements and Terrorism" which sets the scene and prepares the reader for the content, style and format of the oral history and the analysis.

The early foundations for the history of the conflict are explained a little superficially, but necessarily so, with Chapter Two "Resistance (1170-1923)".

The next 18 chapters contain a chronological oral history starting with a chapter covering 1923-1962 and ending with one from 1998-2005.

The book ends with chapters examining Sinn Fein's post 2005 activism together with that of anti-Good Friday Agreement Republicans both peaceful and otherwise. The conclusion re-examines themes which arose earlier and a summary of the Provisionals aimed at increasing the reader's understanding. In addition to an index there is a glossary, a number of appendixes, endnotes and a section covering sources and bibliography. The author's approach to this book is to study the subject matter to his but not the readers' exhaustion.

These interviews were skilfully carried out with open questioning as to 'why' action was taken instead of asking 'what' action an individual took. These weren't confessions but eye-opening views into the consciences of the participants.

The interaction between the author and his subjects can be very revealing, despite most interviewees remaining anonymous. A substantial spread of viewpoints is included all along the spectrum of modern day Republicanism. However as a social movement the individuals hold many similar positions regarding their own personal involvement.

A welcome addition is the challenge given to academics for their tendency to use the term "Terrorism" to describe only non-state actors globally and to disregard state terrorism. Terrorism is an emotive word and is often used to be critical of purely non-state groups even though many state actions globally can be more devastating and harmful. Look at certain states' use of White Phosphorus on civilians, for example.

There is such a wealth of oral evidence in this work that even an expert eye will discover something new. The Professor's analysis is meticulously researched and clearly explained despite the complexities involved.

Although most interviewees are anonymously portrayed a small number of the more well known participants are named. Professor White asked Ruairí O'Brádaigh if new recruits made him nervous. He replied "I am suspicious of everyone".

As well as featuring in this book O'Brádaigh is the subject of a 2006 biography by White. The more I read about O'Brádaigh the more I understand he was an intellectual giant. His sentiments about his fellow Republicans don’t make him unusually clever but there is much in this current work to demonstrate his ability to think outside the box and his prescience is admirable. Considering the relatively recent revelations on informers within Republicanism and the unprecedented echelons they reached (if, indeed, they were unprecedented) this warning by O'Brádaigh is now a lesson learned to the extent it's a truism.

As well as O'Brádaigh, over sixty Republican activists in 1984 responded for interviews by Professor White. He carried out another wave of interviews in 1995 and the last in 2007. He gained and lost participants along the way for different reasons. The interviewee's demographics are woven in and out of the Republican Movement as they included people from all over Ireland, from those recruited in the 1930s as well as more recently; political actors and those involved in the violence itself.

Brendan Behan quipped that the first thing on the agenda of the inaugural meeting of any new Republican group is the split. It is worth repeating myself by saying White interviews Republicans of every hue. From the 1930 recruit to Éirigí and everything in-between, this work has an all encompassing overview. The stark ideological differences, for example between Republican Sinn Fein and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are explained in depth. The author documents some political advances that were scorned due to the unbridgeable gap, an ideological chasm based mainly around the concept of "Abstentionism". It is this esoteric detail which makes the book stand out.

Despite the wide demographic and political spectrum covered by White and the high price paid by all those involved in terms of lost time, damage to relationships, arrest, etc. none expressed regret for involvement in past activism. Some expressed regret about specific incidents or the cost inflicted on others but they were proud and said Republicanism gave meaning to their life. Activism shaped these people's lives and made them who they were.

I would recommend this book to anybody who has an interest in Irish Republicanism with the caveat that although the book is very readable and accessible it takes a certain amount of effort and commitment. That is not a criticism but with over 400 pages of detailed oral history and esoteric analysis the uninitiated or unprepared may be put off. It is a challenging book yet this is necessary given the task at hand. This challenging nature is also the main strength of the work. 

Individuals are unique. Each of us has a particular history and outlook that is influenced by the specific events we have experienced. In groups, however, individuals often share experiences and social conditions that lead them to react in similar ways to events and conditions - as men or women, as children of the Great Depression or as teenaged nationalists living through August 1969 in Northern Ireland.

Robert White, 2017.  Out of the Ashes: An Oral History Of The Provisional Irish Republican Movement. ISBN: 9781785370939. Publisher: Irish Academic Press. 

Questions For Mr Ringland

New York Attorney-At-Law, Martin Galvin last month had a letter in the Irish News challenging the view of Trevor Ringland. 
Re: Trevor Ringland -No excuse for preventing pension payments to Troubles' victims August 2, 2017 A chara,

                                            Trevor Ringland's modest proposal for pensioning injured Troubles' victims, is too slanted even for a Tory-DUP regime. Let the crown pay pensions to all injured victims, says he, except Republicans who must look after themselves. Pay loyalists from separate accounts, (perhaps as British agents, informers, former UDR etc).

Mr. Ringland cannot expect us to take his scheme seriously. It seems merely another chance to drumbeat his refrain that the (1969-98)struggle for freedom from British rule was not "justified and necessary".

His message is badly timed. Events like the recent Glennane judgment and this week's Internment and Ballymurphy protests raise inescapable questions.

Why did men and women come to believe it morally "justified and necessary" to join the IRA's fight to end British rule in numbers sufficient to carry that fight almost three decades? What moved them, including some future Stormont Ministers, to risk death or imprisonment against overwhelming British forces?
Events provide obvious answers. British officials granted Brian Faulkner's wish for Internment. British forces on August 9,1971 terrorized families across the north, jailed hundreds without charge, and began a catastrophic policy they continued for four years.

They handpicked innocent men held without charge, to be hooded and tortured.
Over three days British Paras shot ten people dead, including a Catholic priest, guilty of nothing except living in Ballymurphy. Another died from a mock execution. The crown rubberstamped and whitewashed these murders. They stonewall inquests today.

Has Mr. Ringland no idea why second class citizens of a carved out sectarian state, might see it "justified and necessary" to fight the regime which imprisoned without charge, massacred and tortured? Should they have kept to peaceful protests after Bloody Sunday?

Did the British also arm, pay and otherwise collude with loyalist criminals in carrying out murders? Families and friends of many of more than 100 Glennane gang victims always believed so. They won promises of an investigation into the "nature, scope, and extent of any collusion on the part of state actors in this series of atrocities." Many believe these promises were broken only because the crown knew a true investigation would prove pervasive British state collusion.

James Connolly, the 1916 patriot said of British troopers who would execute him, he would “pray for brave men who do their duty according to their own lights”. Mr. Ringland scorns anyone who sees the struggle in Republican lights. They are all something "our society cannot accept". It is the same scornful arrogance at the heart of the collapse of Stormont.

Slan,

Martin Galvin