Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1194

Abe, Izzy & Bibi

The Uri Avnery Column discusses the issues surrounding the Cave of Machpelah.



All of Israel was taken in. Left, right and center. All the newspapers and TV networks, without exception.

There it was: UNESCO has declared that the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron is a Palestinian heritage site.

I Admit that I was taken in, too. The news was so clear and so simple, its acceptance so uniform, that I too accepted it unthinkingly. True, it was a bit strange, but stranger things happen.

The "Cave of Machpelah" is no cave at all. It is a large building, which the Arabs call al-Haram al-Ibrahim, the Mosque of Ibrahim, in the center of Hebron, the town the Arabs call al-Khalil, the Friend of God (meaning Abraham).

According to the Bible, Abraham, the forefather of the Jews, bought the place from its local owner as a burial plot for his wife, Sarah. When his time came, he was also buried there, as were his son Isaac with his wife Rivka and his grandson, Jacob, with his wife Leah. (His other wife, Rachel, is supposed to be buried on the way to Bethlehem.)

And here comes UNESCO, the anti-Semitic cultural branch of the anti-Semitic UN, and declares that this is a Palestinian holy site!

Is there no limit to Jew-baiting?

A tsunami of emotions surged over Israel. Jews were united in protest. Everybody vented their anger as loudly as possible. Rarely was such unanimity seen here.

If I had stopped to think for a moment, I would have realized that the whole thing was nonsense. UNESCO does not assign places to nations. World Heritage sites are – well – the heritage of the entire world. As a detail, these declarations mention in which country each World Heritage site is located.

The holy church in Nazareth is located in Israel, but it does not "belong" to Israel. The graves of holy Jewish rabbis in Russia or Egypt do not belong to Israel. UNESCO did not say that the Machpelah-al-Haram al-Ibrahim site belongs to the Palestinians. It said that it is located in Palestine.

Why Palestine? Because, according to international law, the town of Hebron is part of Palestine, which was recognized by the UN as a state under occupation. Under Israeli law, too, Hebron is not a part of Israel proper but under military occupation.

I am grateful to an ex-Israeli called Idan Landau who lives in the US. He took the trouble to read the original text and sent us emails to correct our impression. The moment I read it, I hit myself on the brow. How could I have been so stupid!

The UNESCO resolution is fair and correct. It remarks that the site is holy to the three monotheistic religions, as indeed it is. Because of this, a Jewish fanatic – a settler from America – once murdered dozens of praying Muslims there. Jewish fanatics have settled nearby.

Is The place really holy? That is a silly question. A place is as holy as people believe it to be.

Are Abraham and his progeny really buried there?

Even that is irrelevant. Many people – myself included – believe that the entire first part of the Bible, up to the Assyrian era, is fictitious. That does not make the Bible less wonderful. It is the most beautiful work of literature on earth. At least the (original) Hebrew version.

If one believes that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real persons, it would still be doubtful that they are buried there. An entire school of archaeologists believes that the burial place is somewhere else in Hebron, not the building now known as the Cave of Machpelah. The graves there are those of Muslim sheikhs.

Be that as it may, millions believe that the Biblical forefathers are buried in the Cave. For them, the place is holy, and it is located in occupied Palestine.

But if you take the Bible so literally, you should also read verse 9 of chapter 25 of Genesis:

And Abraham gave up the ghost and died in a good old age… And his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, buried him in the cave of Machpelah.

When I pointed this out to people who had attended Israeli schools, they were deeply shocked. Because this verse is never mentioned in any Israeli school. It does not exist.

Why? Because Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, as Isaac is the forefather of the Jews. We learned that Sarah, our foremother, who is described in the Bible as a real bitch, induced her obedient spouse, Abraham, to send his concubine Hagar and their son, Ishmael, into the desert, there to die of thirst. But an angel saved them, and they disappeared, though the Bible gives a long list of his progeny.

The revelation that the Bible in fact says the opposite is shocking. So Ishmael did not disappear, but somewhere along the line made his peace with Isaac. The two sons buried their father together.

This changes the story completely. It means that the Bible makes the Arabs, too, rightful heirs of the Cave of Machpelah, side by side with the Jews and the Christians.

I Do not believe that Binyamin Netanyahu ever read this verse. He knows only what every Israeli pupil knows. The strict Orthodox line.

This week, at the height of the UNESCO hysteria, Netanyahu did something bizarre: in the middle of a formal cabinet meeting he pulled a kippah from his pocket, put it on and started to read from the Bible (not the aforementioned verse, of course). He looked positively happy. He was showing the bloody Goyim up for what they are: anti-Semites all.

Does Netanyahu really believe (as I think he does) that this part of Biblical legend is history? If so, he has the mind of a 10 year old. If he does not, he is a cheat. In any case, he is a very able demagogue.

But he is not alone. Far from it. The President of Israel, a very nice gentleman, reiterated Netanyahu's accusations against UNESCO. So did the speaker of the Knesset, an immigrant from the Soviet Union.

It took about four days for some Israeli commentators to cite the true text of the UNESCO resolution. They did not apologize, of course, but at least they started to quote the actual text. Shyly and quietly some other commentators joined them. Most of their colleagues did not.

Special mention is due to Carmel Shama Hacohen, Israel's ambassador to UNESCO. He is not known as a pillar of wisdom. Indeed, he was only sent to UNESCO in order to allow a protégé of the foreign minister to take over his place in the Knesset.

During the UNESCO meeting, Shama-Hacohen - (his real name was just Shama, but that sounds too Arab, so he added the very Jewish Hacohen) - got very excited. He started a shouting match with the Palestinian ambassador, rushed to the dais and shouted at the chairman, too.

William Shakespeare might have called all this "much ado about nothing", except for two points.

One is that it shows how easy it is to send all of (Jewish) Israel – all without exception! – into a holy rage. Politicians and commentators from left and right, east and west, religious and secular, unite into one raging mass, even when the pretext is false.

Such an eruption can have very serious consequences. It disables all inner brakes.

The other aspect is even more dangerous.

At the height of the tsunami, it suddenly hit me that everybody seemed to be enjoying themselves hugely. And then I realized why.

For hundreds of years, Jews in Europe were persecuted, deported, tortured and killed. It was a part of reality. They were used to it. Anti-Semitism of all kinds, including the murderous one, was a part of reality. The sadism of the goyim was met with the masochism of the Jews.

(As I have suggested in the past, this is a part of Western Christian culture, emanating from the crucifixion story in the New Testament. It does not exist as such in Islam, since the prophet admonished his believers to protect the two other "peoples of the book" – Jews and Christians.)

Since World War II and the Holocaust, the old vicious European anti-Semitism has disappeared, or gone underground. But Jews have not got used to that. They are sure that it is lurking somewhere, that it can return any minute. When it does, or when it seems to, Jews are apt to feel "I told you so!"

In Israel, this is even more complex. Zionism hoped to rid Jews of their "exilic" complexes. To turn us into a normal people, "a people like other peoples".

It seems that this has not been quite successful. Or that the success is receding under the stewardship of Netanyahu and his ilk.

This episode has made many Jews happy. They say to themselves: "We were right! All the Goyim are anti-Semites!"

The Greatest ... Not Sure

Boyne Rover is not at all sure that Matt Treacy has called it right with his characterisation of the current Dublin team as "the Greatest."

Recently while sitting having a quiet drink, the local soccer facts and figures expert (and he really is) was having a debate with a few friends about soccer in general. Paying very little attention to them, he suddenly got up looked at me and asked who was the best club team I had ever seen. When I asked if he meant live or on TV he appeared taken aback. He stood for a second then said, "it doesn’t matter."
Before I gave my answer, I made him completely aware that I was not getting involved in his debate but would give my opinion - AC Milan. They looked at me startled: what, where, how and when seemed to flash across their faces. I knew they were itching to get into debate but I refused.

After a lot of chit chat between them the Expert said to me "why AC?" To which I replied that they had to win their own league to get there, and then a straight knockout to win with no backdoor system. They did this 3 years in a row and I had seen all 3 wins. So that was, in my opinion, no debate.
He turned around to his mates:  "Jesus that was some feat, ok".
Presently, there is the on-going debate about who the better player is, Maradona or Messi. In my opinion it's Maradona.  But if Messi does go to win a World Cup then it’s up for debate.

Dublin are good no doubt, but great ... not sure. Kerry were great. Of that there’s no question. But most times their opposition were Heffo’s Hero’s. At a recent championship game in Croker I was sitting beside a Dublin man and we got talking about the merits of this current crop. He gave a whole list of reasons about why they were so good. After listening for about 5 minutes I interrupted him and asked did he think they could contest the next 4 All Ireland Finals. Silence ... "why do you ask that question?"

"Well," says I:

for my tuppence worth, I thought the Dubs of the seventies were supermen. They contested six All Ireland Finals on the trot. That meant six Leinster Finals had to be won because there was no backdoor then. It was winner takes all. Even the great Kerry team couldn’t do it: their best was five.

He looked at me got up and went to the “Jacks”, returned sat down looked at me again.  "Jesus, that was some going. Six Finals in a row. I’d say that will never be done again." To which I informed him that much as I admired the Dubs of that era I admired Wexford even more. They achieved that feat from 1913-1918 losing the first two, then went on to win the next four, to which he replied, "that was some going alright."
Needless to say I never saw Wexford in action but I did see Heffo’s Heros and to me this current crop have more All Ireland medals in their pockets ... but six All Irelands finals in a row ….Wow

Up Down 

UK Class Prejudice

Mick Hall from Organized Rage writes that:
The UK is the most class prejudiced nation in the world no amount of smoothing the rough edges will make an ounce of difference.



The liberal mainstream media is once again looking at class and the role it plays in society. Sadly they come at this stifling issue like a doctor whose patient is diagnosed with cancer and instead of ordering chemotherapy to stop the growth of the cancer they prescribe a course of counselling which may help the patient in the short term but almost certainly will end up with their demise.

The United Kingdom is the most class prejudiced nation in the world: no amount of smoothing the rough edges will make an ounce of difference. The very name the United Kingdom tells us all we need to know.

In his new book Richard Reeves summed up class prejudice pretty succinctly:

Class is not just about money, though it is about that. The class gap can be seen from every angle: education, security, family, health, you name it. There will also be inequalities on each of these dimensions, of course. But inequality becomes class division when all these varied elements – money, education, wealth, occupation – cluster together so tightly that, in practice, almost any one of them will suffice for the purposes of class definition. Class division becomes class stratification when these advantages – and thus status – endure across generations. 

I write class prejudice because the advantage for a minority of the population, the upper middle classes, cannot but prejudice the prospects of working class people in every sphere, and no where is this better demonstrated than in the UK education system. I shouldn't need to spell it out but the wealth accumulated over decades, if not centuries, by their families allows 7% of the UK's children to attend public schools. (This costs up to 40K a year per child). This 7% are then fast tracked on to the best universities, and then into the professions and the city of London.

This is no quirk of fate, nor are these people any brighter than the majority of the population, it's due to the inherent class prejudice which is inbuilt into the UK state.

The Sutton Trust an educational charity has carried out surveys into this for more than a decade reported:

Although just 7% of the population attend independent fee-paying schools, the survey reveals that almost three quarters (71%) of top military officers were educated privately, with only 12% having been taught in comprehensive State schools.

This is a shocking and dangerous statistic as it means at times of social upheaval, right or wrong, the military have the ruling classes back.

In the field of law, 70% of senior UK judges and barristers are privately or Oxbridge educated.

Again what this means is when push comes to shove the judiciary is there to defend the current status quo, and its institutions, any talk about the UK having an independent judiciary is a total fallacy, a damnable lie. From the lowest magistrate to the highest Supreme Court judge, when push comes to shove they serve the interest of the 7%.

More than half of leading MSM print journalists went to independent schools and or elitist universities, despite comprehensive state schools educating 88% of the nation's children.

Thus it's hardly surprising these MSM opinion formers always support the status quo and smear or belittle those who challenge it.

Even in medicine the Sutton Trust research shows 61% of the country’s senior doctors were educated at independent schools, etc. 

Class prejudice has also infected the arts, especially popular music, theatre and film, which had been opened up to working class people in the 1960s. Today a Paul McCartney will in all probability still be working in a low paid job when he reaches 64, and a budding John Lennon will never have been allowed to Imagine.

If you scratch below the surface, half of Britain's best known actors today went to fee paying schools and elite universities.

If they were starting out today actors from working class backgrounds like Michael Cain, Sean Connery, Ray Winstone and the wonderful Sean Bean would never have gained a foot in the door.

The arm-lock of this unrepresentative class is demonstrated by those who gain the most Arts Council's funding today, it boils down to elitists arts for elitist people.
See here for more info
So how does such a narrow social class dominate British society and more importantly why are so many talented citizens denied the right to blossom and bloom?

As I wrote above it's due to the inbuilt class prejudice inherent within the British State. It's a pyramid system of self interest, not unlike a ponzi scheme, which is renewed regularly with fresh ruling class blood.

The monarch sits in luxury at the head, like the Red Queen in the Alice in Wonderland sequel. Her courtiers act as her worker bees co-ordinating her every move, followed by the politicians who help administer the state on her, and their behalf. Then we have the governmental system: they claim it's democratic but it's far from that. There's an unelected second chamber to anchor it down and a second elected chamber in which all members have to swear an oath of allegiance to the crown.

This wretched oath is unique, it would not be tolerated in democracies worthy of the name:

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

If an MP wishes to confirm, it's the same oath less the godly nonsense. Swearing loyalty to the state let alone its people doesn't get a lookin.

Next you have the hard state apparatus, the military, secret state, police and the judiciary, all of whom also swear an oath of allegiance to the crown.

The MSM play their role by talking up this frippery and deceit, and smearing and scaring anyone who challenges it and the Status Quo. Is there any other nation in the world which looks back at empire, wars, and destruction as their finest hour? When Cameron deemed during its 100 anniversary the nation should celebrate every day of WW1, these hacks roared their approval. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of the population cocked a deaf ear.

Betsy's gongs play a massive role: they're scattered amongst the boiler-house crew and they bring into the circle useful idiots who will defend almost anything as long as it's whispered in their ear.

Just how contemptuous the ruling class are towards these useful idiots is best demonstrated by the titles they maintain for the silly gongs which they dish out to them like confetti. Commander of the order of the British empire. Member of the order of the British empire. It is truly a mystery to me why anyone would accept one of these trinkets when the empire no longer exists and when it did it was a criminal conspiracy with racial bigotry within its black heart.

Pride Has The Chance To Do The Right Thing

A letter from Maryam Namazie to Pride on 28 July 2017.

Michael Salter-Church
Alison Camps
Co-Chairs – Pride in London

Dear Michael Salter-Church and Alison Camps

Thank you for your letter dated 21 July addressed to CEMB’s Pride Organiser, Daniel Fitzgerald (available below).

The crux of the issue, which you have failed to recognise, is this:

Pride in London has taken complaints against the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) by the likes of the East London Mosque – a centre of homophobia – seriously because of a cultural relativism and tone policing that is only applicable to critics of Islam and never critics of Christianity.



Moreover, complaints have been given credence because of the erroneous conflation of criticism of religion and the religious-Right with bigotry against Muslims.

We remind Pride that “tolerance, acceptance and recognition” are for people (whether LGBT, Muslims or ex-Muslims), not beliefs or regressive political movements and States. Whilst we must hold all human beings – even those we disagree with – in high regard, this is not the same as accepting all beliefs without criticism. Clearly, Pride is able to make distinctions between criticism of beliefs and an attack on people when it comes to non-minority groups and religions other than Islam so it should not be too difficult for you to understand our position.

In your letter you say, protest “does not give people in our parade the freedom to ostracise, discriminate against or humiliate anyone else taking part.” But the question that remains is how has our presence and placards criticising Islamic homophobia, the East London mosque, States that murder LGBT and apostates ostracising, humiliating or discriminating against anyone? Are placards critical of Christianity, the Church, Jesus, the Pope… “ostracising, humiliating and discriminating against” Christians? It seems Pride has bought into the Islamist narrative that betrays the persecuted and defends the persecutors. This is a politics that rewards bullies and blames victims.

You add:

…Pride celebrates diversity and will not tolerate any individual making derogatory remarks about a person’s sexuality, gender, gender identity, race, age, nationality, disability, appearance, religion or any other factor.

Again, you confuse criticism of religion as being the same as attacking someone because they are Muslim or gay or a woman. You merely need to change any of our placards critical of Islam to ones critical of Christianity to see how absurd your position is.

You say:

there were some placards we feel may have the potential to breach our code of conduct. These placards may be seen to reject the existence of Islamophobia, to make defamatory statements about a specific group of people, and overall could have been seen to proactively question the ability to be LGBT+ and Muslim.

This is more disingenuous nonsense and merely an attempt to justify your unjustifiable position.

Islamophobia is a misnomer that conflates criticism of religion and belief with discrimination against Muslims; we can be critical of Islamophobia as a political term used to silence dissent whilst opposing racism. We certainly don’t need a lesson in racism from Pride; our members live it every day. Also we can be critical of Islam; this doesn’t mean one cannot be Muslim and LGBT. In fact, some Bangladeshi Muslims marched with us on the day. Unlike Pride, CEMB fights on several fronts, including against Islamism, the far-Right and racism. You say some of our placards were “defamatory”? Which ones? Presumably, the defamed can take us to court; we welcome it.
As for your determining whether CEMB has broken your code of conduct and will be able to march again in future parades, we must say this: your decision will be more important for you than for us.

After all,  we don’t need your permission to march for LGBT rights or the rights of apostates. But your decision will determine whether Pride, which has been a source of inspiration for LGBT globally, will continue to be a beacon by showing the courage to give LGBT ex-Muslims the right to self-expression alongside our Muslim friends and family and as a respite from our daily experience which are intrinsically linked with fear, violence and intimidation, or whether it will remain firmly corporate Pride more concerned with causing “offence” that the rights and lives of ex-Muslim and Muslim apostates and LGBT.

As a follow up to a resolution on Pride adopted at the 22-24 July International Conference on Freedom of Expression and Conscience, we ask Pride to do the following:

1) Provide evidence for the serious allegations made against CEMB
2) Make a statement against all laws criminalising homosexuality, apostasy and blasphemy and against incitement to hate and murder by preachers at mosques like the East London mosque
3) Clarify whether by condemning ‘Islamophobia’, Pride meant to side with Islamists supporting the judicial murder of ex-Muslims and gay men
4)  Affirm CEMB’s continued presence at Pride in London to show that they side with dissenters and those defending the right to think, live and love as they choose.
Thankfully, as you point out, you don’t have a role in making “a legal judgement about offense or freedom of speech.” If you did, you would have already imposed de facto blasphemy laws on those of us who have fled de jure blasphemy and apostasy laws which call for our murder.
You do, however, have the chance to do the right thing. Whether you do is another matter.
Sincerely
Maryam Namazie
CEMB Spokesperson
Daniel Fitzgerald
CEMB Pride Organiser

Letter From Pride In London

21 July 2017
Dear Mr Fitzgerald,
Thank you very much for your email.

As you are aware, we have received a number of complaints regarding some of the placards your group chose to carry during the Pride in London parade.

At its heart, Pride is a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity – a safe place that celebrates difference and rejects intolerance.

Our parade has always been a home to protest, and not just to celebrate, which means we are used to seeing conflicting points of view. The tolerance, acceptance and recognition that we demand for ourselves as LGBT+ people, can only happen if we are also prepared to offer those whose opinions we don’t agree with the same courtesy.

It is also incredibly important to Pride in London that groups are able to use our platform to protest, to challenge authority and stand up for all LGBT+ rights. It is especially important that groups are able to challenge governments and states that continue to persecute, torture, imprison and even kill people simply because of their sexuality.

However, this does not give people in our parade the freedom to ostracise, discriminate against or humiliate anyone else taking part. If any individual or any group does this, they undermine the very principles on which we exist.

Our code of conduct, which every group agreed to as part of taking part in the parade, is very clear on this matter. All volunteers, staff and parade groups agree that Pride celebrates diversity and will not tolerate any individual making derogatory remarks about a person’s sexuality, gender, gender identity, race, age, nationality, disability, appearance, religion or any other factor.

LGBT+ Muslims play a vital and important role in London and in Pride. We recognise that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Muslims face discrimination on both sides, from people within their faith and also from within the LGBT+ community.

Over the years the parade has been a place of acceptance for LGBT+ Muslims and this year Imaan, the LGBT+ charity, was voted the winner of the best walking group in the parade for the diversity and passion they displayed. What’s more, this year we supported the ‘Big Gay Iftaar’ as part of the Pride in London festival. We also hosted a vibrant and positive discussion about Islam and the LGBT+ community on the faith episode of our Facebook Live series. This is part of our dedication to supporting the full spectrum of the LGBT+ community.

Equally, it is also very important that individuals who once did but no longer follow the Muslim faith have a welcome place in the Pride parade. We acknowledge the difficulties individuals leaving the faith can sometimes encounter and do not in anyway seek to diminish the significance of those experiences.

To specifically address the complaints we have received, we want to be clear that we do not feel it is our role to make a legal judgement about offense or freedom of speech. However, it is our role to determine if a group has broken our code of conduct and whether they can be permitted to march again in future parades.

It has been argued that some of the placards are a legitimate form of protest. However, there were some placards we feel may have the potential to breach our code of conduct. These placards may be seen to reject the existence of islamophobia, to make defamatory statements about a specific group of people, and overall could have been seen to proactively question the ability to be LGBT+ and Muslim.

We have referred these complaints to our Community Advisory Board, who assess every parade entry after each year and decide on which groups will be allowed to march again. This decision will be taken prior to the opening of parade entries in 2018. Both the CAB and Pride in London commit to ensuring you are able to engage fully in this discussion, and welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss further.

We believe Pride in London must continue to play a vital role in supporting LGBT+ Muslims, as well as those who have left the faith. We want to work with community groups and charities to further these efforts, and would encourage any organisation that can play a role in building a vital bridge to get involved.

We also want to thank you for any support you can provide in the fight against hatred and bigotry. We are eager to stand side-by-side with you in this battle, supporting any actions you take to support LGBT+ people, but we also feel that the LGBT+ community can equally do more to tackle hatred and bigotry in all its forms, especially Islamophobia.

Together, I hope we can build common ground to stand up for communities that are more harmonious and supportive, valuing all citizens, no matter their faith or sexuality.
Sincerely,

Michael Salter-Church
Alison Camps
Co-Chairs – Pride in London

Ireland Needs More Clergy To Become Politicians

Social conservativism can only have a political rebirth in Ireland if the clergy take the lead and enter politics – that’s the controversial recommendation commentator Dr John Coulter makes in the latest edition of his Fearless Flying Column.
The Churches could not stop civil partnerships, combat abortion, halt the spiralling divorce rate, and worse still, stamp out perverts in the priesthood. And if devolution is eventually restored to Stormont, the numbers of MLAs supporting the implementation of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland looks like defeating those who hold a traditional Biblical view of the institution of marriage.

The traditional Irish street preachers’ days are also numbered, and if Churches are not careful, laws could be passed banning certain topics from being lambasted from the pulpit.

The power of the Irish Catholic bishops has been all but obliterated by the child sex abuse scandals.

The vast array of Protestant churches are so disillusioned with Unionist infighting, they have forsaken the ballot box in tens of thousands compared to the 1970s at the height of the Troubles. There is much talk that young Protestants are totally turned off by the Unionist parties’ so-called traditional social conservativism.

But when you travel around many of the evangelical denominations in Northern Ireland, you find that the vast majority of them have thriving youth sections, so could it be that young Christians are turned off political parties because those parties have become too liberal in their approach to social issues?

Ireland urgently needs to put the Bible back into the ballot box. But how will Christians achieve this if they won’t even come out to vote?

Ironically, I came across a quote from seven years ago from the hardline fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant Society which, in my opinion, had a relevant ecumenical message for all Irish Christians.

The EPS is better known for branding the Pope as the Biblical Anti Christ, and spearheading any campaign against Papal visits to Britain.

The 2010 summer edition of the EPS mouthpiece, Ulster Bulwark, carried an article entitled ‘Christians should be in politics.’ It quoted a little known fundamentalist – the Rev Tim McGlynn of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).

Claiming this cleric “is from a Roman Catholic background”, the article quoted Rev Tim as stating:

We need a generation of godly men and women who will bring the convictions of a Biblical and Reformed faith back into the councils, institutions and parliament of the nation once again.

That was 2010 – but Rev Tim, wherever he is today, should take comfort from my opinion that his message is as relevant in 2017 as it was when he first penned it at the start of the decade. So how could this social conservativism work in practice?

The Catholic Church should lift any ban on ordained clerics becoming councillors, MLAs, TDs, MEPs and MPs. They should not have to leave the priesthood or holy orders before standing for election.

As a weekly newspaper deputy editor in the late 1980s, I recall the many contributions which the controversial cleric, Father Pat Buckley, now Bishop Buckley, made when he was elected as an Independent to Larne Borough Council.

Week after week, he sat in the Unionist-controlled Council chamber in his clerical suit. He may still be regarded as a maverick by the Catholic hierarchy, but he broke the mould that only Protestant clerics could get themselves elected.

Love him or loathe him, Ian Paisley senior – the late Lord Bannside – slowly nudged his DUP into power-sharing with republicans. He was greatly assisted in this process by other Free Presbyterian clerics, including the Gospel-singing former South Antrim and Mid Ulster MP Willie McCrea.

Many Protestant churches have to exorcise the taboo of allowing women ministers into the pulpits as a first step to getting female Protestant clerics elected.

The Catholic Church will have to make celibacy optional for priests, nuns and members of its holy orders as a first step to allowing its clergy get elected, too.

Irish Christians and Biblical standards are being steadily marginalised across the island. For too long, Christian Churches have basked in the luxury of trivial theological debates about what type of head-gear women should wear at church; how loud men’s ties should be during a religious service; what type of music should be sung; what kind of musical instruments should be used during the praise time; where non-members of the church should sit during worship; should men be allowed to remove their jackets during a warm summer service … and the list goes on!

Some churches in Ireland insist that a person has a formal interview with church leaders before they are deemed suitable to join, giving rise to the stereotype that it is harder to get into some so-called Christian churches in Ireland that to enter Heaven itself! Perhaps the key question which should be asked is – What Would Jesus Do?

Roll on the day when a Christian coalition of married Catholic priests and ordained Protestant clerics holds the balance of power at Stormont and the Dail.

The Bible has often been blamed for sparking the Troubles with For God and Ulster on one side, versus Holy Mother Ireland on the other.

But the splits and scandals which have bedevilled the Christian churches in Ireland can only be truly healed when the Bible is restored to its once influential position in politics.

No doubt the supposedly increasingly vocal band of secularists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and militant liberalists will be calling for me to be burnt at the stake as a heretic for daring to suggest there is still a role for Biblical Christianity in Irish politics.

I wonder, too, how many thousands of people would turn up to attend a Biblical Christian Pride March through Belfast. The LGBTQ community campaigned consistently over the decades for equality and the right to be recognised as a significant minority on this island. I wonder how long it will be before Biblical Christianity is reduced to the status of ‘minority’ in Ireland?

I’ve had my knuckles rapped in the past for daring to suggest that a time may come in Irish politics where Biblical Christians form their own Irish Christian Party because existing movements have become too liberal in their policies. Maybe the day of the so-called ICP is now about to dawn?
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter

The Greatest?

Matt Treacy from Brocaire Books surveys the Dublin senior GAA team. 


Had Meath not beaten Dublin in 2010, Dublin would have won 13 Leinster championships in a row last Sunday. As it happened they accomplished a record seven in succession. Thus outbidding the great Dublin team of the 1970s who won six between 1974 and 1979.

It was only the latest of records to fall to Jim Gavin’s team.  The big one of course will be to attempt to win the All Ireland again in September, to make a three in a row and five out of the last seven. Their place as the greatest Dublin team of all time is generally accepted as secure. If they win this year, then they will have earned their place as at least the equal of the Kerry team of the 1970s and 80s.

Some suspected that they were becoming a tad predictable. Three draws in the league, and a narrow defeat by Kerry in the league final when bidding for a fifth consecutive title, seemed to indicate that other teams had their card marked.

That appeared to be confirmed in a dogged enough win over Carlow in the Leinster final, which ended comfortably, but was a lot more fraught than it ought to have been. The basketball tactic of bringing the ball to the rim and waiting for openings was being duplicated and to some extent neutralised.

But Jim Gavin is not one to sit back and wait for things to happen. Dublin annihilated Westmeath, to the tune of 31 points, by reverting to a much more open style which Westmeath were unable to cope with. The opening ten minutes of the final against Kildare were similar. Dublin were nine points ahead after two sublime early goals and the match was over.

Arguably they took their foot somewhat off the pedal after that but the gap remained 9 at the end. Kildare did score 1 – 17 which is more than most teams have managed against Dublin in the past seven years, but it was not sufficient. Dublin appear to have re-adopted the pre 2014 view that no matter what the other team can put on the scoreboard, we can better it. Someone once described Barcelona in their classic days as embodying the attitude that if you score three, we’ll score four or five, or six.

It is arguably a dangerous gambit as they enter the final phase of the championship. It is difficult to imagine any of the likely quarter final opponents chinning them, but after that it will be most likely Tyrone and that will be a challenge. Kerry then are the most probable final opponents if that hurdle is crossed.

The peril facing Dublin if they go toe to toe with Tyrone is that if they fall behind then there are no better men to hold onto a lead. You may be certain that the man from Ballygawley has been pondering a meeting with the Dubs for quite some time.  Apart from the 2011 quarter final, which Dublin won by 7 points, there has not been much between them in subsequent league encounters including the 2013 league final, and Tyrone were the last team before Kerry in this year’s league final to actually beat Dublin.

So, it is by no means a fait accompli. If Dublin do win again this year it is likely to have been the most hard fought of all. One thing is for certain. They will not go down without a fight. 

Lets Not Be Beastly To The Tories Says Yvette Cooper

Mick Hall from Organized Rage vigorously asserts a right to politically mock and ridicule.




Last weekend the Labour neoliberal MP Yvette Cooper launched a defence of the BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, as she called on Labour to be a “broad-based party” and its supporters to stop engaging in “vitriolic abuse” online.

Empathy with her own party members is not something this woman does, although she is quite happy to emphasise with Ms Kuenssberg, a journalist who has been to the fore since 2015 when it comes to attacking Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. More often than not when BBC TV broadcast an attack on Jeremy it was under her byline.

Nor did she have a word to say about the head of the BBC's Westminster political programmes, Robert Gibb being named as Theresa May's new director of communications. Gibb edits the Daily Politics on which Laura Kuenssberg regularly attacked Corbyn. Instead of attacking these old boys networks and revolving chairs, Cooper attacks those who are attempting to hold the MSM to account.


Cooper then lectured party members not to be beastly to Tories:

Nor is there any excuse for vitriolic abuse against our opponents. During this general election campaign some Tory women MPs and candidates were targeted with unacceptable personal abuse from the left.

No examples are given but what the hell? When did the likes of her ever deal with facts? Instead she attacked party members who are Corbyn supporters:

We’ve seen Labour supporters at rallies holding placards with the severed head of Theresa May. Maybe it was meant as a joke. It isn’t funny.

While she felt:

“huge anger” at what May was doing I never ever want to see Labour people mocking up pictures of her head on a stake. I never ever want our party to dehumanise our opponents. That’s what the far right do.

In my time I has seen a few mocking pictures of Tory MP's and enjoyed every one. In the last GE campaign Jackie Doyle Price, the Tory candidate in my constituency, had her posters improved by a wag adding a Hitler mustache. My friends and neighbors thought she looked all the better for that.


Ridicule and mockery have always been an integral political weapon going back to the 17th century, if not before. As the Arab writer Yazan Al-Saadi once wrote "Satire is supposed to be an act that punches up to power, and not down to the weak." Ms Cooper clearly prefers it to be the other way around.

Was the wonderful cartoonist Peter Riddle wrong to place Mrs May head first in a dustbin? Was Gerald Scarfe wrong to portray Blair up GW Bush's backside? I think not. Far from dehumanising these politicians the best satirists and cartoonists expose them for what they are and long may it be so.

I wonder what the giants of the LP would think about Cooper's bleating about not being beastly to the Tories? Aneurin Bevan might have had something to say as he was a man who believed the only good Tory was in the cemetery. Aneurin was a plain speaking man as this example shows:

What is Toryism but organised spivvery? … No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

Any LP member who doesn't also believe this today, is to my mind in the wrong party.

Skwawkbox best summed up Ms Coopers behavior:

Ms Cooper might, of course, not have intended her remarks as part of a tactic undoubtedly represented by the furore whipped up last week by the media and other right-wing 'Labour' MPs - but the net effect was the same ... And whatever the truth about her motivations in the speech, it should be remembered that Cooper was widely reported to be preparing - and her allies were briefing the press about - a bid to challenge Corbyn for the leadership had the 'Corbyn surge' not inconveniently made that impracticable. Some quarters even reported that Cooper had to sack a team she had put together in readiness for her bid.

Cooper and her ilk have spent all their political lives scheming and plotting in what used to be called smoke filled rooms. They believed they had a god given right to decide who was on the way up, or down, who was due a good kicking in the MSM, who was to be lorded. That is how the Blairites and Brownites practiced their politics.

She spent the first part of her political career clinging to the greasy pole desperately seeking status, and the second climbing it, and god help whoever was below her in the pecking order.

These MSM enhanced whipped-up anti-Semitic, and misogyny smears are just a rehash of the type of stuff we have witnessed since 2015. The establishment to which Cooper belongs have no new ideas, no inspiration, just the same old neo liberal elitist crap which make them and MSM talking heads like Laura Kuenssberg irrelevant, damaged goods, desperately looking for a new home.

But ever the helpful fellow I would advise Mrs Balls the world has changed, as Bevan once said:

"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road to long, they get run down."

Is God Moral?

Atheist Republic team member, Utsav poses a questions to those who believe in a moral god. 

He punishes people for being disobedient, irrespective of how immoral or moral they may be. His idea of redemption for humans is solely based on sacrifices—first of food items and animals, then later, of himself as a human in the form of Jesus. Strange? Yes, but mostly it’s ridiculous.

Some might argue that free will was indeed the purpose of God’s design, that different ideas in this world actually show that his design has been successful. But wait, God chooses to punish and torture people for using the free will he gave them? They disobey him and so they suffer an eternity of torture after death? What did God expect humans would do with their free will? Did he not know that humans would disobey? And if he knew, and gave them free will anyway, he is a faulty designer indeed. Or he a sadist who likes to torture his own creation for doing the very thing he created them to do.

When it comes to punishment, many theists point out that punishment is only for sinners and sin is something immoral. They derive their morality from an archaic book with numerous mentions of murder, torture, and genocide, all commanded by God. How is that moral?

If God himself is not moral, how are humans supposed to get their morality from his holy book? Atheist morality is constantly called into question and yet, the question of God’s morality is ignored.

'Two States – One System' Does Not A Republic Make

Writing for TPQ on what he considers an emerging shift in Sinn Féin's approach to Irish Unity, Sean Bresnahan, Chair of the Thomas Ashe Society Omagh, argues that the Agreed Ireland initiative unfolding at present aims towards a permanent British role in Ireland.





Irish republicans should view with alarm, if not necessarily surprise, the recent musings of Sinn Féin opinion-shaper and party hack Jarlath Kearney on the future trajectory of constitutional change in Ireland (Dublin government's Brexit stance no 'back of the envelope' job; Irish News, 9th August).

With those of his party's 'Northern Leader' Michelle O'Neill, speaking a day earlier in Belfast, his remarks – parroting no doubt the latest line being fed them by the 'Think Tank' – reveal just how far the 'New Sinn Féin' project has been shunted away from Irish republicanism and onto a purely constitutional footing.

Worse still, even here we find constitutionalism, as exhibited by Kearney and in which Sinn Féin is now wholly enmeshed, kowtowing not just to the notion that Ireland should arrive at independence only when the means for her doing so, according to British constitutional theory, have been satisfied but that British constitutional theory itself, with its continuing application to Ireland, should remain intact going forward 'post-Irish unity'.

The wishes of a majority in the Six Counties to remain part of the so-called United Kingdom is cast as the reason why Britain is still involved in Ireland. It is and has been the 'democratic' stick used to beat nationalists and republicans since the six-county statelet was formed, given especial merit since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Now, though, that this majority approaches redundancy, we see a new justification for Britain's presence in Ireland being fast-tracked by the likes of Kearney, O'Neill and their ilk – this being the supposed 'Britishness' of the Ulster Protestants and a need that this be guaranteed should nationalism emerge as the majority constituency in the North.

Thus has been born the notion, set forth by Kearney but no doubt dreamed up by his superiors, that 'two states – one system' should be the vision for Ireland post such a nationalist majority. Indeed, incredibly, he presents the merit of the above even in the event that a 'landslide' for unity should emerge from a border poll – the poll we were sold as the means by which Britain would leave Ireland. It seems we are now being told otherwise.

For as if this weren't bad enough, Sinn Féin seem intent on going further and are embracing, wholesale, the Unionist Veto in its fuller sense, positing that Unionism, even when no longer able to carry its majority, should retain the ability to frustrate a full all-Ireland republic. How else are we to describe it when, through their mouthpieces in the media, they have begun arguing that a nationalist majority – even be it a landslide – is no longer enough to bring forward such a republic?

For Britain, the maths are simple: Irish Unionists must be made British that her writ in Ireland, albeit in reduced capacity, be extended once demographic change lays waste to her current vice to hold the Six Counties. The Ireland she envisions, which finds symmetry in Sinn Féin's Agreed Ireland project, is one where Britain gets to stay – within the so-called 'totality of relationships' (which Sinn Féin now espouses) – while the Irish agree to it.

This is the where New Sinn Féin are headed, as their pseudo 'Agreed Ireland' shifts away from the republican notion of 'two traditions – one nation' to the British design of 'two nations – one island'. Kearney's article, which merely reflects the thinking of his party's leadership, is the ground being prepared to shift the republican base onto this footing. As the old saying would have it, 'for what died the sons of Roisin?'

Here Are The Voices Of Syria’s Revolution. Let’s Listen

Gabriel Levy from People And Nature with a:
Review of We Crossed a Bridge and it Trembled: Voices from Syria, by Wendy Pearlman (Custom House 2017).
The story of this century’s greatest popular uprising, in 2011 against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, is told in this exceptional book by people who participated. They also recount the hurricane of violence unleashed against the revolution and the divide-and-rule methods used by the regime and the “great powers”.

Syrian revolutionaries describe in the book how they became refugees. More than half of the pre-war population of 22 million have been forced from their homes; more than 5 million have fled the country.

We Crossed a Bridge and it Trembled tells these stories through interviews with 87 Syrians, collected in 2012-16 by Wendy Pearlman, a US-based researcher of the Middle East and author of two previous books on Palestine.

Pearlman conducted the interviews mainly among Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. They included “housewives and rebel fighters, hair-gelled teenagers and businessmen in well-pressed shirts, die-hard activists and ordinary families caught in the crossfire”, she writes.

Most of the people she interviewed had fled the aerial bombardment and other mortal punishment used by the regime against those who challenged it. “The people with whom I spoke do not represent all of Syria’s complex religious-political landscape, and in particular those who support Assad. Nevertheless, they are a population that meets with too few opportunities to represent itself.”

The book’s title comes from the section describing how the revolution began. Annas, a doctor from Ghouta, said that the first big demonstration in Damascus was held “in solidarity with Easter, out of respect for our Christian brothers”. More than 100,000 people gathered.

People came from all over the Damascus suburbs: from Douma, Harasta, Zamalka, Kafr Batna … I remember we crossed a bridge and it trembled underneath our feet because we were so many people. We reached Jobar and regime forces were there waiting for us. They fired tear gas and we retreated. […]

We’d been chanting, “Freedom, freedom, freedom!” And then someone shouted, “The people want the overthrow of the regime!” Everyone went silent. This was the first time we’d heard people say that.

No-one spoke for ten to fifteen seconds. Honestly, we were afraid that he could be part of the secret police. Everyone looked at each other and thought, “This guy just said what we’ve been wanting to say for years.” (pp. 86-87.)

Apart from the introduction, the entire text of the book consists of excerpts from the interviews, between a couple of sentences and six pages long. Pearlman, who assembled a team of more than 20 people to help transcribe and translate them, uses this form to bring out the profound emotional upheaval that is surely central to any real revolution. For example, Rima, a writer from Suwayda, described her first experiences of demonstrating:

I started to whisper, Freedom. And after that I started to hear myself repeating, Freedom, freedom, freedom. And then I started shouting, Freedom! My voice mingled with other voices. When I heard my voice I started shaking and crying. I felt like I was flying. I thought to myself, “This is the first time I have ever heard my own voice”. I thought, “This is the first time I have a soul and I am not afraid of death or being arrested or anything else.” I wanted to feel this freedom forever. (p. 80.)

The section on the revolution is the third of eight. It is preceded by sections reflecting life under the authoritarian regime of Hafez al Assad from 1970 to 2000, and one on the accession to power of Bashar, Hafez’s son, and the disappointment felt by people in the failure of the “Damascus spring”, the regime’s short-lived experiment in allowing a measure of free speech.

Rather than bandy around the word “totalitarian” – as journalists and academics do so often these days, mis-labelling all types of dictatorships – Pearlman and her interviewees succeed in getting under the skin of how dictatorship works.
In Saraqib, where Syrian revolutionaries earlier this month organised elections, this protest against HTS (Islamists, formerly Nusra front) was later met with gunfire. Photo from Leila al-Shami’s blog.Little details mattered a lot, Tayseer, a lawyer from Daraa who spent eight-and-a-half years in prison for joining a political party, explained (p. 19). For him, it was the fact he could only see his son through wire netting, and never touch him, during prison visits.

For Sana, a graphic designer from Damascus, it was her dad questioning the idea that supporting the Palestinian cause against Israel meant supporting the regime. At school, she assumed no-one would notice if she didn’t sing the national anthem, but:

One teacher did. As punishment, she forced me to crawl on my elbows and knees all over the school grounds. I was bleeding and she called me names, like “vile” and “despicable”. I’ll never forget that. (p. 24.)

After the third section on the revolution, the narrative turns to the violent crackdown. The number and variety of the accounts conveys something of the horrendous scale of the repression, and the impunity with which the regime has used arbitrary killing, torture and terror against its own population. A centre-piece of this section is a description by Shafiq, a graduate from Daraya, of his ninety-day detention during which he was tortured continuously (pp. 128-134).

The Assad regime’s claim to have superseded national and religious divisions in Syria is exposed as hollow, with bitter accounts of how it deliberately fostered these enmities in order to undermine the unity of the uprising.

Adam, a media organiser from Latakia, described how one night, when people shouted “freedom” from their rooftops and banged pots and pans, an army detail on the street formed into a circle, with the officer in the middle and machine guns pointing outwards.

I served in the military so I know this formation. It’s what you do when enemies are coming at you from all sides or when you don’t know where the enemy is. This formation is your last stand.

So they thought that they were surrounded by enemies. And they were in their own city. And nothing was happening except that people were shouting.

The regime was basically doing everything possible to put sects against each other and create a toxic environment, where nobody trusts anybody and nobody knows who’s in control. (p. 108.)

The regime’s cynical fostering of divisions is a subject that reappears in the fifth part, about the militarisation of the conflict. Islamist militants were freed from prison: the regime clearly preferred that they, rather than community movements and democratic organisations, should dominate the opposition-held areas. There are inspiring accounts of community resistance to the Nusra front and other Islamist organisations, which continues to this day.
A protest held by Syrian Families for Freedom outside the UN in Geneva. Photo from the Families for Freedom Facebook page.he interviewees’ pithy comments on the international powers strike a contrast with the screeds on that subject by so many so-called “left” commentators in the west, who are much more interested in Putin and Trump than on what Syrians are doing. For example Abu Firas, a fighter from rural Idlib, concluded:

Not a single [country] is doing anything to protect any fraction of the rights that I should have as a human being living on earth. I’m not saying that the conscience of the international community is asleep. I’m saying that conscience doesn’t exist at all. (p. 160.)

The sixth – and most frightful – part of the book is about people’s experience of living through the total war of 2013-15, by means of which the regime, the Islamists and the great powers endeavoured to crush the revolution. Terror took many forms, Pearlman writes in the introduction.

Imposing shockingly brutal rule in the areas that it seized, ISIS raped women and girls, enlisted child soldiers and committed murder through such gruesome means as public beheadings. Far greater numbers of casualties occurred at the hands of the Assad regime. The single greatest killer was barrel bombs, typically oil drums or gas tanks packed with explosives and shrapnel and dropped on areas that included schools, hospitals, markets and residential neighbourhoods. (p. xlvii.)

The seventh part of the book describes the experiences of Syrians seeking refuge, and very often forms of permanent exile, outside their country. Again, repetition makes an impact. Of the 13 accounts of flight that end in a European country, eight include hair-raising descriptions of journeys across the Mediterranean, organised by people smugglers in perilously overcrowded boats.

The last section of the book, in which Pearlman passes on her interviewees’ reflections on the events, is open-ended and incomplete. Understanding takes longer.

Khalil, a defected officer from Deir ez-Zor, said that the crux of the problem to be that many of the Middle Eastern powers (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE etc) are now sponsoring armed formations in Syria, and continued:

We don’t know where any of this is leading. All we know is that we’re everyone else’s killing field. The only way I can understand this is that these other countries don’t want the crisis in Syria to end. They want to scare their own people from demanding change. They want to send a message to their own populations: if you make a popular revolution, you’re going to wind up like Syria.

Following the events in Syria from the relevant comfort of the UK, I think this point is crucial. It is not just that violence has been used to try to destroy the world’s widest, deepest, most unified popular uprising in a generation – it is how that that has happened.

The assaults on demonstrators by soldiers, police and regime-organised thugs didn’t work. The next step was militarisation: mountains of weaponry poured into the country, anti-opposition forces fostered on all sides. Finally came total war, with the supply of Russian weapons to the regime an important element. The regime literally preferred to destroy the country and its people, rather than ceding power.

Of course there are countless examples of violent repression of popular revolutionary movements (including an example close to Syria: Egypt in 2012-13), and of war being used to stifle such movements (for example the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s). And every war seems effectively to wreck and undermine social movements. But here a big international military conflict has been unleashed with the primary purpose of subjugating a popular movement for change.

Syrian revolutionaries emphasise that, despite this, their movement has not been vanquished. And this movement – openly in many parts of Syria and Kurdistan, and in ways that I don’t know in regime-controlled areas – continues. But Khalil’s point is undeniable: the human cost has already been devastating.

All of us who aspire to radical social change need to think about the lessons; to distance ourselves from the old “left” – so corrupted by Stalinism that it couldn’t see the Syrian revolution as it unfolded, in some cases so blinded by geopolitics that it sided with Assad and Putin against the people; and find ways to support and side with our fellow thinkers in Syria.

Reading Wendy Pearlman’s book is a good place to start.  
■ Publisher’s information on We Crossed a Bridge and it Trembled here.

■ Radio interview with Wendy Pearlman here

Good stuff on Syria in English

■ Democracy is the Alternative, by Leila al Shami

■ In Syria, civilian lives don’t matter, by Leila al Shami

■ Yassin al-Haj Saleh’s blog

■ Syria Sources

■ Syria Freedom Forever

On People & Nature

■ “Tyrants know now they can can maintain power through mass slaughter”

■ Syria: voices from Aleppo

■ Wear the white poppy, for all victims of all wars