Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1197
July 31, 2017
What Ireland's Government Routinely Does
Chicago writer, Chris Fogarty on his ongoing battle to challenge what he regards as a pro-British revisionist narrative regarding the events in Ireland of the 1840s.
On May 10, 2017 a branch of "official Ireland," Radió Telefís Ēireann (RTĒ) Radio 1, interviewed me on air regarding memorials my wife and I are installing over some of Ireland's unmarked Holocaust mass graves of 1845-1850, especially the one in Smarmore, Co. Louth. Without informing me, Radio 1's Show Host, Joe Duffy had organized a group to soil me and the memorials.
One, an "official of the Co. Louth Archeological and Historical Society" expressed doubt as to the existence of Smarmore's Holocaust mass grave of Ardee Workhouse victims, though it encompasses half of the cemetery and has a long tradition of people coming to pray for the repose of the souls of the starvelings buried there.
Next, Duffy interviewed a Brendan McGloin, a self-identified sculptor whom I had agreed to pay Euro1,000 extra for a memorial he offered to sculpt to enhance edification of visitors to a "famine" grave in his Co. Leitrim. McGloin had not yet produced his promised memorial design when he, instead, participated in Duffy''s attempt to discredit us. McGloin described me on-air as "a con-man."
Duffy then respectfully interviewed "famine writer" Prof. Christine Kinealy who, unable to refute a single word carved into our memorials, attacked my spoken reference to "genocide" regarding 1845-1850 Ireland, calling it "inappropriate; highly legalistic."
Kinealy's "famine" writings notoriously omit Britain's at-gunpoint robbery of the producers of Ireland's abundant harvests while understating the murder toll and minimizing the crimes she cannot plausibly deny. For example, while concealing the British military's (67 regiments of its 130-regiment army) genocide of some five million, she writes of those regiments' "donations to the starving Irish."
In Fortnight magazine (April, 1990) Kinealy attacked truth-teller Cecil Woodham-Smith as "populist and simplistic," and categorized as:
Kinealy's article begins; "The immediate cause of the famine was the appearance of a strange blight..."Tthus, according to Kinealy, it was a "potato famine" instead of the actual, carefully planned genocide.
Next, Duffy interviewed an elderly woman who attempted to link our memorials to "violence in the North" as if Northern violence (that had peaked in 1972) were instigated by our current installations of memorials.
RTE's Radio 1 is a key opinion-molder for Official Ireland. Joe Duffy's attack is an attack by "Ireland's" government. Is Ireland unique on Planet Earth in concealing a genocide of its own people and attacking those who reveal it?
Would any sovereign nation do what "Ireland's" government routinely does?
P.S.: Listeners who respect the Holocaust Dead and were offended by Duffy's attack contacted other Dublin radio show hosts. Within a week two other Dublin radio show hosts interviewed me with the kind of respect for the memorials that Duffy had manifested toward the history falsifiers.
Chris Fogarty
On May 10, 2017 a branch of "official Ireland," Radió Telefís Ēireann (RTĒ) Radio 1, interviewed me on air regarding memorials my wife and I are installing over some of Ireland's unmarked Holocaust mass graves of 1845-1850, especially the one in Smarmore, Co. Louth. Without informing me, Radio 1's Show Host, Joe Duffy had organized a group to soil me and the memorials.
One, an "official of the Co. Louth Archeological and Historical Society" expressed doubt as to the existence of Smarmore's Holocaust mass grave of Ardee Workhouse victims, though it encompasses half of the cemetery and has a long tradition of people coming to pray for the repose of the souls of the starvelings buried there.
Next, Duffy interviewed a Brendan McGloin, a self-identified sculptor whom I had agreed to pay Euro1,000 extra for a memorial he offered to sculpt to enhance edification of visitors to a "famine" grave in his Co. Leitrim. McGloin had not yet produced his promised memorial design when he, instead, participated in Duffy''s attempt to discredit us. McGloin described me on-air as "a con-man."
Duffy then respectfully interviewed "famine writer" Prof. Christine Kinealy who, unable to refute a single word carved into our memorials, attacked my spoken reference to "genocide" regarding 1845-1850 Ireland, calling it "inappropriate; highly legalistic."
Kinealy's "famine" writings notoriously omit Britain's at-gunpoint robbery of the producers of Ireland's abundant harvests while understating the murder toll and minimizing the crimes she cannot plausibly deny. For example, while concealing the British military's (67 regiments of its 130-regiment army) genocide of some five million, she writes of those regiments' "donations to the starving Irish."
In Fortnight magazine (April, 1990) Kinealy attacked truth-teller Cecil Woodham-Smith as "populist and simplistic," and categorized as:
the prevalence of myths and misunderstandings - stories of ships full of grain leaving Ireland, of overcrowded graveyards, of callous landlords ... - which have been passed glibly from generation to generation.
Kinealy's article begins; "The immediate cause of the famine was the appearance of a strange blight..."Tthus, according to Kinealy, it was a "potato famine" instead of the actual, carefully planned genocide.
Next, Duffy interviewed an elderly woman who attempted to link our memorials to "violence in the North" as if Northern violence (that had peaked in 1972) were instigated by our current installations of memorials.
RTE's Radio 1 is a key opinion-molder for Official Ireland. Joe Duffy's attack is an attack by "Ireland's" government. Is Ireland unique on Planet Earth in concealing a genocide of its own people and attacking those who reveal it?
Would any sovereign nation do what "Ireland's" government routinely does?
P.S.: Listeners who respect the Holocaust Dead and were offended by Duffy's attack contacted other Dublin radio show hosts. Within a week two other Dublin radio show hosts interviewed me with the kind of respect for the memorials that Duffy had manifested toward the history falsifiers.
Chris Fogarty
Still Covering Up 45 Years On
Daniel Bradley recalls the British Army slaying of his brother Volunteer Seamus Bradley forty five years ago today, and continues to campaign against the cover-up.On this day the 31st July, forty five years on Vol. Seamus Bradley at approximately 4.20am, to protect other volunteers, ran down bishop's field and was shot twice. He was to fall facing St Mary's church.
Within minutes 2 army Saracens made their way down the field and six soldiers put him in a Saracen. Instead of being taken and given medical aid as a Prisoner of War, he was taken to Blighs Lane army camp to be interrogated and tortured by army intelligence. He received severe bruising to his face, stripped naked and shot a further three times at close range.
These five wounds were never life threatening, but due to the torture he endured Vol. Seamus Bradley went unconscious. Sometime between 5.20am and 5.30am a phone call was received at Altnagelvin hospital saying that a youth had been shot and was to be collected from St Peters School.
Unconscious he was put in to a Saracen to make its way to St Peter School, Vol. Seamus Bradley came round and made a bid for freedom at Rathlin Way and jumped out of the Saracen. A British soldier went after him, placing the belt of a SLR rifle around his neck and pulled it. Well, imagine the force of such a heavy weapon.
Vol. Seamus Bradley suffered severe neck wounds, possibly a broken neck and this was to be covered up by the MOD and the British government all due to article J. signed by William Whitelaw - no soldier shall be held accountable for any of their actions.
Hopefully all this truth will be revealed on the 11th December 2017.
I will share this: the RUC at the time covered up this murder and sadly the PSNI of 2017 are still covering up by not disclosing all photographs of Vol. Seamus Bradley showing the back of his neck.
July 30, 2017
Largest Gathering Of Ex-Muslims In History
Maryam Namazie reports on a large gathering of Ex-Muslims last weekend at an International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression.
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, was held during 22-24 July 2017 in London.
Over 70 notable speakers from 30 countries or the Diaspora gathered in what was dubbed “The Glastonbury of Freethinkers” and “a Conference of Heroes” to honour dissenters and defend apostasy, blasphemy, and secularism.
The sold-out conference highlighted the voices of those on the frontlines of resistance – many of them persecuted and exiled – and included the first London film screening of Deeyah Khan’s film, Islam’s Non Believers, a public art protest of 99 balloons representing those killed or imprisoned for blasphemy and apostasy, a body-painting action, and crucial discussions and debates on Islamophobia and its use by Islamists to impose de facto blasphemy laws, the relation between Islam and Islamism as well as communalism’s threat to universal rights, art as resistance and Laicite as a human rights. The conference hashtag, #IWant2BFree, trended on Twitter during the two days.
At the conference, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) honoured ten individuals to mark its tenth anniversary, namely Bangladeshi freethinker Bonya Ahmed, Saudi freethinkers Ensaf Haidar and Raif Badawi, Moroccan atheist Zineb El Rhazoui, Philosopher AC Grayling, Centre for Secular Space’s Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Algerian Sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas, Jordanian Atheists’ Founder Mohammad AlKhadra, Egyptian Atheist Founder of The Black Ducks Ismail Mohamed and Author and Scientist Richard Dawkins.
The conference issued resolutions against the no-platforming of Richard Dawkins by KPFA radio station, in defence of Ismail Mohamed who was prevented from leaving Egypt to speak at the conference by the Egyptian government, and on CEMB’s presence in Pride in London as well as a Declaration of Freethinkers (see below).
The event was live-streamed, which can be seen here. Professional video footage will be made available soon as well photos and more details of the event.
Resolution on Richard Dawkins
The International Conference on Free Expression and Conscience in London, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, is concerned that Richard Dawkins, an invited speaker at the conference, has been de-platformed by the radio station KPFA in Berkeley, California because of his alleged “hurtful” comments on Islam.
Professor Dawkins is a well known critic of all religions, whose long-standing attacks on Christianity have never resulted in anything approaching de-platforming. Indeed he has aired his views on KPFA itself. Belatedly, KPFA seems to have noticed that Islam is not exempt from his criticism. They have applied a hypocritical double standard in cancelling his appearance in Berkeley, and have disappointed the large numbers of people who had bought tickets to hear him.
Given that most of the speakers and delegates at our conference are Islam’s apostates, many from countries where the legal penalty for apostasy is death, we find it necessary to remind KPFA that criticism of Islam is no different from criticism of Christianity or Judaism. Also, criticism of Islamism is no different from criticism of the Christian-Right, Jewish-Right or Hindu-Right.
Criticism of religious ideas as well as violent religious political movements isn’t bigotry but integral to free conscience and expression and vital for human progress.
We call on those – like KPFA – who should be our natural allies and ‘progressives’ whose freedoms and rights are largely the result of the fight against the church and Christianity not to betray or deny the same right to Islam’s critics, non believers, and dissenters.
Progressive politics means fighting on many fronts, including against bigotry, xenophobia, the far-Right, which includes Islamism, and for freedom of conscience and expression.
Resolution for Ismail Mohamed
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression is outraged to learn that the Egyptian government has prevented Ismail Mohamed from speaking at our conference, where he would have been a crucial voice. We demand that the Egyptian government allow Ismail freedom of movement and end his persecution and that of all freethinkers.
Resolution on the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain at Pride
The Council of ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB) is part of a world-wide movement that supports people who wish to leave Islam and declare themselves ex-Muslim. We use the term ex-Muslim to highlight that the danger of leaving Islam risks death for apostasy. CEMB works to ensure that people are safe from hate and violence from their families, communities and states. CEMB joined Pride in London this year to highlight anti-LGBT persecution as well apostasy and blasphemy laws. 14 Islamic states (15 if ISIS-held territories are included) punish homosexuality with the death penalty. Moreover CEMB aimed to expose Islamist-affiliated mosques, like East London Mosque (ELM), which have given a platform to hate clerics who have justified the murder of gays and apostates.
After Pride, the ELM made a formal complaint over CEMB’s ‘Islamophobic’ banners. The complaint was referred to Pride’s community advisory board to “decide on whether CEMB will be allowed to march again in the years ahead”. A Pride Spokesperson added:
At the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, we commit to the defence of LGBT+ Muslims and ex-Muslims. It is imperative to act against homophobia: 15 Islamic states and territories punish homosexuality with death. Vigilantes are encouraged to ‘eliminate gays’ in the words of Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya. In Britain, institutions like the East London Mosque have hosted preachers who incite hatred and justify the murder of LGBT and apostates.
The LGBT+ movement and worldwide Pride marches have been an enduring source of inspiration. ‘Pride’ shows that human rights can progress by people coming out and challenging prejudice through humour, outrage and politics. It was in this spirit that CEMB, for the first time, joined the 2017 Pride in London march. Pride is one of only events where LGBT+ ex-Muslims and Muslims can safely articulate their criticism, especially when their daily experiences are intrinsically linked with fear, violence and intimidation. Death threats are all too common. Nor do we need lessons in racism or anti-Muslim hatred, we experience these too. Our presence was widely welcomed and the courage of gay ex-Muslims affirmed with love and support. For old campaigners and new, the experience of the march was life changing.
CEMB’s work is founded on universal human rights: the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to free expression. Laws against homosexuality, blasphemy and apostasy and the terror associated with them are grave violations of human rights. Human rights do not advance unless perpetrators are named. Defending human rights: the right to life, the right to love and the right to free speech do not incite hatred. They constitute opposition to the politics of hate and fear.
Islamists use accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ to deceptively conflate criticism of a set of beliefs (Islam) and the religious-right (Islamism) with bigotry against a group of people (Muslims) in order to silence dissent. But we will not be silenced. We will continue to fight on several fronts: against racism and anti-Muslim hate and homophobia, for the rights of migrants and refugees, while simultaneously defending the right to apostasy and blasphemy.
If Pride in London is indeed a movement of ‘acceptance, diversity and unity’, it should vigorously oppose all laws which criminalise homosexuality, apostasy and blasphemy. Pride in London has a historic opportunity to render fundamentalist intimidation and bullying ineffective and make a stand that demonstrates that human rights trump religious hatred.
We call upon the organisers of Pride in London to:
1) 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
2) Clarify whether by condemning ‘Islamophobia’, Pride meant to side with Islamists supporting the judicial murder of ex-Muslims and gay men.
3) 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.
Declaration of Freethinkers
Freethinkers stand for the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of expression and belief and freedom from fear and want. We believe in the universality and indivisibility of human rights. These rights flow from human reason and conscience. Without the free exercise of conscience and expression, all other rights are nullified.
Thirteen Islamic states and territories punish apostasy and blasphemy with death. Many freethinkers spend years on death row, or are lashed simply for the views that they hold. Apostates and freethinkers are murdered by vigilantes, or have fled their homes and countries. They experience numerous abuses, including violence, coercion and shunning in their families, exorcism, psychiatric ‘treatment’, forced marriage and sexual abuse.
At the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, we note that there is a tsunami of freethinking and atheism that is challenging religious fundamentalism, especially Islamism. The Internet is doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.
This peaceful resistance movement is often characterised as ‘offensive’ against religion, nation, tradition or culture. Labelled as ‘secular fundamentalists’ or ‘Islamophobic’, victims are told that they are the cause of the violence whilst the organised networks of fundamentalists and extremists are projected as victims. Laws against ‘defamation of religion’ and accusations of ‘offence’ and ‘Islamophobia’ aid the extremists in silencing dissent and imposing de facto blasphemy laws.
Human rights organisations give scant attention to these violations. They have failed to investigate transnational networks that promote and perpetrate violence. They do not examine the ideologies of religious fundamentalism or make a case for the importance of freethinking in the face of a sustained religious assault. Governments, too, are failing to defend and protect freethinkers, either leading the assault or often choosing to side with killers and persecutors.
We honour the memory of all those who have died for freedom of conscience and expression, and stand in solidarity with our friends who cannot be with us because they are in prison, in hiding or have been denied visas.
The struggle for freedom of conscience is also a struggle against racism, xenophobia and far-right extremism. To be denied the simple right of conscience creates a human rights void, where all protections cease to exist. So we fight against all forms of bigotry and for universal human rights, including secularism.
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression calls for the following:
End the killing of apostates and blasphemersRelease those on death row or in prison simply because they are atheists, freethinkers, apostates or blasphemersRepeal apostasy and blasphemy lawsClarify that freedom of conscience and freedom of belief guarantee the right to freedom of and from religion; and that religion is not an excuse for silencing dissent or threatening other rights and freedomsProtect the right of freedom of expression to ‘offend’, without which no human progress is possibleA declaration of principles showing that the human right to freedom of conscience is explicitly embedded in human rights documents and is not limited by any right to religious belief.For more information, contact the Conference Organising Committee.
To donate to CEMB, please visit our website.
The conference is sponsored by Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; Atheist International Alliance; Bread and Roses TV; Center for Inquiry; Centre for Secular Space; Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; Culture Project; Euromind; Equal Rights Now; Fitnah; Freedom from Religion Foundation; National Secular Society; One Law for All; Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science; Southall Black Sisters; and Secularism is a Women’s Issue.
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, was held during 22-24 July 2017 in London.
Over 70 notable speakers from 30 countries or the Diaspora gathered in what was dubbed “The Glastonbury of Freethinkers” and “a Conference of Heroes” to honour dissenters and defend apostasy, blasphemy, and secularism.
The sold-out conference highlighted the voices of those on the frontlines of resistance – many of them persecuted and exiled – and included the first London film screening of Deeyah Khan’s film, Islam’s Non Believers, a public art protest of 99 balloons representing those killed or imprisoned for blasphemy and apostasy, a body-painting action, and crucial discussions and debates on Islamophobia and its use by Islamists to impose de facto blasphemy laws, the relation between Islam and Islamism as well as communalism’s threat to universal rights, art as resistance and Laicite as a human rights. The conference hashtag, #IWant2BFree, trended on Twitter during the two days.
At the conference, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) honoured ten individuals to mark its tenth anniversary, namely Bangladeshi freethinker Bonya Ahmed, Saudi freethinkers Ensaf Haidar and Raif Badawi, Moroccan atheist Zineb El Rhazoui, Philosopher AC Grayling, Centre for Secular Space’s Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Algerian Sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas, Jordanian Atheists’ Founder Mohammad AlKhadra, Egyptian Atheist Founder of The Black Ducks Ismail Mohamed and Author and Scientist Richard Dawkins.
The conference issued resolutions against the no-platforming of Richard Dawkins by KPFA radio station, in defence of Ismail Mohamed who was prevented from leaving Egypt to speak at the conference by the Egyptian government, and on CEMB’s presence in Pride in London as well as a Declaration of Freethinkers (see below).
The event was live-streamed, which can be seen here. Professional video footage will be made available soon as well photos and more details of the event.
Resolution on Richard Dawkins
The International Conference on Free Expression and Conscience in London, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, is concerned that Richard Dawkins, an invited speaker at the conference, has been de-platformed by the radio station KPFA in Berkeley, California because of his alleged “hurtful” comments on Islam.
Professor Dawkins is a well known critic of all religions, whose long-standing attacks on Christianity have never resulted in anything approaching de-platforming. Indeed he has aired his views on KPFA itself. Belatedly, KPFA seems to have noticed that Islam is not exempt from his criticism. They have applied a hypocritical double standard in cancelling his appearance in Berkeley, and have disappointed the large numbers of people who had bought tickets to hear him.
Given that most of the speakers and delegates at our conference are Islam’s apostates, many from countries where the legal penalty for apostasy is death, we find it necessary to remind KPFA that criticism of Islam is no different from criticism of Christianity or Judaism. Also, criticism of Islamism is no different from criticism of the Christian-Right, Jewish-Right or Hindu-Right.
Criticism of religious ideas as well as violent religious political movements isn’t bigotry but integral to free conscience and expression and vital for human progress.
We call on those – like KPFA – who should be our natural allies and ‘progressives’ whose freedoms and rights are largely the result of the fight against the church and Christianity not to betray or deny the same right to Islam’s critics, non believers, and dissenters.
Progressive politics means fighting on many fronts, including against bigotry, xenophobia, the far-Right, which includes Islamism, and for freedom of conscience and expression.
Resolution for Ismail Mohamed
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression is outraged to learn that the Egyptian government has prevented Ismail Mohamed from speaking at our conference, where he would have been a crucial voice. We demand that the Egyptian government allow Ismail freedom of movement and end his persecution and that of all freethinkers.
Resolution on the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain at Pride
The Council of ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB) is part of a world-wide movement that supports people who wish to leave Islam and declare themselves ex-Muslim. We use the term ex-Muslim to highlight that the danger of leaving Islam risks death for apostasy. CEMB works to ensure that people are safe from hate and violence from their families, communities and states. CEMB joined Pride in London this year to highlight anti-LGBT persecution as well apostasy and blasphemy laws. 14 Islamic states (15 if ISIS-held territories are included) punish homosexuality with the death penalty. Moreover CEMB aimed to expose Islamist-affiliated mosques, like East London Mosque (ELM), which have given a platform to hate clerics who have justified the murder of gays and apostates.
After Pride, the ELM made a formal complaint over CEMB’s ‘Islamophobic’ banners. The complaint was referred to Pride’s community advisory board to “decide on whether CEMB will be allowed to march again in the years ahead”. A Pride Spokesperson added:
If anyone taking part in our parade makes someone feel ostracised, discriminated against or humiliated, then they are undermining and breaking the very principles on which we exist… Pride must always be a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity. We will not tolerate Islamophobia.
At the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, we commit to the defence of LGBT+ Muslims and ex-Muslims. It is imperative to act against homophobia: 15 Islamic states and territories punish homosexuality with death. Vigilantes are encouraged to ‘eliminate gays’ in the words of Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya. In Britain, institutions like the East London Mosque have hosted preachers who incite hatred and justify the murder of LGBT and apostates.
The LGBT+ movement and worldwide Pride marches have been an enduring source of inspiration. ‘Pride’ shows that human rights can progress by people coming out and challenging prejudice through humour, outrage and politics. It was in this spirit that CEMB, for the first time, joined the 2017 Pride in London march. Pride is one of only events where LGBT+ ex-Muslims and Muslims can safely articulate their criticism, especially when their daily experiences are intrinsically linked with fear, violence and intimidation. Death threats are all too common. Nor do we need lessons in racism or anti-Muslim hatred, we experience these too. Our presence was widely welcomed and the courage of gay ex-Muslims affirmed with love and support. For old campaigners and new, the experience of the march was life changing.
CEMB’s work is founded on universal human rights: the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to free expression. Laws against homosexuality, blasphemy and apostasy and the terror associated with them are grave violations of human rights. Human rights do not advance unless perpetrators are named. Defending human rights: the right to life, the right to love and the right to free speech do not incite hatred. They constitute opposition to the politics of hate and fear.
Islamists use accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ to deceptively conflate criticism of a set of beliefs (Islam) and the religious-right (Islamism) with bigotry against a group of people (Muslims) in order to silence dissent. But we will not be silenced. We will continue to fight on several fronts: against racism and anti-Muslim hate and homophobia, for the rights of migrants and refugees, while simultaneously defending the right to apostasy and blasphemy.
If Pride in London is indeed a movement of ‘acceptance, diversity and unity’, it should vigorously oppose all laws which criminalise homosexuality, apostasy and blasphemy. Pride in London has a historic opportunity to render fundamentalist intimidation and bullying ineffective and make a stand that demonstrates that human rights trump religious hatred.
We call upon the organisers of Pride in London to:
1) 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
2) Clarify whether by condemning ‘Islamophobia’, Pride meant to side with Islamists supporting the judicial murder of ex-Muslims and gay men.
3) 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.
Declaration of Freethinkers
Freethinkers stand for the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of expression and belief and freedom from fear and want. We believe in the universality and indivisibility of human rights. These rights flow from human reason and conscience. Without the free exercise of conscience and expression, all other rights are nullified.
Thirteen Islamic states and territories punish apostasy and blasphemy with death. Many freethinkers spend years on death row, or are lashed simply for the views that they hold. Apostates and freethinkers are murdered by vigilantes, or have fled their homes and countries. They experience numerous abuses, including violence, coercion and shunning in their families, exorcism, psychiatric ‘treatment’, forced marriage and sexual abuse.
At the International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, we note that there is a tsunami of freethinking and atheism that is challenging religious fundamentalism, especially Islamism. The Internet is doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.
This peaceful resistance movement is often characterised as ‘offensive’ against religion, nation, tradition or culture. Labelled as ‘secular fundamentalists’ or ‘Islamophobic’, victims are told that they are the cause of the violence whilst the organised networks of fundamentalists and extremists are projected as victims. Laws against ‘defamation of religion’ and accusations of ‘offence’ and ‘Islamophobia’ aid the extremists in silencing dissent and imposing de facto blasphemy laws.
Human rights organisations give scant attention to these violations. They have failed to investigate transnational networks that promote and perpetrate violence. They do not examine the ideologies of religious fundamentalism or make a case for the importance of freethinking in the face of a sustained religious assault. Governments, too, are failing to defend and protect freethinkers, either leading the assault or often choosing to side with killers and persecutors.
We honour the memory of all those who have died for freedom of conscience and expression, and stand in solidarity with our friends who cannot be with us because they are in prison, in hiding or have been denied visas.
The struggle for freedom of conscience is also a struggle against racism, xenophobia and far-right extremism. To be denied the simple right of conscience creates a human rights void, where all protections cease to exist. So we fight against all forms of bigotry and for universal human rights, including secularism.
The International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression calls for the following:
End the killing of apostates and blasphemersRelease those on death row or in prison simply because they are atheists, freethinkers, apostates or blasphemersRepeal apostasy and blasphemy lawsClarify that freedom of conscience and freedom of belief guarantee the right to freedom of and from religion; and that religion is not an excuse for silencing dissent or threatening other rights and freedomsProtect the right of freedom of expression to ‘offend’, without which no human progress is possibleA declaration of principles showing that the human right to freedom of conscience is explicitly embedded in human rights documents and is not limited by any right to religious belief.For more information, contact the Conference Organising Committee.
To donate to CEMB, please visit our website.
The conference is sponsored by Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; Atheist International Alliance; Bread and Roses TV; Center for Inquiry; Centre for Secular Space; Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; Culture Project; Euromind; Equal Rights Now; Fitnah; Freedom from Religion Foundation; National Secular Society; One Law for All; Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science; Southall Black Sisters; and Secularism is a Women’s Issue.
Being A Peace Activist In Israel – After Fifty Years
Earlier this week TPQ featured Uri Avnery's weekly column. Tikkun Magazine also ran it along with a complementary piece by
Adam Keller.
I started being politically involved in the summer of 1969, when I offered myself as a volunteer to do menial work at the elections campaign headquarters of Uri Avnery’s “HaOlam HaZeh / New Force” Party. Uri Avnery, then a radical young Member of the Israeli Parliament, had been one of the first Israelis to call for creating a Palestinian state in the newly-occupied territories. As a matter of fact, it was not this which initially drew me to the party – but rather its opposition to “the rotten old parties” which dominated Israeli politics, as well as the call to separate religion and state. HaOlam HaZeh was, in fact, rather similar to the Dutch D-66 party, launched at much the same time. It was only gradually, over a period of some two years, that I fully accepted the idea of Israel making peace with the Palestinians and getting out of the Occupied Territories.
There was a key moment – an evening in 1971 when I was sitting with some twenty other youths in the a dingy basement of a house in downtown Tel Aviv, and heard a soldier in uniform who had just come from the Gaza Strip. He was telling of horrors: extrajudicial executions, the victims’ bodies thrown into dry wells; torture; soldiers beating up passers-by on the streets of Gaza “just for the fun of it”… We were shocked, we did not want to believe it, we said “This can’t be true, our army does not do such things!”. The soldier said: ”Yes, it is true. I have done it myself, and now I can’t sleep at night”. Later that night, we went out with some three thousand leaflets, badly printed on an old stencil machine, which contained what the soldier had told. We put them into postboxes around Tel Aviv – “To let the people know what the government was hiding from them” – and looked behind our shoulders to make sure there were no police patrol cars in the streets.
There followed the daily exhausting routine of activism – distributing leaflets on street corners, endless debating with passers-by, going after midnight to write graffiti and paste inflammatory posters on the walls, visits to Palestinian villages, protest vigils of a few dozens outside government offices, sometimes a bit bigger demonstrations which required weeks of intensive preparations and sometimes had disappointing results…Even if the going was difficult and there were many setbacks, for some decades we felt we were making a headway. PM Golda Meir said that “There is no such thing as Palestinians”.
Gradually, the idea that the Palestinians are indeed a people and deserve to have their own state became widely accepted in the mainstream of Israeli society, and Golda Meir’s opinion is nowadays held only by the extreme right lunatic fringe.
When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat landed in Israel and spoke on the Knesset podium, there was a month of peace euphoria. Peace stopped being an unattainable dream and became a concrete, real possibility, peace rallies grew from hundreds to thousands and to tens of thousands, sometimes to hundreds of thousands. When it became clear that Menachem Begin wanted peace only with the Egyptians and had launched an invasion of Lebanon in order to crush the Palestinians, there was for the first time in Israeli history an active grassroots anti-war movement, with large rallies on the streets and soldiers going to prison for refusing service in Lebanon and eventually the protest of soldiers’ mothers forcing the government to terminate the Lebanon adventure.
The outbreak of the First Intifada convinced many that continued occupation was both immoral and impractical. For decades, the PLO had been considered “a terrorist organization”, and the activist and philanthropist Abie Nathan served two six-month prison terms for the “crime” of having met Yasser Arafat and shaken his hand. “We will meet the PLO only on the battlefield” was what Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin said in the earlier part of his career, and he ordered soldiers to “break the bones of rioting Palestinians”. Little did Rabin realize that eventually he himself would shake Arafat’s hand on the White House lawn, in a blaze of worldwide publicity – or that he would pay for that courageous act with his life and become after his death the archetypal Martyr for Peace, at the focus of vast annual memorial rallies.
At the time when Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Arafat, we felt that our task was nearly done, that peace between Israel and the Palestinians was at hand and only a few last details needed to be worked out. Even after the assassination of Rabin, peace activists were far from losing heart. The first time that Netanyahu got elected, we in general regarded it as a regrettable accident to be soon corrected. Many of us considered Netanyahu an altogether illegitimate Prime Minister – a bit like many Americans consider Trump nowadays – and the three years of Netanyahu’s first term were stormy, full of intensive demonstrations and protests.
In 1999 Ehud Barak was elected, claiming to be Rabin’s successor and complete Rabin’s unfinished task. The fact that this claim got wide public credibility enabled Barak to give the Israeli peace movement the most grievous blow it ever suffered. In August 2000 Barak, Arafat and Clinton were closeted for intensive negotiations in Camp David. Opinion polls in Israel indicated that, if an agreement was reached and presented to the Israeli voters, it would have gotten at least 70% support and possible as much as 80%. A vast coalition was formed, including the Labor Party and more or less everybody to its left. Gush Shalom (The Peace Bloc), on whose behalf I took part in this coalition’s meetings, was the most radical and critical participant – but we, too, were ready to throw our full backing behind a Barak-Arafat deal. A full-scale campaign was planned in great detail. A very beautiful color poster was prepared, with a large dove and the words “Back the Agreement – Vote YES for Peace”. Everybody in the room fell in love with it – If things had gone as we hoped, a hundred thousand copies would have been printed and everybody around the country would have seen them.
What did happen is that Barak came back with the announcement that he had made “generous offers” but the intransigent Arafat had rejected them, and there was “no partner”. Shortly afterwards, Barak allowed Sharon to stage his provocation at the Temple Mount, the most sensitive spot in the entire Middle East – resulting in 13 dead Palestinians, the outbreak of the bloody years of the Second Intifada, and the increasing isolation of the peace movement. There had never been a more difficult and uphill task, in all my years of peace activism, as the effort to convince Israelis that Barak’s “generous offers” had not been so generous at all. The general Israeli public just refused to listen, convinced that “Barak offered EVERYTHING to the Palestinians and they reacted with bloody terrorism and suicide bombings”.
There was a partial upsurge in 2003, when hundreds of prominent Israelis and Palestinians met in Geneva and signed a draft peace agreement – just needing the signature of the official leaders on the dotted line. But the crafty Sharon, Prime Minister by then, diverted this political energy into a unilateral move in Gaza. Israeli settlers were removed from the Gaza Strip, but direct military occupation was replaced by a suffocating Israeli siege of the Strip – and on the West Bank occupation and settlement expansion continued unabated. There followed several rounds of fighting in and around Gaza, shooting of missiles at Israel and large scale bombings by the Israeli Air Force – altogether cementing the feeling of ordinary Israelis that “peace is impossible” and that “every territory given to the Palestinians will just become a Hamas shooting pad”.
And so we come to the present – the incredible fiftieth anniversary of the occupation, which none of us really believed we would see. There was an impressive big rally on the Rabin Square, and numerous smaller protests and events are planned at various locations. But there can be little doubt that Netanyahu – now far more firmly seated than he was twenty years ago – fully intends to continue and perpetuate the occupation.
So why should we continue being active under these inauspicious conditions? For two overlapping reasons. Because it is immoral to occupy and oppress and dispossess another people – and when your country is committing injustice, to be silent is to be an accomplice. That would be true in any country – and doubly true in a country which prides itself as “The State of the Jewish People”, given the centuries-long history of Jews suffering injustice and discrimination and persecution.
But also, we must continue to act and strive and protest and hope against hope because of sheer self-interest. Because Israel’s present course is a deadly threat to our future. As things now stand, the survival of Israel depends of three factors: On Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East, on the American domination of the world and the United States being willing and able to give Israel unlimited political, military financial and diplomatic support. An undermining of any of these three would put Israel in very grave trouble. And history shows conclusively that no military superiority, regional or global, lasts forever – nor are there any eternal alliances.
Only a peace agreement, making Israeli a legitimate part of its geographical environment, can truly ensure our long-term survival. And only the Palestinians can sign such a peace.
Ultimately, the reason to continue being a peace activist in Israel is very simple: we just can’t afford to stop it.
I started being politically involved in the summer of 1969, when I offered myself as a volunteer to do menial work at the elections campaign headquarters of Uri Avnery’s “HaOlam HaZeh / New Force” Party. Uri Avnery, then a radical young Member of the Israeli Parliament, had been one of the first Israelis to call for creating a Palestinian state in the newly-occupied territories. As a matter of fact, it was not this which initially drew me to the party – but rather its opposition to “the rotten old parties” which dominated Israeli politics, as well as the call to separate religion and state. HaOlam HaZeh was, in fact, rather similar to the Dutch D-66 party, launched at much the same time. It was only gradually, over a period of some two years, that I fully accepted the idea of Israel making peace with the Palestinians and getting out of the Occupied Territories.
There was a key moment – an evening in 1971 when I was sitting with some twenty other youths in the a dingy basement of a house in downtown Tel Aviv, and heard a soldier in uniform who had just come from the Gaza Strip. He was telling of horrors: extrajudicial executions, the victims’ bodies thrown into dry wells; torture; soldiers beating up passers-by on the streets of Gaza “just for the fun of it”… We were shocked, we did not want to believe it, we said “This can’t be true, our army does not do such things!”. The soldier said: ”Yes, it is true. I have done it myself, and now I can’t sleep at night”. Later that night, we went out with some three thousand leaflets, badly printed on an old stencil machine, which contained what the soldier had told. We put them into postboxes around Tel Aviv – “To let the people know what the government was hiding from them” – and looked behind our shoulders to make sure there were no police patrol cars in the streets.
There followed the daily exhausting routine of activism – distributing leaflets on street corners, endless debating with passers-by, going after midnight to write graffiti and paste inflammatory posters on the walls, visits to Palestinian villages, protest vigils of a few dozens outside government offices, sometimes a bit bigger demonstrations which required weeks of intensive preparations and sometimes had disappointing results…Even if the going was difficult and there were many setbacks, for some decades we felt we were making a headway. PM Golda Meir said that “There is no such thing as Palestinians”.
Gradually, the idea that the Palestinians are indeed a people and deserve to have their own state became widely accepted in the mainstream of Israeli society, and Golda Meir’s opinion is nowadays held only by the extreme right lunatic fringe.
When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat landed in Israel and spoke on the Knesset podium, there was a month of peace euphoria. Peace stopped being an unattainable dream and became a concrete, real possibility, peace rallies grew from hundreds to thousands and to tens of thousands, sometimes to hundreds of thousands. When it became clear that Menachem Begin wanted peace only with the Egyptians and had launched an invasion of Lebanon in order to crush the Palestinians, there was for the first time in Israeli history an active grassroots anti-war movement, with large rallies on the streets and soldiers going to prison for refusing service in Lebanon and eventually the protest of soldiers’ mothers forcing the government to terminate the Lebanon adventure.
The outbreak of the First Intifada convinced many that continued occupation was both immoral and impractical. For decades, the PLO had been considered “a terrorist organization”, and the activist and philanthropist Abie Nathan served two six-month prison terms for the “crime” of having met Yasser Arafat and shaken his hand. “We will meet the PLO only on the battlefield” was what Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin said in the earlier part of his career, and he ordered soldiers to “break the bones of rioting Palestinians”. Little did Rabin realize that eventually he himself would shake Arafat’s hand on the White House lawn, in a blaze of worldwide publicity – or that he would pay for that courageous act with his life and become after his death the archetypal Martyr for Peace, at the focus of vast annual memorial rallies.
At the time when Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Arafat, we felt that our task was nearly done, that peace between Israel and the Palestinians was at hand and only a few last details needed to be worked out. Even after the assassination of Rabin, peace activists were far from losing heart. The first time that Netanyahu got elected, we in general regarded it as a regrettable accident to be soon corrected. Many of us considered Netanyahu an altogether illegitimate Prime Minister – a bit like many Americans consider Trump nowadays – and the three years of Netanyahu’s first term were stormy, full of intensive demonstrations and protests.
In 1999 Ehud Barak was elected, claiming to be Rabin’s successor and complete Rabin’s unfinished task. The fact that this claim got wide public credibility enabled Barak to give the Israeli peace movement the most grievous blow it ever suffered. In August 2000 Barak, Arafat and Clinton were closeted for intensive negotiations in Camp David. Opinion polls in Israel indicated that, if an agreement was reached and presented to the Israeli voters, it would have gotten at least 70% support and possible as much as 80%. A vast coalition was formed, including the Labor Party and more or less everybody to its left. Gush Shalom (The Peace Bloc), on whose behalf I took part in this coalition’s meetings, was the most radical and critical participant – but we, too, were ready to throw our full backing behind a Barak-Arafat deal. A full-scale campaign was planned in great detail. A very beautiful color poster was prepared, with a large dove and the words “Back the Agreement – Vote YES for Peace”. Everybody in the room fell in love with it – If things had gone as we hoped, a hundred thousand copies would have been printed and everybody around the country would have seen them.
What did happen is that Barak came back with the announcement that he had made “generous offers” but the intransigent Arafat had rejected them, and there was “no partner”. Shortly afterwards, Barak allowed Sharon to stage his provocation at the Temple Mount, the most sensitive spot in the entire Middle East – resulting in 13 dead Palestinians, the outbreak of the bloody years of the Second Intifada, and the increasing isolation of the peace movement. There had never been a more difficult and uphill task, in all my years of peace activism, as the effort to convince Israelis that Barak’s “generous offers” had not been so generous at all. The general Israeli public just refused to listen, convinced that “Barak offered EVERYTHING to the Palestinians and they reacted with bloody terrorism and suicide bombings”.
There was a partial upsurge in 2003, when hundreds of prominent Israelis and Palestinians met in Geneva and signed a draft peace agreement – just needing the signature of the official leaders on the dotted line. But the crafty Sharon, Prime Minister by then, diverted this political energy into a unilateral move in Gaza. Israeli settlers were removed from the Gaza Strip, but direct military occupation was replaced by a suffocating Israeli siege of the Strip – and on the West Bank occupation and settlement expansion continued unabated. There followed several rounds of fighting in and around Gaza, shooting of missiles at Israel and large scale bombings by the Israeli Air Force – altogether cementing the feeling of ordinary Israelis that “peace is impossible” and that “every territory given to the Palestinians will just become a Hamas shooting pad”.
And so we come to the present – the incredible fiftieth anniversary of the occupation, which none of us really believed we would see. There was an impressive big rally on the Rabin Square, and numerous smaller protests and events are planned at various locations. But there can be little doubt that Netanyahu – now far more firmly seated than he was twenty years ago – fully intends to continue and perpetuate the occupation.
So why should we continue being active under these inauspicious conditions? For two overlapping reasons. Because it is immoral to occupy and oppress and dispossess another people – and when your country is committing injustice, to be silent is to be an accomplice. That would be true in any country – and doubly true in a country which prides itself as “The State of the Jewish People”, given the centuries-long history of Jews suffering injustice and discrimination and persecution.
But also, we must continue to act and strive and protest and hope against hope because of sheer self-interest. Because Israel’s present course is a deadly threat to our future. As things now stand, the survival of Israel depends of three factors: On Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East, on the American domination of the world and the United States being willing and able to give Israel unlimited political, military financial and diplomatic support. An undermining of any of these three would put Israel in very grave trouble. And history shows conclusively that no military superiority, regional or global, lasts forever – nor are there any eternal alliances.
Only a peace agreement, making Israeli a legitimate part of its geographical environment, can truly ensure our long-term survival. And only the Palestinians can sign such a peace.
Ultimately, the reason to continue being a peace activist in Israel is very simple: we just can’t afford to stop it.
Ten Commandments Monument
From Atheist Republic Lena M suggests a religious money making scam failed to come to fruition.
Photo Credits: The Christian Post
New Kensington (PA) - A monument of the Ten Commandments from Valley High School in New Kensington must be removed. The monument was the center of a federal lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2012 on behalf of a local woman who claimed it was a strictly religious symbol offensive to her and her daughter who attended Valley High at the time.
Atheist Marie Schaub and her daughter sued to remove it and the case was eventually settled with the public school district promising to remove the display and pay out $163,500 in attorneys’ fees. This monument wasn’t destroyed; it was donated to the Mary Queen of Apostles School, operated by the archdiocese in Greenburg.
It wouldn’t be strange at all but it takes money to create a proper foundation for the monument. The school decided to raise an absurdly high amount of money to make the whole concept needed for the Ten Commandments sign. According to the site gofundme.com, they were hoping to raise $75,000.
Superintendent John Pallone says the Ten Commandments will remain in the community for those who acknowledge their worth, while those who don't "can turn the other cheek, as we learn in the Bible."
The problem is that in the three months' time the campaign has been active it has raised just over $4,500 from 60 donors. Jerry Zufelt, Catholic Diocese of Greensburg spokesman, said the campaign will need to change considering the response. “The scope of the project is being revisited, and we'll have an update for people soon,” he said. In the interim, the campaign organizers have lowered their fundraising goal to $25,000.
What happened to their initial goal? Maybe digital boards are cheaper now. The monument, which was donated to the Mary Queen of Apostles School, turned out to be very expensive investment. Then, it became little cheaper because the campaign wasn’t met with an appropriate response.
Precisely, the monument can now be designed, erected, lit and landscaped for three times less money.
Photo Credits: The Christian Post
New Kensington (PA) - A monument of the Ten Commandments from Valley High School in New Kensington must be removed. The monument was the center of a federal lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2012 on behalf of a local woman who claimed it was a strictly religious symbol offensive to her and her daughter who attended Valley High at the time.
Atheist Marie Schaub and her daughter sued to remove it and the case was eventually settled with the public school district promising to remove the display and pay out $163,500 in attorneys’ fees. This monument wasn’t destroyed; it was donated to the Mary Queen of Apostles School, operated by the archdiocese in Greenburg.
It wouldn’t be strange at all but it takes money to create a proper foundation for the monument. The school decided to raise an absurdly high amount of money to make the whole concept needed for the Ten Commandments sign. According to the site gofundme.com, they were hoping to raise $75,000.
Putting our original plans on hold, we want to incorporate the community’s noble, historic monument into a new design in a way that showcases the Ten Commandments and makes a visible statement of the values we teach and live at MQA and in our community. To do this well will be costly. A professional team will help to create a concept for the monument and sign, which will need to be designed, erected, lit and landscaped.“The ability to pass on to the next generation the basic ethical and moral principles that we inherited is important to us,” they added. I didn’t know that that passing must go through a digital reader board which will feature one of the Ten Commandments each day as well as relevant announcements. Silly, don’t you think?
Superintendent John Pallone says the Ten Commandments will remain in the community for those who acknowledge their worth, while those who don't "can turn the other cheek, as we learn in the Bible."
The problem is that in the three months' time the campaign has been active it has raised just over $4,500 from 60 donors. Jerry Zufelt, Catholic Diocese of Greensburg spokesman, said the campaign will need to change considering the response. “The scope of the project is being revisited, and we'll have an update for people soon,” he said. In the interim, the campaign organizers have lowered their fundraising goal to $25,000.
What happened to their initial goal? Maybe digital boards are cheaper now. The monument, which was donated to the Mary Queen of Apostles School, turned out to be very expensive investment. Then, it became little cheaper because the campaign wasn’t met with an appropriate response.
Precisely, the monument can now be designed, erected, lit and landscaped for three times less money.
July 29, 2017
Where Lies Lawful Authority In Ireland?
In a step-change from his recent call for a 'broad-based' initiative on Irish Unity, Sean Bresnahan, Chair of the Thomas Ashe Society Omagh, argues that a United Ireland, were one to be realised, should proceed from and restore the 'de jure' line of governmental succession. He writes here in a personal capacity.
British law and government in Ireland, with its successor regimes, has at all times succeeded from the de facto position and has never been established as de jure. There is no lawful right born of conquest and therefore Britain has never, and does not now, possess democratic title to any part of this country.
Under international law, continuity of government can derive either from said de facto or de jure positions. This is of note because the Irish Republic, while unfortunately never able to establish itself as the de facto government of Ireland, having succeeded a popular mandate still has claim to the de jure position over and above the partition system, which is merely de facto.
The latter proceeds not from a de jure constitutional succession but from conquest. While conquest can birth a de facto government, given there is no recognised lawful right to conquer and impose on others it cannot of itself give rise to a system of government that is de jure.
The Republic of Ireland entity, unable to reconcile its succession with the de jure position – as it succeeded the Irish Free State – which in turn succeeded the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – is outside of and apart from the Republican line, its lineage found not in the 1916 Proclamation but in British constitutional theory.
While the preceding government at the time in question – that being the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – may well have claimed lawful entitlement to rule Ireland, it succeeded from invasion and conquest – not lawful procession – and therefore was de facto and not de jure. On that basis, the entire existing order – while yes de facto and yes to be countenanced on that basis – has no de jure standing when stripped back to its point of origin. Rooted in invasion and conquest, it can never be otherwise.
The bottom line? Conquest does not award democratic title, British rule in Ireland must end, the British-created 'Treaty State' styling itself the Republic of Ireland must go and the constitutional integrity of the true Irish Republic, which remains de jure authority in all of Ireland, must in turn and from there be restored.
What could realise such lofty ambition? A British declaration of intent is the necessary first step and it is here where the national effort must focus. An election from there can give form to a Third All-Ireland Dáil, this to sit as a Constituent Assembly with the remit of restoring the Republican Constitution, with provision made that it be in keeping with the requirements of modern Ireland. This is the pathway before us. Onward to that day.
British law and government in Ireland, with its successor regimes, has at all times succeeded from the de facto position and has never been established as de jure. There is no lawful right born of conquest and therefore Britain has never, and does not now, possess democratic title to any part of this country.
Under international law, continuity of government can derive either from said de facto or de jure positions. This is of note because the Irish Republic, while unfortunately never able to establish itself as the de facto government of Ireland, having succeeded a popular mandate still has claim to the de jure position over and above the partition system, which is merely de facto.
The latter proceeds not from a de jure constitutional succession but from conquest. While conquest can birth a de facto government, given there is no recognised lawful right to conquer and impose on others it cannot of itself give rise to a system of government that is de jure.
The Republic of Ireland entity, unable to reconcile its succession with the de jure position – as it succeeded the Irish Free State – which in turn succeeded the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – is outside of and apart from the Republican line, its lineage found not in the 1916 Proclamation but in British constitutional theory.
While the preceding government at the time in question – that being the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – may well have claimed lawful entitlement to rule Ireland, it succeeded from invasion and conquest – not lawful procession – and therefore was de facto and not de jure. On that basis, the entire existing order – while yes de facto and yes to be countenanced on that basis – has no de jure standing when stripped back to its point of origin. Rooted in invasion and conquest, it can never be otherwise.
The bottom line? Conquest does not award democratic title, British rule in Ireland must end, the British-created 'Treaty State' styling itself the Republic of Ireland must go and the constitutional integrity of the true Irish Republic, which remains de jure authority in all of Ireland, must in turn and from there be restored.
What could realise such lofty ambition? A British declaration of intent is the necessary first step and it is here where the national effort must focus. An election from there can give form to a Third All-Ireland Dáil, this to sit as a Constituent Assembly with the remit of restoring the Republican Constitution, with provision made that it be in keeping with the requirements of modern Ireland. This is the pathway before us. Onward to that day.
Talking Realistically About Free Speech
From Atheist Republic a piece by Casper Rigsby which seeks to tease out the limitations on free speech.
Photo Source: EN-Globe
After lengthy battles in 140 characters or less, I realized it just isn't possible to fully articulate my position on the issue of “free speech” in the Twitter arena. There's too much to be said and the issue is just too complex to address with one-liners. That whole medium simply invites ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Engaging in battle with Twitter scholars is an exercise in futility and an invitation to anger. So I want to address it all here where I have the ability to fully articulate my position.
Now, I want to start out by making some things clear. First of all, I am indeed an advocate of free speech. Of course there is a caveat to that advocacy which is that I advocate for free speech within reason; but I'll go into that in greater detail shortly. Secondly, I am not, nor have I ever been, an advocate of violence outside of self-defense. So I'm not in the “punch a Nazi” crowd. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh my ass off when I saw that video of Richard Spencer getting punched because I can acknowledge that something is unethical and also admit that regardless of that acknowledgement there's still a part of me that finds it amusing that he doesn't know that advocating for terrible shit like ethnic cleansing might just cause people to punch you in the face. Idealism is wonderful and all, but reality often trumps idealism and we are subject to the reality we live in rather than the ideal world we’d like to live in.
So as someone who is in fact an advocate of free speech and does not advocate for violence, it may seem odd that I've been arguing with others over free speech. What you must understand however is that I'm not a free speech absolutist. I do not advocate for protecting all speech under the umbrella of free speech. The reason I take this position is this weird thing called nuance and the understanding that taking an absolutist position on a philosophical ideal like free speech which cannot even be defined as a universal truth or axiom is at best intellectually lazy and at worst is just dangerously ignorant. The best argument for free speech absolutism is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy that posits the notion that if we don't protect all speech as free speech then we put all speech in jeopardy. It really is a rather terrible and fallacious argument and thus far it's still the best one I've seen put forward.
I'll get into why it's a terrible and fallacious argument shortly, but first let me discuss my position in further detail.
Now, my position is this:
The linchpin which holds society together is the rule of law. You can posit that freedom is actually the linchpin and that freedom of speech is of utmost importance in maintaining freedoms, but in reality without the rule of law there is anarchy and chaos. Absolute freedom will evince to absolute chaos and ultimately to absolute despotism just as surely as fascism will. If we value society we must acquiesce to the fact that society can only thrive in an environment where there is order. Such order, in a strong society, should evince first and foremost to act as a guardian of the safety and well-being of it's citizens.
Understanding this leads me to the position that, while freedom of speech has true intrinsic value for a free society, speech which incites violence, be it immediate or long-term, puts many citizens in danger and threatens their safety and well-being. I believe that our laws in the United States do not do enough to protect it's citizens from violence which has been incited by the speech of others. I believe it is possible, although I dare say not under the current administration, to reevaluate current laws to do more to protect our citizens from the violence which is often incited by the speech of others. This is not a call for outright censorship, but rather for making it clear that speech which incites violence is not welcome and will not be tolerated in a society which acknowledges that the safety and well-being of its citizenry is of paramount importance.
I said I'd get back to why the slippery slope argument of free speech absolutists is terrible and fallacious, so let me touch on that now.
One of the best gauges of freedom of speech and expression is the Press Freedom Index. This index is compiled by Reporters Without Borders who are an independent NGO who consults for the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and OIF. The index ranks 180 countries in terms of their freedom of speech and expression, especially how this relates to the rights of the free press. Their determination of the scores and rankings offered in this index are based on a multitude of factors and are updated annually.
Now, one would assume that on an index that specifically measures freedom of speech and expression, countries with any real sort of censorship should rank lower than those who supposedly value a lack of censorship. As it turns out however, this isn’t actually the case. The country of Germany, who has laws outlawing the public display of Nazi paraphernalia and Nazi speech in the public arena, is ranked 16th out of 180 other countries. The United States however, a nation where people ignorantly think they are the most free nation on earth, ranks 43rd! The real cause of this rather low ranking for the US comes from laws regarding libel and slander and the court system siding with even the most frivolous of lawsuits concerning libel or slander, as well as our politicians constantly lying to the public and hiding facts from the citizenry. So it becomes apparent when we look at this index that countries most certainly can have a reasonable level of censorship of ideas which have been proven to endanger the populous while also maintaining the right to free speech. It’s this crazy notion of free speech within reason, and it seems to be a concept that free speech absolutists just don’t understand.
If our government can reason that someone’s reputation and livelihood should be protected from the speech of others, it makes no reasonable sense to say that we cannot reasonably protect the safety and well-being of the citizenry against speech which either directly or indirectly incites violence against cross-sections of the populous. Germany’s laws regarding Nazi propaganda and speech are reasonable protection for the citizenry against an idea that literally led to the murder of over 9 million people. And the other thing there is that those laws do not restrict citizens from holding an idea or even exploring that idea in their private lives. You can read Mein Kampf in your own home and hold its ideas to be true without the worry that the government will intrude into your private life and penalize you for it. However, if you bring those ideas into the public arena you are endangering others by advocating ideas which can and have been shown to incite others to violent action. There really isn’t anything unreasonable about this.
It should be seen as a tragedy of justice that as Robert Dear stands trial for murdering three people at a planned parenthood clinic, the preachers and talking heads which said encouraged such action are sitting comfortable and free to continue encouraging such actions. Yet, because they didn't speak to Dear specifically and plan this shooting with him many deem them unaccountable and inculpable in this horrific tragedy. Many of these preachers and talking heads have specifically called for violence against abortion doctors or their patients.
But of course, we have to let people call for violence and protect it as “free speech” just so long as they aren't standing in a crowd and yelling “We have to kill these people now!” and someone does that right then. I'm sorry, but from an ethical standpoint it seems absolutely unethical to put other people's lives in danger so that we can say we stand on “principle” for the freedom of others to incite violence.
Now, the latest arguments over this issue, especially amongst many in the atheist community, arose because of that Richard Spencer punch in the face. They started, not because Spencer got punched, but because a vocal group of atheists became outraged over the incident and decided to claim this as a free speech issue. Spencer wasn't censored by our government. He wasn't censored by his internet domain provider shutting down his website. He wasn't censored at all by any meaningful definition of what censorship is. He was assaulted by a vigilante antifa member who thinks that reactionary violence was an apt reaction to Spencer's rhetoric. This act was most certainly unethical, as all unprovoked assault is; but it was not by any stretch of the imagination an act of censorship that violated his free speech rights as defined by the laws of this nation. Should his assailant be caught, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for assault.
The problem and argument arises when people choose to make issues which aren't free speech issues, “free speech” issues. The problem also arises when we look at who these free speech absolutists choose to champion. Richard Spencer advocates for what he terms as “peaceful ethnic cleansing” for fuck's sake. He has edited and posted at least one piece on one of his websites advocating for the genocide of black people in this nation. Even if I were to accept that he should have the “right” to advocate for and try to recruit people to join his cause of ethnic cleansing and genocide, I would still not feel any ethical obligation to stand up for him or speak out for his supposed “right” to do this. The ACLU may be obligated to do so by their own guidelines and charter, but as a private citizen I most certainly have no obligation to do so. I have no obligation to champion those, or the speech of those, whom I am ethically and ideologically opposed to. There is nothing “wrong” with me stating that Spencer’s ideology is so unethical and dangerous to our society that I refuse to stand up and champion his “right” to spread those ideas throughout the populous and try to recruit others to join his cause. I would no more champion his “right” to do this than I would champion the “right” of an Islamic extremist to advocate for Muslims to commit acts of terrorism against the US in the public arena, including college campuses or even street corners.
So, my position stands as this:
There is a line which must be drawn which acknowledges the reality that speech can cross from being the free expression of ideas into being a call to action. We have a responsibility to our citizenry to preserve the safety and well-being our citizens against speech which crosses that line and enters into the realm of incitement if we value our society. It is not unreasonable to closely examine our laws and see if strengthening them is in the best interest of our society for the safety and security of our citizens. No slippery slope fallacy will negate this reasonable idea and the position that public safety should trump the “rights” of others to use speech to incite violence either directly or indirectly.
If you disagree with me and would like to debate me on the issue I am always open to reasonable formal debate. If you’d like to challenge me to such a debate please contact me:
casper@atheistrepublic.com
Photo Source: EN-GlobeAfter lengthy battles in 140 characters or less, I realized it just isn't possible to fully articulate my position on the issue of “free speech” in the Twitter arena. There's too much to be said and the issue is just too complex to address with one-liners. That whole medium simply invites ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Engaging in battle with Twitter scholars is an exercise in futility and an invitation to anger. So I want to address it all here where I have the ability to fully articulate my position.
Now, I want to start out by making some things clear. First of all, I am indeed an advocate of free speech. Of course there is a caveat to that advocacy which is that I advocate for free speech within reason; but I'll go into that in greater detail shortly. Secondly, I am not, nor have I ever been, an advocate of violence outside of self-defense. So I'm not in the “punch a Nazi” crowd. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh my ass off when I saw that video of Richard Spencer getting punched because I can acknowledge that something is unethical and also admit that regardless of that acknowledgement there's still a part of me that finds it amusing that he doesn't know that advocating for terrible shit like ethnic cleansing might just cause people to punch you in the face. Idealism is wonderful and all, but reality often trumps idealism and we are subject to the reality we live in rather than the ideal world we’d like to live in.
So as someone who is in fact an advocate of free speech and does not advocate for violence, it may seem odd that I've been arguing with others over free speech. What you must understand however is that I'm not a free speech absolutist. I do not advocate for protecting all speech under the umbrella of free speech. The reason I take this position is this weird thing called nuance and the understanding that taking an absolutist position on a philosophical ideal like free speech which cannot even be defined as a universal truth or axiom is at best intellectually lazy and at worst is just dangerously ignorant. The best argument for free speech absolutism is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy that posits the notion that if we don't protect all speech as free speech then we put all speech in jeopardy. It really is a rather terrible and fallacious argument and thus far it's still the best one I've seen put forward.
I'll get into why it's a terrible and fallacious argument shortly, but first let me discuss my position in further detail.
Now, my position is this:
The linchpin which holds society together is the rule of law. You can posit that freedom is actually the linchpin and that freedom of speech is of utmost importance in maintaining freedoms, but in reality without the rule of law there is anarchy and chaos. Absolute freedom will evince to absolute chaos and ultimately to absolute despotism just as surely as fascism will. If we value society we must acquiesce to the fact that society can only thrive in an environment where there is order. Such order, in a strong society, should evince first and foremost to act as a guardian of the safety and well-being of it's citizens.
Understanding this leads me to the position that, while freedom of speech has true intrinsic value for a free society, speech which incites violence, be it immediate or long-term, puts many citizens in danger and threatens their safety and well-being. I believe that our laws in the United States do not do enough to protect it's citizens from violence which has been incited by the speech of others. I believe it is possible, although I dare say not under the current administration, to reevaluate current laws to do more to protect our citizens from the violence which is often incited by the speech of others. This is not a call for outright censorship, but rather for making it clear that speech which incites violence is not welcome and will not be tolerated in a society which acknowledges that the safety and well-being of its citizenry is of paramount importance.
I said I'd get back to why the slippery slope argument of free speech absolutists is terrible and fallacious, so let me touch on that now.
One of the best gauges of freedom of speech and expression is the Press Freedom Index. This index is compiled by Reporters Without Borders who are an independent NGO who consults for the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and OIF. The index ranks 180 countries in terms of their freedom of speech and expression, especially how this relates to the rights of the free press. Their determination of the scores and rankings offered in this index are based on a multitude of factors and are updated annually.
Now, one would assume that on an index that specifically measures freedom of speech and expression, countries with any real sort of censorship should rank lower than those who supposedly value a lack of censorship. As it turns out however, this isn’t actually the case. The country of Germany, who has laws outlawing the public display of Nazi paraphernalia and Nazi speech in the public arena, is ranked 16th out of 180 other countries. The United States however, a nation where people ignorantly think they are the most free nation on earth, ranks 43rd! The real cause of this rather low ranking for the US comes from laws regarding libel and slander and the court system siding with even the most frivolous of lawsuits concerning libel or slander, as well as our politicians constantly lying to the public and hiding facts from the citizenry. So it becomes apparent when we look at this index that countries most certainly can have a reasonable level of censorship of ideas which have been proven to endanger the populous while also maintaining the right to free speech. It’s this crazy notion of free speech within reason, and it seems to be a concept that free speech absolutists just don’t understand.
If our government can reason that someone’s reputation and livelihood should be protected from the speech of others, it makes no reasonable sense to say that we cannot reasonably protect the safety and well-being of the citizenry against speech which either directly or indirectly incites violence against cross-sections of the populous. Germany’s laws regarding Nazi propaganda and speech are reasonable protection for the citizenry against an idea that literally led to the murder of over 9 million people. And the other thing there is that those laws do not restrict citizens from holding an idea or even exploring that idea in their private lives. You can read Mein Kampf in your own home and hold its ideas to be true without the worry that the government will intrude into your private life and penalize you for it. However, if you bring those ideas into the public arena you are endangering others by advocating ideas which can and have been shown to incite others to violent action. There really isn’t anything unreasonable about this.
It should be seen as a tragedy of justice that as Robert Dear stands trial for murdering three people at a planned parenthood clinic, the preachers and talking heads which said encouraged such action are sitting comfortable and free to continue encouraging such actions. Yet, because they didn't speak to Dear specifically and plan this shooting with him many deem them unaccountable and inculpable in this horrific tragedy. Many of these preachers and talking heads have specifically called for violence against abortion doctors or their patients.
But of course, we have to let people call for violence and protect it as “free speech” just so long as they aren't standing in a crowd and yelling “We have to kill these people now!” and someone does that right then. I'm sorry, but from an ethical standpoint it seems absolutely unethical to put other people's lives in danger so that we can say we stand on “principle” for the freedom of others to incite violence.
Now, the latest arguments over this issue, especially amongst many in the atheist community, arose because of that Richard Spencer punch in the face. They started, not because Spencer got punched, but because a vocal group of atheists became outraged over the incident and decided to claim this as a free speech issue. Spencer wasn't censored by our government. He wasn't censored by his internet domain provider shutting down his website. He wasn't censored at all by any meaningful definition of what censorship is. He was assaulted by a vigilante antifa member who thinks that reactionary violence was an apt reaction to Spencer's rhetoric. This act was most certainly unethical, as all unprovoked assault is; but it was not by any stretch of the imagination an act of censorship that violated his free speech rights as defined by the laws of this nation. Should his assailant be caught, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for assault.
The problem and argument arises when people choose to make issues which aren't free speech issues, “free speech” issues. The problem also arises when we look at who these free speech absolutists choose to champion. Richard Spencer advocates for what he terms as “peaceful ethnic cleansing” for fuck's sake. He has edited and posted at least one piece on one of his websites advocating for the genocide of black people in this nation. Even if I were to accept that he should have the “right” to advocate for and try to recruit people to join his cause of ethnic cleansing and genocide, I would still not feel any ethical obligation to stand up for him or speak out for his supposed “right” to do this. The ACLU may be obligated to do so by their own guidelines and charter, but as a private citizen I most certainly have no obligation to do so. I have no obligation to champion those, or the speech of those, whom I am ethically and ideologically opposed to. There is nothing “wrong” with me stating that Spencer’s ideology is so unethical and dangerous to our society that I refuse to stand up and champion his “right” to spread those ideas throughout the populous and try to recruit others to join his cause. I would no more champion his “right” to do this than I would champion the “right” of an Islamic extremist to advocate for Muslims to commit acts of terrorism against the US in the public arena, including college campuses or even street corners.
So, my position stands as this:
There is a line which must be drawn which acknowledges the reality that speech can cross from being the free expression of ideas into being a call to action. We have a responsibility to our citizenry to preserve the safety and well-being our citizens against speech which crosses that line and enters into the realm of incitement if we value our society. It is not unreasonable to closely examine our laws and see if strengthening them is in the best interest of our society for the safety and security of our citizens. No slippery slope fallacy will negate this reasonable idea and the position that public safety should trump the “rights” of others to use speech to incite violence either directly or indirectly.
If you disagree with me and would like to debate me on the issue I am always open to reasonable formal debate. If you’d like to challenge me to such a debate please contact me:
casper@atheistrepublic.com
July 28, 2017
Eyeless in Gaza
In the Uri Avnery Column shares its perspective on Gaza.
I Have a unique confession to make: I like Gaza.
My heart goes out to them.
I Have spent quite a lot of time in the Strip. Once or twice I stayed there with Rachel for a couple of days. I became friendly with some people whom I admired, people like Dr. Haidar Abd-al-Shafi, the leftist doctor who set up the Gazan health system, and Rashad al-Shawa, the former Mayor, an aristocrat from birth.
After the Oslo agreement, when Yasser Arafat came back to the country and set up his office in Gaza, I met him there many times. I brought to him groups of Israelis. On his first day there he sat me on the dais next to him. A photo of that occasion now looks like science fiction.
I even came to know the Hamas people. Before Oslo, when Yitzhak Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists from the country, I took part in setting up protest tents opposite his office. We lived there together, Jews, Christians and Muslims, and there Gush Shalom was born. After a year, when the deportees were allowed back, I was invited to a public reception for them in Gaza and found myself speaking to hundreds of bearded faces. Among them were some of today's Hamas leaders.
Therefore I cannot treat the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as a faceless gray mass of people. I couldn't stop thinking about them during last week's terrible heat wave, about the people languishing in awful conditions, without electricity and air conditioning, without clean water, without medicines for the sick. I thought about those living in the houses severely damaged in the last wars and not repaired since. About the men and women, the old, the children, the toddlers, the babies.
My heart was bleeding, and was asking who was to blame.
Yes, who is to blame for this ongoing atrocity?
According To the Israelis, "the Palestinians themselves are to blame". Fact: the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has decided to reduce the electricity supply to Gaza from three hours a day to two. (The electricity is supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.)
This seems to be true. The conflict between the Palestinian Authority, ruled by Fatah, and the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, has come to an ugly climax.
The uninvolved bystander wonders: how can that be? After all, the entire Palestinian people are in existential danger. The Israeli government tyrannizes all Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. It keeps the Strip under a strangling blockade, on land, in the sea and in the air, and is setting up settlements all over the West Bank, to drive the population out.
In this desperate situation, how can the Palestinians fight each other, to the obvious delight of the occupation authorities?
That is terrible, but, sadly, not unique. On the contrary, in almost all liberation struggles, something similar has happened. During the Irish struggle for independence, the freedom fighters fought against each other and even shot each other. During our own struggle for statehood, the Haganah underground turned Irgun fighters over to the British police, who tortured them, and later shot up a ship bringing recruits and arms to the Irgun.
But these and many other examples do not justify what is happening now in Gaza. The struggle between Fatah and Hamas on the backs of two million people condemns these to inhuman living conditions.
As an old friend of the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation, I am deeply saddened.
But There are more partners to the atrocious blockade on Gaza.
Israel can blockade the Strip only on three sides. The fourth side is the Egyptian border. Egypt, which has in the past fought four major wars against Israel on behalf of the Palestinian brothers (in one of which I was wounded by an Egyptian machine-gunner) is now participating in the cruel blockade on the Strip.
What has happened? How did it happen?
Everyone who knows the Egyptian people knows that it is one of the most attractive peoples on earth. A very proud people. A people full of humor even in the most trying circumstances. Several times I have heard in Egypt phrases like: "We do not like the Palestinians very much, but they are our poor cousins, and we cannot abandon them under any circumstances!"
And here they are, not only abandoning, but cooperating with the cruel occupation.
All this why? Because the local rulers in Gaza are religious fanatics, just like the Muslim Brothers in Egypt who are the deadly enemies of today's Pharaoh, General Abd-al-Fatah al-Sisi. Because of this enmity, millions in Gaza are punished.
Now rumor has it that Egypt would relent, if the Gazans accept an Egyptian stooge as their ruler.
The Israeli blockade of Gaza is completely dependent on the Egyptian blockade. Proud Egypt, which claims to be the leader the entire Arab World, has become the handmaiden of the Israeli occupation.
Who would have believed it?.
But The main responsibility for the atrocity in Gaza falls, of course, on us, on Israel.
We are the occupiers – a novel type of occupation by blockade.
The justification is clear: They want to destroy us. That is the official doctrine of Hamas. The mouse hurls terrible threats against the elephant.
True. But…
But like all religious people, they find a hundred different ways to cheat God and get around His prohibitions.
Hamas has declared that if Mahmood Abbas made peace with Israel, and if the Palestinian people confirmed the peace by plebiscite, Hamas would accept it.
Also, Islam allows for a Hudna (armistice) with infidels for any length of time – 10, 50, 100 years. After that, Allah is great.
In many hidden ways, Israel does cooperate with Hamas, especially against the even more extreme Islamists in the Strip. We could easily reach a modus vivendi all along the line.
So Why must the people in Gaza suffer so grievously? No one really knows. Because of the mental laziness of the occupation. Because that's what we are used to doing.
Here is a mental exercise: What if we did the very opposite?
What if we announced to the people in the Gaza Strip: the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is now paying for only two hours of electricity a day. But seeing your suffering, Israel has decided to provide you with electricity for 24 hours for free.
What would be the effect? How would Hamas react? How would it affect the level of violence and security costs?
For the long run, there are many Israeli and international plans. An artificial island in the Mediterranean opposite Gaza. An airport on the island. A deep-sea port. Peace in fact, even without declarations.
I believe that this is the wisest way to proceed. But wisdom has little chance.
In The meantime, the atrocity goes on. Two million human beings suffer inhuman treatment.
And the world? Alas. the world is busy. It has no eyes for Gaza. Better not to think about that awful place.
Proper Politics
Pádraic Mac Coitir focuses on political fragmentation among radical groups working against the development of proper politics. Pádraic Mac Coitir has been apolitical activist from childhood. Is a political party the answer? If that party is truly revolutionary then possibly it could be. If it reverts to type and becomes part of the establishment then of course that kind of party is not worth anyone either supporting or joining.
Sinn Féin is the best example of how a once radical party which had some revolutionaries in its ranks can be sucked into a system it swore to bring down. It is now the complete opposite to what it claims to be. Once it abandoned the core issues during negotiations their once sworn enemies knew they had them and there was no going back.
Anyone who has read the article about phone calls Bill Clinton made to Adams will see how easily he was flattered and had his ego massaged. Of course the calls were carefully edited but now that we see where the leadership of SF is going it comes as no surprise.
Although SF does very well in elections in both the North and the Free State they are still in no position to bring about the end of British occupation and overthrow a corrupt system in the Free State. I'm not fixated with them but merely pointing out the dangers for others trying to emulate them. There are many out there committed to the goal of a Socialist Republic and it is indeed unfortunate there is little unity among the different groups/organisations.
I can understand the frustration with some but if we look at the state of society today I would argue now is the time for people to get together. We will always have our differences on certain issues but it's not good enough for us complain and whinge about the peelers, prisoners, injustice and all the things we have faced for generations. Other things that should concern us are the rise of food-banks, the many losing benefits, unemployment rising, poverty becoming more rife and all the effects this has on the working class. People don't necessarily have to join a political party to combat all of the above. If we sit and discuss the way forward we will bring others with us and even if it is as simple as setting up residents groups and giving power back to the people and away from those who purport to represent them it is a start.
All my adult life I have been involved in politics and have met many like-minded women and men and continue to meet many and we get frustrated and think we are banging our heads off a brick wall but those sentiments are natural. We only need read of how frustrated the great revolutionaries in our country and those involved in other countries got. So never mind those who we see and hear on the radio and TV so get out and get involved in proper politics!
July 27, 2017
Socialists Against Public Spending
Matt Treacy writes @ Brocaire Books on the DUP outflanking Sinn Fein.
Let’s face it, the DUP pulled off a master stroke. Such was the way in which the numbers fell after the British general election that it gave them the opportunity to do as any political party would do. Extract a big price for supporting the Tories.
And what was that price? Financially it means £300 million for the northern Ireland health service; £400 million for infrastructural investment including rural broadband; and £100 million to address urban deprivation. There are also provisions to allow Stormont to have more control over local taxation, including the lowering of the corporation tax rate.
Now, most minority left wing parties would consider having extracted such a deal from a right wing government to be a massive coup. Of course the DUP is not a left wing party, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. It does, however, have a mainly working class Protestant electoral base, and they are not stupid.
There are undoubtedly other aspects of the deal that will only become apparent if and when Stormont is revived. If it is then the DUP will not only have the First Ministership but will hold the whip hand. The whipped pups shall be Sinn Féin. Arlene is not going to be resigning any time soon and the demand for cultural concessions is considerably weakened.
My first thought was that the nature of the deal would persuade the DUP to perhaps not push for the revival of Stormont. However, some of the clauses to the agreement, such as the power to set taxation rates, would indicate that they do want the Executive and Assembly back in place. It is also the case that a party with so many MLAs and staff needs to have a financial income to sustain itself.
So too do Sinn Féin. All the indications since the election, despite their having done well, is that they are as sick as pigs. All of the hagiography of McGuinness and the delusional nonsense about being on the verge of a united Ireland has disappeared. They are arguably in a weaker position politically now than at anytime since the Good Friday Agreement 20 years ago.
To the extent that they are claiming that the DUP/Tory deal is a “threat to the peace process.” Which of course is nonsense. There is never going to be a return to armed conflict on any significant scale. What the deal is a threat to is their entire myth that the GFA was some inevitable pathway to a united Ireland.
Worst of all the DUP has even managed to outflank the shinners on the left. Having spent ten years in the Executive with the DUP, implementing all manner of austerity measures and presiding over some of the most socially crippled areas of the entire United Kingdom like West Belfast, the shinners are now absurdly complaining over a massive boost to public spending. In their Orwellian world, increasing public spending is part of “Tory austerity.” Presumably the only thing they do support is the DUP plan to reduce corporation tax. Which will go down well with the shinner friends on Wall Street.
So there we are. Republicans for Partition; nationalists for the surrender of sovereignty to Brussels. Socialists against public spending. We live in strange times.
Let’s face it, the DUP pulled off a master stroke. Such was the way in which the numbers fell after the British general election that it gave them the opportunity to do as any political party would do. Extract a big price for supporting the Tories.
And what was that price? Financially it means £300 million for the northern Ireland health service; £400 million for infrastructural investment including rural broadband; and £100 million to address urban deprivation. There are also provisions to allow Stormont to have more control over local taxation, including the lowering of the corporation tax rate.
Now, most minority left wing parties would consider having extracted such a deal from a right wing government to be a massive coup. Of course the DUP is not a left wing party, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. It does, however, have a mainly working class Protestant electoral base, and they are not stupid.
There are undoubtedly other aspects of the deal that will only become apparent if and when Stormont is revived. If it is then the DUP will not only have the First Ministership but will hold the whip hand. The whipped pups shall be Sinn Féin. Arlene is not going to be resigning any time soon and the demand for cultural concessions is considerably weakened.
My first thought was that the nature of the deal would persuade the DUP to perhaps not push for the revival of Stormont. However, some of the clauses to the agreement, such as the power to set taxation rates, would indicate that they do want the Executive and Assembly back in place. It is also the case that a party with so many MLAs and staff needs to have a financial income to sustain itself.
So too do Sinn Féin. All the indications since the election, despite their having done well, is that they are as sick as pigs. All of the hagiography of McGuinness and the delusional nonsense about being on the verge of a united Ireland has disappeared. They are arguably in a weaker position politically now than at anytime since the Good Friday Agreement 20 years ago.
To the extent that they are claiming that the DUP/Tory deal is a “threat to the peace process.” Which of course is nonsense. There is never going to be a return to armed conflict on any significant scale. What the deal is a threat to is their entire myth that the GFA was some inevitable pathway to a united Ireland.
Worst of all the DUP has even managed to outflank the shinners on the left. Having spent ten years in the Executive with the DUP, implementing all manner of austerity measures and presiding over some of the most socially crippled areas of the entire United Kingdom like West Belfast, the shinners are now absurdly complaining over a massive boost to public spending. In their Orwellian world, increasing public spending is part of “Tory austerity.” Presumably the only thing they do support is the DUP plan to reduce corporation tax. Which will go down well with the shinner friends on Wall Street.
So there we are. Republicans for Partition; nationalists for the surrender of sovereignty to Brussels. Socialists against public spending. We live in strange times.
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
