Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1206

Islamists Want Their Terrorism To Become The New Normal

From Maryam Namazie: This month’s piece in The Freethinker .

The Handmaid’s Tale ,
Since 1 June – that’s one week – there have been 25 terrorist attacks , including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia and the UK. The latest took place today in Iran.

Islamists want their terrorism to become the new normal.

In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale , women sex slaves are told:

"This might not seem ordinary to you right now. But, after a time, it will."

Yet, even after almost 40 years since the beginning of the contemporary Islamist movement in Iran and – though much has changed in all of our societies – their rule has still not become the “new normal”, hence the unrelenting violence.

This is because, like in The Handmaid’s Tale ,  where much seems lost, there is resistance. In our day and age, this takes various forms – from concerts to unveiling, blaspheming and fast-defying. Despite the threats, people resist because it is the only way one can feel alive and remain truly human – particularly when faced with a theocracy that wants to control every aspect of your life,  from how you dress to whom you choose to have sex with.

Instead of supporting the resistance, however, governments pander to populist xenophobia instead of targeting the Islamists, most of whom are already known to the security services, and continue business as usual with states that fund and promote terrorism, such as the Saudi and Iranian regimes. (Which is why for example,an investigation into the foreign funding of Islamist groups may never be published by the Home Office.)

They also actively promote everything from faith schools to Sharia courts, burqas, gender segregation, de facto or de jure blasphemy and apostasy laws and the silencing of criticism or rejection of Islam with calls for “respect” and “tolerance” of the disrespectful and intolerant.  These political manifestations of Islamist terrorism are constantly legitimised and wrapped in human rights language for public consumption in order to, in actuality, deny human rights.

And, whilst the body count piles high – particularly in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia – where the usual excuses of US-led militarism or racism don’t wash, they are busy falling over themselves to prove that Islamism and its terrorism have nothing to do with Islam, though any Islamist will tell you they are the “true believer” doing God’s dirty work.

Of course, fighting Islamism is a political fight first and foremost but there is also a need to simultaneously fight Islamist ideology and that means being able to unrelentingly criticise, mock and reject Islam. That’s not to say that the right to religion is not a basic human right. It is, as is – by the way – freedom from religion. But it is a right for the individual. In the state, the law and educational system, religion is the religious-Right’s tool to control and oppress.

Ironically, though, it is only the Islamists and the religious-Right that are household names – from Al-Baghdadi, Bin Laden, Khamenei to the Saudi King, whilst not many know the names and struggles of Bonya Ahmed, Fauzia Ilyas, Houzan Mahmoud, Marieme Helie Lucas, Waleed Al Husseini and Zehra Pela.

But they are the names we must all know in the battle that lies ahead – today’s suffragettes, civil rights leaders, anti- [gender] apartheid heroes, the anti-fascist resistance … though they are hardly recognised as such and often vilified as “Islamophobes” and “native informants”. This blaming of victims and dissenters is part and parcel of the Islamist narrative peddled by governments unable and unwilling to put human welfare and lives before profit.

And it is this resistance from Kobane to Sulaymaniyah to Tehran and even in the heart of Europe that can and will bring Islamism to its knees.

Many members of today’s resistance against Islamism and its ideology will be speaking at the 22-24 July International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression in the 21st century.
They include: Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Egyptian Nude Photo Revolutionary; Bonya Ahmed, a published author and moderator at the renowned Bangladeshi Mukto-mona blog begun by the murdered blogger Avijit Roy; filmmaker Deeyah Khan who recently produced Islam’s Non Believers; Fauzia Ilyas who founded Atheist Agnostic Alliance Pakistan; Egyptian founder of Black Ducks Ismail Mohamed who was the first Egyptian to publicly announce his atheism on national TV; Mazen Abou Hamden, co-Founder of Freethought Lebanon; Mohammed AlKhadra, Founder of Jordanian Atheists Group; Nadia ElFani, Tunisian Filmmaker accused of blasphemy; Rana Ahmed who anonymously held an “Atheist” sign in Mecca; Performance artist Shabana Rehman who is known for Mullah-lifting; Waleed Al Husseini, writer arrested by the Palestinian Authority for blasphemy; Zehra Pala, President of Atheism Association of Turkey, the first legally recognised Atheist Organisation and Zineb El Rhazoui, a Morocco-born former columnist for Charlie Hebdo who was away when the publication’s office was attacked and many of her colleagues murdered.

Support the resistance; find out more about their work and how you can support them.  Get your tickets to the historic conference today.

Needless Pain Inflicted On Innocent People

Via The Transcripts John McDonagh and Martin Galvin for  RFÉ 10 June 2017, speak to Kate Nash of the Bloody Sunday March for Justice via telephone  from Doire about the Free Derry Museum’s decision to put up the names of those members of the Crown Forces killed in Doire during the ‘Free Derry’ era of The Troubles. 

WBAI 99.5FM Pacifica Radio
New York City
listen on the internet: wbai.org Saturdays Noon EST
Audio Player
(begins time stamp ~ 21:05)


Martin: Okay, we’re back. Back in Doire with Kate Nash. Kate, it was great to see you at the commemoration or the mural unveiling, the formal unveiling, for George McBrearty and I know at that time you were very concerned about what was happening in Free Derry Museum. I couldn’t believe – I know we were angry when this happened in Dublin with the names of Irish patriots then but that this should happen in Doire is unbelievable. John is on the line. John is going to open up the questioning on this.

Kate: Okay. Thank you, Martin.

John: Yeah, the one great things now about technology is you get to see what’s going on in Doire and all throughout Ireland almost instantaneously and then I saw on Facebook that I’m friends with Kate Nash that she had discovered that the names of British soldiers and RUC (Royal Ulster  Constabulary) men were up in the Free Derry Museum.
Artwork by Brian Mór. Donated to Free Derry Museum by Tim Myles.
So I know that Brian Mór had artwork hanging up there, I went and seen it twice at least myself when I was over in Doire, and I talked to people at the National Irish Freedom Committee and Brian Mór’s partner, Joan Messina, and I said: You know what? Bernie would not like this having his artwork displayed with the names of British soldiers who were actually shooting down the people to prevent ‘Free Derry’. So if you go to my Facebook – I put up the statement at Cabtivist dot com – or just Cabtivist on Facebook and it says:

Brian Mor O’Baoighill was deeply honored when his artwork was donated and displayed in The Museum of Free Derry. He would be horrified to learn that the Museum now includes a display honoring the RUC and British Soldiers who died during that same time period – giving them equal status to the innocent civilians who were murdered at their hands. While the concept of truth and reconciliation may have it’s place, the basic premise calls for honesty. A list to honor all people who died during the time period is neither honest nor honorable. Accordingly, the partner and friends of Brian Mor O’Baoighill who facilitated the donation of his artwork are requesting that until the list is removed, his artwork will be removed from the exhibit, and given to Kate Nash for safe keeping.

And I’d like to say: We sent this over, we called up Kate, she said send me the statement and I’ll head right over to the museum. And maybe, Kate, you can pick it up from there. Or, how did you find out and what is the feeling of the people in Doire that the names of the British soldiers who tried to prevent ‘Free Derry’ are in the exhibit?

Kate: Well there’s a great deal of anger as you would imagine. Doire still feels the pain – it’s an open wound what happened here on Bloody Sunday. But of course, we’ve lost lots of other innocent people here – children among them. Friends of mine, who are still fighting – fighting to even have inquests. So of course there’s a great deal – well of anger really and I think puzzlement, too, at what the hell this museum is at. But I do think probably, I’m hoping anyway, but I do think that you giving me that letter to actually take to the museum I’m hoping will have a great deal of influence on what they’re actually doing or at least give them time to ponder. You know, I mean this is – it’s very hurtful. And it’s needless pain that’s inflicted on innocent people.

Martin: Kate, this is Martin Galvin. Could you tell us or explain what the Free Derry Museum is and who made this decision? I believe it’s due to open next week but who made this decision to put the names of British troops, of the RUC – names which are so hurtful to you and others – who are victims of people who have never been brought before the courts for killing innocent Irish people in Doire?

Kate: Well I could say straight out: just Sinn Féin. I couldn’t tell you who, particularly, but I do know Sinn Féin are in charge. This is a museum they run and the fact of the matter is any decisions made about it they would make. Now I was told there’s preconditions if you get funding. Now I know they got funding with the renovation of that museum. But however there’s preconditions and obviously they have agreed to some things and that would be it about soldiers and RUC being put up as well as UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) being put up there alongside victims of the state. I couldn’t give you the actual person but the Bloody Sunday Trust runs this museum and I know the Bloody Sunday Trust would be Sinn Féin.

Martin: Alright. And I know that in addition to the demand that you made for the return of Brian Mór O’Baoghill’s artwork there are other families who have asked that their different artifacts – clothing that they wore when they were killed – that other families have gone with you and protested and demanded that their items…(crosstalk; inaudible)

Kate: …Yes. There were some families there with me. I don’t, I really don’t try to influence them; it’s not something I put out widely to tell let people know that’s happening, you know, because I kind of just let people make up their own mind. But definitely there were some families, I think six or seven, represented as well as wounded. And there was a lady there, and you know I’d rather not say her name over the airwaves, but there was a lady there and yes – she was saying if they didn’t
Martin: Alright. John, you have a question?

John: Yeah. You know what, Kate? The irony of all this is it shows they consulted with no one. There was an article in the
Kate: …Absolutely. Schizophrenic – the things that happen here – schizophrenic!

Martin: Okay. So Kate, you’re going to have a meeting with them but this is not going to happen until after the museum opens, is that correct? I mean once people come in, the public starts to see it, how does it make any sense to have the consultation then instead of beforehand when you can do something to take down these names, to stop giving offence, before the museum opens?

Kate: Well I have to clarify that: They haven’t said they’re going to talk to me and I would be very surprised if they did, to be honest. They may have tried to talk to some other members of my family and I would say I think the ones I was talking to just recently are not very happy with it, you know? I haven’t been able to talk to all of my family but the ones I’ve been talking to are not happy with it. Other than that I don’t think they will be talking to me. I’m not one of the people they would consult with, I’m afraid. Although I would have a perfect right, of course, to do so. He was my brother. He was my brother, too, and I should have a say in what goes on, you know? In fact, in saying that, Martin, we do not have anything personal in that museum. We simply have a photograph and it’s one photograph – it’s the only photograph we actually own of our brother because nobody in those days – nobody had cameras, they were expensive little things and nobody had them. So we only had one photograph of our brother – that’s the photograph they have. (We have copies. We all have copies.) Other than a statement of my father, a statement of my father’s which is public – it’s in the public sector, so it doesn’t matter, you know? We have nothing personal like other families have actual objects and clothing and things like that. I would certainly, if I had anything like that, I would want it out of there as I’m sure if they had something belonging to a police officer or a soldier or anything like that you can be sure it would be out pretty quick.

Martin: Okay.

Kate: I don’t believe they’ve consulted with anybody and you see therein lies the problem. They just don’t ask people – they just go ahead – same as they do with the Bobby Sands’ family – they just use their stuff and it doesn’t matter how the family feels or how the family are hurt. Thus is the way they behave.

Martin: Okay. Now Kate, I did want to ask you: The last time you were on we were talking – there were no charges against troopers for Bloody Sunday for the people who were killed – fourteen people including your brother – and we’re at the point where we were very near to that decision being made. Now the DUP is – we’re going to cover this with Eamon Sweeney – but the Democratic Unionists Party – they are going to be involved very much – they supposed to be kingmakers for Theresa May as a result of the British general election.

Kate: Yes.

Martin: And one of the things that they have spoken about or they are expected to ask is for a statue of limitations so that the British troops who were never prosecuted will now never be prosecuted. What’s your reaction…

Kate: …Yes, that’s very high on their priority list.

Martin: Alright. Is there anything…

Kate: …Well of course I would be…

Martin: Go ahead.

Kate: Sorry, I can’t hear.

Martin: Sorry, go ahead, Kate.

Kate: I would expect – I’m not exactly sure what you said there, Martin. I didn’t hear too well.

Martin: Alright. What is your feeling about that – the idea that there would be a statute of limitations at the behest of the DUP, with the British government, proclaimed for the North of Ireland, so that British troopers who killed Irish people under circumstances which were unjustified and unjustifiable, which amounted to murder or manslaughter, where they, who would be shielded from the courts, would never have to face a court after all the campaigning that you and the Bloody Sunday families – after all the campaigning by other families for inquests, for truth, for justice for their family members who were killed?

Kate: I would be absolutely devastated, Martin. I’m not sure, I’m not sure I could recover from something like that be honest. I have worked very hard, as everybody knows, to get prosecutions, to get justice for my brother and I simply couldn’t recover if somebody told me I wasn’t able to do it. I mean that would not – that’s a police state you’re talking about – that is not a democracy. The law must work. I know we’ve waited forty-five years but the law must work. A crime was committed here on Bloody Sunday – innocent people, lots of innocent people shot, fourteen died – many hundreds were brutalised, arrested and brutalised, by the same troops – there has to be justice for all of us. There has to be.

Martin: Alright. And Kate, one of the things that we spoke about at the George McBrearty…by the way, Jim Sullivan is here and wants to say hello.

Jim: Hi, Kate. It’s Jim Sullivan. It’s nice to hear your voice again.

Kate: Hello, Jim. How are you?

Jim: I’m pretty good. How are you feeling?

Kate: I’m very well, thank you.

Martin: Alright. One of the things that we spoke about at the George McBrearty commemoration was the idea why isn’t – why haven’t any of these troopers been charged with perjury? Judge Saville, after listening to their testimony, basically said that their testimony was obviously untrue – which would amount to perjury – it would contradict what they said at the initial – when a commanding officer now, when an officer named Mike Jackson took statements that make no sense, that were totally, physically impossible about the original shot (inaudible) – why is it that, at the very least, none of those British troops have been prosecuted for perjury, that they lied under oath, and not be brought before a court for that and use that to leverage them, to make them flip, to get information about who actually gave the orders – what was going on at the time that these people were killed on Bloody Sunday?

Daniel HegartyKate: Well apparently, and Michael Bridge as you know has great – he’s one of the wounded – Michael has great detail on that and that has been an on-going problem for him. He’s brought it up at every single police meeting with the families and he brought it up recently, too, with the Public Prosecution Service – just nobody’s been listening to him. Michael has pushed and pushed and pushed for this for years – years – and finally at the last meeting they did say that they’re going to be reviewing that. Look, what happened there was simply this: The PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) made a deal with the Metropolitan Police to not do anything about perjury and to make it about the bigger crime – murder. So that’s really what happened there but it is now, it is now being – we think they’re going to deal with it so I don’t know how long this is going to take. I really don’t know. They said they would give us a time frame at the end of the summer.

Now it could be – there’s a family right now who waited four years to get a decision and Barra McGrory then refused. He said the soldier was just (the soldier doesn’t even say this by the way) but Barra McGrory said it, the Public Prosecutor, that the soldier thought he was defending himself – this was against a little fifteen year old who was the size of a twelve year old but they are now challenging that in the High Court on the sixteenth of this month.

Martin: Alright. And we’ll have to leave it there. Kate, good luck with fighting Free Derry Museum.

Kate: Thank you very much, Martin, for having me on.

Martin: Oh, it’s always a pleasure. We want to thank you again and hopefully something can be done before that Free Derry Museum opens up so that British troops and members of the RUC responsible for victimising and murdering and brutalisation and oppression are not there alongside the names of those they victimised. Alright, thank you, Kate.

Kate: Thank you very much, Martin.

(ends time stamp ~ 36:27)

Bobby Sands, 65 Days

Daithi O’Donnabhain discusses summer wear choices. Daithi O’Donnabhain is a regular commenter on TPQ.

As with every Irish person living abroad, I like/need to wear at least one item of clothing with Ireland emblazoned across it at all times.

The Sinn Fein online shop can be useful in this regard, but on closer inspection of a Bobby Sands Polo Shirt [1], I am struggling to understand the significance of some items on the design.

What is the significance of “65 Days” in the Bobby Sands story? I would imagine “66 Days” might of been better as it was the length of his hunger strike in days, but perhaps 65 is more important than that for reasons I do not know. 


Embroidered logo on shirt close up
Reference

[1] http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/bobby-sands-polo-top/

Multitudes Are Learning The Truth

Chris Fogarty in a letter sent to the Irish Independent writes:

It could not be clearer: Ireland is not free; not a sovereign nation.No truly sovereign nation would conceal a five million person genocide of its own people by an occupying power. Why did and do Ireland’s government lie about it? Ireland’s consciences such as GBS have railed against the lie of “famine,” unavailingly it seems. That old lie is plausibly re-planted in “Famine got under my skin.” (Irish Independent/The Kerryman 17/6/2017).

Meanwhile, multitudes are learning the truth; that it took more than half of Britain’s military (67 of its 130 regiments total) to perpetrate that Holocaust* (An t-Ár Mór).

In recent years the otherwise conscientious Marist Brother who had taught for generations in Co. Roscommon was asked; “If you now say it was genocide, why did you teach us all famine?” His tragic, unacceptable answer: “I had no choice: I had to teach the curriculum as provided to me by the government.” 

The Irish did not go down easily; the at-gunpoint robbery of Ireland’s producers of its abundant livestock, meats, grains and other food crops required more British soldiery than had conquered the Indian Subcontinent. The genetically-Irish Connaught Rangers were kept overseas throughout 1845-1850. The Munster Fusiliers did not exist yet.

*”Holocaust” from the 1847 Cork Examiner, from Michael Davitt, and other published works at the time.

Treated Appallingly By The Tory Government

Mick Hall @ Organized Rage asks:

Why have the former tenants of Grenfell Tower who survived the fire not received help from the British government?


The former tenants of Grenfell Tower are now homeless, so far they have been treated appallingly by the Tory government. The PM did not have the common decency to speak to a single one when she visited the area yesterday for a PR promo. These folk have lost all their personal possessions, clothing and furniture, and the roof over their heads. Yet despite there being countless empty houses and apartments owned by British and overseas investors within the millionaire rows across the Capital, they have been shipped off to hotels or bed and breakfast flea pits.

Why have the Tory government not requisitioned, if only temporarily, these empty houses and flats and moved these poor souls into them?

Sitting in hotel room or bed and breakfast will make it nigh on impossible for them to even begin to rebuild their shattered lives. Make no mistake - if the government fails to act most of these people will remain homeless for a long time, which would be adding injury to their current misery and despair.

They have had to rely on charity for the clothing which cover their bodies, thankfully fellow residents on their estate and ordinary folk from across London and beyond have turned out to help them in large numbers. But why should they have to rely on charity? Where are the Marks & Spencers, Debenhams, Harrods and John Lewes, etc? Why have they not opened their doors to the victims of the fire and allowed them to chose new clothing for free? If the stores are unwilling to cover the cost let them give the bill to the British government. I doubt a single taxpayer would begrudge them this in their time of need.

SDLP Wipe Out

Via The Transcripts Radio Free Eireann's Martin Galvin speaks to journalist Eamon Sweeney via telephone from Doire who provides analysis of the results of the recent general election in the United Kingdom.

WBAI 99.5FM Pacifica Radio
New York City
listen on the internet: wbai.org Saturdays Noon ESTAudio Player
(begins time stamp ~ 38:00)

Martin: And with us on the line we have Doire-based journalist, Eamon Sweeney. Eamon, welcome back to Radio Free Éireann.

Eamon: Thank you, Martin.

Martin: Eamon, on today’s Irish News there is a big cartoon on the front page and it has Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, and she is on her knees saying: ‘Your Majesty, I wish to form a new government’ and the person that is wearing the crown and that Theresa May is kneeling in front of is Arlene Foster, the head of the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party).
Cartoon by Ian Knox. Source: The Irish News
And I’m reading about how Theresa May will be quote unquote ‘in office not in power’, various other things – they’re talking about the DUP wagging the conservative – the tail being – that wags the conservative dog. How did we come to this? Theresa May did not have to call an election. She could have waited. This was supposed to be an election that she thought would bring in a bigger majority, give her a bigger say and now she’s, figuratively speaking, proverbially on her knees in front of the DUP making concessions to get their support. How did that come about? How did it happen?

Eamon: Well to put it in context: Almost exactly a year ago we had a referendum that was brought about by the previous Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, based on the UK’s status within the European Union (EU) and their desire to either stay or to go. It was as simple as that. He promised an election (inaudible) himself and he didn’t believe, I think – and nobody would believe at that time – that the UK electorate would actually vote in favour of leaving the European Union but that’s exactly what happened. Now the ramifications from that were: Number One, Cameron had to resign. He was replaced by Theresa May as prime minister. She then initiated a process of departure from the European Union which is going to take around two years to complete. In order to push that through she went to the British electorate with the suggestion that there will be an election. I think she called it around two months ago. It happened on Thursday – and it was a gamble which spectacularly backfired for her.
She and a lot of others thought the Conservative Party would win a landslide. In fact what happened was that she narrowly scraped by in terms of numerical superiority over the British Labour Party. In order for her to continue in government she has now had to go, basically cap in hand, to the Democratic Unionist Party here in Northern Ireland; they returned ten MPs on Thursday night. Effectively they are now in a massively strong position, the Democratic Unionist Party, because Theresa May has no option but to form some sort of association – it’s not being called a coalition by either the DUP or the Conservative Party at the moment – but she needs them desperately in order to retain power. So what they want basically will be given to them – I would imagine in terms of concessions – and that’s why we’re arriving today at the situation where you have that cartoon on the front of the Irish News. The negotiations behind the scenes are going on straightaway. The Chief Whip of the Conservative Party is actually in Belfast this afternoon negotiating with the DUP. (Negotiating might be a strong term for it – basically the DUP will be telling him what they want from this deal.) And that’s exactly where we are. It’s been a very strange two years in politics in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.

Martin: And Theresa May, we should explain: The British system, it’s a parliamentary system as is the Irish system. It’s, for example, in the United States the head of the – the Speaker of the House – is elected separately based on the number of members in the House of Representatives let us say – it’s separately from the president. In Britain and in Ireland the head of the – the prime minister is the person – is like the Speaker of the House. It’s the person who can make up a majority of votes within the House. So Theresa May – she lost her Conservative Party…

Eamon: …Yes….

Martin: …lost thirteen seats. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn gained thirty seats and they got close enough where Theresa May needed the DUP votes to make a majority to keep her in office. Now, some of the things that people are suggesting or think that they might be asking might include a statute of limitations for British troops for events like Bloody Sunday and other killings; it may be something like a change in the Parades Commission which puts regulations on parading, Loyalist and Unionist parades; it may be no special status in the European Community which would certainly affect you in Doire and other areas affected and make Brexit, the effects of it, much worse. What are some of the other things that we might expect the Democratic Unionist Party to demand and get from Theresa May in order to keep her in power?

Eamon: Well, what you’ve just said I would imagine are the fundamentals of what they would desire to have on their list of demands. Interestingly, the talks to re-start Stormont begin once more first thing on Monday morning. I would imagine what’s happening this afternoon, with the Conservative Party representatives and the DUP, is that they are putting their demands - along those very lines that you suggested - to the Conservative Party. The ramifications of the coalition with the Conservative Party in the UK and the DUP for Northern Ireland could be huge. It could have serious bearings on whether or not Stormont actually comes back or not. Sinn Féin for example, the second largest party, as you know, in The North, withdrew from Stormont quite some months ago now and Martin McGuinness, before his death, actually triggered the fall of that. The fundamental, one of the fundamental parts of trying to get a lasting agreement at Stormont is, of course – you’re quite right, dealing with the killings. Nationalists, of course, want everybody, including state killers, brought to bear. Unionists say there’s a disproportionate amount of concentration on bringing prosecutions or attempted prosecutions against British soldiers, for example, who killed people whilst they were on service here. And it has to be said neither of those scenarios effectively help the victims in any way – either on the Unionist or the Nationalist side. So it’s been real turmoil for all the families involved on all sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland and it has been a real, real stumbling block between the DUP and Sinn Féin as to how to proceed.

If, I would imagine, that the DUP demands that the statute of limitations be enacted in order to give immunity from prosecution to soldiers, for example, I can’t see Stormont will be resurrected again. I get the sense from Sinn Féin that they’re not overtly concerned whether Stormont actually returns or not at the moment; they have other fish to fry both in Dublin and now they’ve got their seats – of course which they don’t take – at Westminster. They don’t sit inside the chamber because they will not take an oath of allegiance to the British monarch – that’s been a fundamental core principle of Sinn Féin politics for years. But locally in terms of what has happened in terms of Nationalism at this Westminster election, this British UK election, is that the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the SDLP, were effectively wiped out on Thursday night. They had three MPs, one of which was the local MP for Doire, Mark Durkan, and the other was Alasdair McDonnell you know and one again was Margaret Ritchie – all three of these personalities were former leaders of the SDLP.

So for the first time in many centuries, I suppose, the voice of Irish Nationalism has no representation at Westminster whatsoever in terms of people actually going into the chamber. Whilst there are seven Sinn Féin MPs elected to the British parliament as of Thursday night they don’t sit inside the chamber. So back and forward you have the argument there about abstentionism to Westminster – they say they won’t. In order for them basically to try and offset the hard Brexit that is being sought by Theresa May and offset the very serious economic ramifications that it will have for places like Doire and border areas in the North of Ireland – they can’t do so because they won’t go in and take their seats. Now, it didn’t seem to matter to the electorate that that would be the case because their eventual eclipse of the SDLP is now finalised – it’s complete. The SDLP – where they go from here, nobody actually knows. Will the SDLP, for example, ever bother contesting another election at Westminster? It remains to be seen because they’ve gone! You will vividly remember twenty-odd years ago, Martin, when the SDLP representatives at senior levels would have quite arrogantly said that Sinn Féin would never, ever eclipse them electorally and they have. They’ve totally decimated them in terms of Nationalist representation. It’s a strange one. For Doire itself and people, your listenership in New York, will would know very well the character of John Hume and his regular visits and just not to Washington (inaudible) has the electoral decline in the SDLP has been huge.

Martin: Eamon, the peace process, one of the first steps in it was a statement by a British minister that the British government had no selfish or strategic interest in the North of Ireland and that was supposed to signal that the British government was going to be neutral and that by coming to a resolution, by coming, you know working in Stormont itself, you could have neutrality, you could have Sinn Féin working with the DUP or working with Unionist representatives gradually doing away with some of the injustices of British rule, gradually getting to a point where you could get to a united Ireland. This whole structure in which Theresa May is, figuratively speaking, kneeling to Arlene Foster to keep her in power, that is going to be exactly the opposite. You’re going to have Theresa May propping up, favouring, trying to use/introduce legislation which helps the DUP which does not work towards a united Ireland. Wouldn’t that be the case?

Eamon: Well the statement all those years ago, I think it was (former Northern Ireland Secretary of State) Patrick Mayhew who made that, I always regarded that as something to coax Republicans in from the cold in order to take part in negotiations and help Sinn Féin convince the IRA, for example, that the peaceful, democratic route was the one to take. If anybody actually believes that the British don’t have any selfish or strategic motives for remaining in Ireland then they’re crazy. That’s been borne out by the actions of the British government since that statement was made all those years ago in terms of the open and transparent methods that they suggested have never taken place – especially with the examination or looking at the actions of their own British troops in Ireland so I always thought that was much more of a soundbite than a reality, as a matter of fact.
But where we go from here? I mean it’s – the departure from the EU for Britain has brought a lot of things sharply into focus especially in Ireland – especially in the North of Ireland. We’ve had to take a step back and watch basically. The UK, as it was, in terms of a union between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales is crumbling; it is dissolving around them. The Scots, for example, are making great strides again towards demanding another referendum for independence which eventually will be successful. I mean it’s a matter of keeping going back there until the matter is resolved – in terms of Scotland. England, I think, is a place largely defined at the beginning of the evolution by Tony Blair all those years ago where he was only interested in basically creating a separated England for the square mile in London in terms of economics. He didn’t want responsibility in fact for Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales – at all. All he wanted to do was keep them in terms of resources and taxation and that’s essentially what the three, peripheral Celtic nations mean to England – is to bleed them for more taxation and more money – as much as possible as far as I can see. It will eventually, I mean this British election that took place three days ago it was basically, in all but name, a border referendum in Ireland. It distilled the question about remaining or leaving the United Kingdom for Northern Ireland down into the basic tenet between Nationalists and Unionists yet again. Both those main parties that dominate the political scene in Northern Ireland, i.e. the DUP and Sinn Féin, are those who have been successful at the British election and that tells you that the argument delineated along those lines still exists the same way as it did thirty years ago but with the absence of a conflict. It hasn’t been resolved. All elections that take place in Northern Ireland (inaudible).

Dublin, as ever, are making great noises about representing Nationalist views in The North. As we both know that has often been a case of lip-service down the decades. The SDLP, for their part, where they go I really don’t know but it’s interesting to note that an old argument from Fianna Fáil, the Nationalist party in Dublin, where once both the SDLP and those in Fianna Fáil will want to merge into one party – that’s never happened. There’s now suggestions yet again that come the next local elections in Northern Ireland , which are due in 2019, that Fianna Fáil will cross the border and stand candidates at local level to test the water and that means, if that happens, the SDLP may completely disappear forever because people may opt to give Fianna Fail a vote because they think they will have a say-so therefore in Dublin after that. So it’s all very much up in the air. The likelihood of Theresa May being able to maintain what she kept calling a ‘stable government in Britain’ with the help of the Democratic Unionist Party is negligible. I honestly believe that before the autumn arrives there’ll probably be another general election. I also honestly believe that in the coming months in Belfast at Stormont there will be another assembly election as well. People…

Martin: Alright, Eamon. Eamon, sorry, we just have to close there. We’re closing off. We do want to thank you. We have a lot of potential elections that’ll have to be covered. And again, that cartoon – just Theresa May bowing down to the Democratic Unionist Party and Arlene Foster – it seems to say it all. Alright, thank you, Eamon, and thank you very much for that analysis. Wish we had more time.
(ends time stamp ~ 54:37)

Calm Down - Don't Panic

Former Blanket columnist Dr John Coulter seeks to map out how the Democratic Unionist Party will influence the Westminster landscape in the coming days.
Don’t panic! Don’t panic! The iconic chant of Corporal Jones from the historic BBC sitcom, Dad’s Army, should apply to the British mainland at the looming prospect of the Tory/Democratic Unionist coalition government at Westminster.
My ‘calm down’ analysis is based on almost 40 years in Irish journalism, covering the fortunes of the DUP as the movement has risen from fringe status within the Unionist family, to the overwhelming voice of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland.
I grew up in the old Bannside Stormont constituency where DUP founder and Hell fire preacher, the late Rev Ian Paisley, launched his party under its original title – the Protestant Unionist Party.
The DUP in a current coalition Commons government cannot be judged on its past, especially with its flirtations with loyalist paramilitaries. Many DUP members and supporters donned combat gear and marched with groups, such as the Ulster Third Force and Ulster Resistance Movement.
However, the hard political reality is that DUP2017 is a mirror image of the Unionist party it has eclipsed – the more moderate Ulster Unionists. Essentially, DUP2017 is UUP1987 under the leadership of the late Lord Molyneaux.
The internet has been buzzing furiously as many try to find out more about the new kingmakers of British politics, given that in the past the former South Down UUP MP Enoch Powell – famed for his ‘rivers of blood’ speech – once branded the DUP as the Protestant Sinn Fein.
Noted for its hardline Christian fundamentalist stance against same sex marriage, gay rights and abortion, the DUP was even branded the Protestant Taliban by gay rights activists.
But the DUP is a pragmatic movement. When Paisley senior originally launched the DUP in 1971, it was a political shotgun marriage of two voiceless sections of the Protestant community – evangelical Christians and the loyalist working class.
However, people in mainland Britain should not be panicking that the price of Theresa May’s coalition with the DUP will be a return to Cromwellian-style witch finder general puritan social policies.
The DUP will be primarily interested in a generous financial package for Northern Ireland and will not seek to meddle in mainland laws. While Scottish Tory boss Ruth Davidson, who is openly gay, has expressed serious concerns about the DUP’s social wish list, there is little chance of the DUP demanding a draconian fundamentalist Christian series of laws akin to the party’s notorious ‘Save Ulster From Sodomy’ campaign during the reign of Rev Paisley.
Instead, rather than talk of a Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit, the DUP will be negotiating that PM May delivers a Best Brexit for Northern Ireland in return for the 10 DUP votes in the Commons.
All mainland politicians should note that the DUP is a political beast which puts party first. Just because the DUP has agreed to prop up May’s Government in this parliamentary session does not mean the DUP will be glued to the Tories at the hip. 
Should May face a serious leadership challenge and another snap poll called, Labour chief Jeremy Corbyn must be ready to hand out political olive branches to the DUP as part of any future anti-Tory ‘rainbow coalition’ at Westminster, given that Sinn Fein’s seven MPs still refuse to take their seats. 
The DUP and Sinn Fein worked together in the Stormont power-sharing Executive and hold 17 out of Ulster’s 18 Commons seats – the 18th seat held by Independent Unionist Sylvia Hermon. 
If Corbyn can use his republican connections to persuade Sinn Fein to dump abstentionism, those 18 votes could well be the tipping point which hands the Labour boss the keys to Downing Street. 
Traditionally, the DUP, while it has been to the Right on the Union and the British Constitution, it has equally been to the Left on many social issues. Unlike the rival Ulster Unionists, the DUP is not known for airing its dirty political linen in public. All DUP infighting is largely done behind closed doors.
True, for many years the DUP was dominated by Paisley’s Christian fundamentalism, but its current boss Arlene Foster is ex-UUP and an Anglican. The DUP’s hardline stance on gay rights and abortion has more to do with keeping the fundamentalist faction on board than discrimination against homosexuality. 
Whilst the DUP was seen mainly as a working class movement, to become the primary voice for Unionism it had to sell itself in the middle class heartlands once dominated by the UUP. 
The DUP will also seek a cash package from PM May aimed at restoring the collapsed Stormont institutions, but realises this could include a period of Direct Rule from Westminster in the short term while a new peace deal with Sinn Fein is hammered out. 
Part of the negotiation for this could be a return to the Good Friday Agreement ruling that the posts of First and Deputy First Minister at Stormont are decided by community designation – unionist or nationalist – rather than the largest parties. This would ease the case for those who wish to see a merger of the DUP and UUP to form a single pro-Union party.

Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter

Breaking With Qatar

Stanley Cohen, writing for Counterpunch, discusses the isolation of Qatar.


I also suspect that with Trump in the vanguard there is a great chance he will turn a periodic and unfortunate regional flex into a tragic raging fire. Lost for meaning and purpose… it’s what he does best.

I’m no stranger to the region having spent much time there, over the past few decades, as a welcome guest, attorney, advisor and friend who has seen and shared in both its beauty and its pain.

There’s no country, in the Middle East, Gulf and parts of Africa, where I’ve not been asked to provide counsel to persons and movements… including some designated as “terrorist” by those against whom they struggle, or by governments that call them friend or foe alike.

I’ve been to Qatar … often. Though I may have disagreed with some of its policies, on whole, that matters little. Mature political minds learn to distinguish between what’s wanted and what’s needed… and do so without sacrificing principles along the way.

More important, decades of travel on the hard scrabble roads of resistance and dissent… and years of courtroom battles all over the world… have left me with a pretty good understanding of who I am and why.

I’m a fan of Qatar and have been since my first visit some 15 years ago.  Do I say this as some starry eyed kid impressed with its wealth or friendship with friends? Not at all.  I’ve seen much more opulence in the palaces of Saudi Arabia. However, in KSA, I’ve seen none of the reach for personal choice and freedom that stretches throughout Doha.

There are more than a few things that impress me about Qatar. It’s willingness to host a veritable who’s who of international players and adversaries, as so much the Switzerland of the region, stands alone. In no other regional state do we see such an institutional effort to keep open channels of communication and, at times, negotiation around complex issues replete with risk for hosts and guests alike.

After all, when these channels close, civilians die and refugees flee by the millions only to become stateless… and vulnerable for generations to come.  It is the nature of today’s political warfare by proxy.

Indeed, back in the day, it was not at all unusual for prominent “supporters” of Al Qaeda to walk in one door of a Doha hotel while US government officials came thru another. No, this was not a part of any grand international tripartite conspiracy, but rather a much needed opportunity for adversaries to try to ratchet down the violence. And when all others turned their back on any hope, was it not Qatar that welcomed the Taliban and representatives of the Afghan government to see if a peaceful conclusion to decades of suffering might be reached?  How many former hostages from throughout the world are today with their families due to the willingness of Qatar to negotiate… when others died through the sanctimonious refusal of some states to do so?

On still other occasions, leaders of various resistance movements would attend government sponsored conferences in Doha that also drew “NGO’”s from the very states against which they fought. No doubt, among their ranks were government officials. I’m not suggesting that any formal back channels were in play. None were. But, at times, people need to hear in private what can’t be said in public. It’s very much the art of life, if not just survival.

Indeed, at one such conference, I had a long “discussion” with someone who introduced himself to me as the “Deputy Mayor” of Jerusalem. Sure. Needless to say, things between us got heated… and when they did, he told his nervous Mossad bodyguards to take a walk. They did so even while hotel guests turned to get a front row seat for the argument that ensued.

At moments of intense confrontation, if not conflict, in the region, in Doha there always seemed to be efforts underway to facilitate a step back from the madness. Was it for personal economic gain or prominence? Of course not. There’s only so much wealth and position one requires as companion to their journey. Unfortunately some have not learned this lesson.

Over the years, I’ve attended conferences throughout the Arab and Muslim world where government officials hosted an impressive array of experts, human rights activists, and scholars who came together concerned about tragedies old and new. In more than a few, I’ve been a presenter. Though I left them all inspired by the solidarity and voice of the moment, very few translated into action. This was never the case for those hosted by Qatar.

Am I suggesting that Qatar has not, at times, been a partisan in some of the regional struggles… even bloody ones? Of course not, but who hasn’t?

Indeed, Doha has long been home to the political leadership of Hamas, a resistance movement seen throughout the region, and much of the world, not as a terrorist group but rather a national liberation movement. Doha has also developed increasing ties to Iran as a result of a mutual security agreement signed in 2010. . . and a joint economic venture involving natural gas.

In other ways, Qatar has proven itself light years ahead of its contemporaries. Rich with integrated universities, controversial academics, human rights groups and foundations, its efforts to rebuild ravaged communities throughout the region have been second to none. While many have mourned the repeated destruction of Gaza by Israel, few have opened their hearts and pockets to its rebuilding. Qatar has done so time and time again… working with Hamas in that effort.

Ultimately, the measure of any society’s wealth is its vision for the future.  Here, too, Qatar’s outlook is bright. Its young walk with great pride and dignity as they pursue an opportunity to learn who it is they wish to become and, then, set off to chase that dream unencumbered by the rigidity of family or tradition.

As one who has seen too much death and destruction in the region and lost too many friends to the darkness of prison dungeons or a martyr’s funeral I stand with Qatar in its efforts to find peace and justice through the portal of discussion… not violence.

For many in the West, the Middle East and Gulf has always been a mystery… one wrapped in a blanket of great trepidation fueled by ignorance and uncertainty.  From the comfort and safety of our homes, we see painful mayhem throughout the region yet fail to fully understand it is driven largely by two burning, but connected, issues of the day… sectarian tension between Arab States and Iran and the seventh unbroken decade of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians at the hands of Israel.

Today, with a convenient shout throughout the halls of the Western seats of power, and their regional proxies, can be heard the echo of Qatar as the state funder of terrorism. Though it flies in the face of the reality of decades of efforts and evidence to the contrary, the claim draws traction from those who seek to build a united front on behalf of the West and Israel while, at the same time, it stokes the fires of opposition to Iran.

One can but wonder how much softer the echo might be if Qatar ceases its long term efforts to build détente with Iran and abandons its commitment to the resistance in Palestine. History, ever a portent of what is to come, will not leave this question unanswered.

The End of ‘Blasphemy’ Law in Denmark

Lena M writing @ Atheist Republic discusses the end of the ridiculous Blasphemy Law in Denmark.

Photo Credits: Whale Oil
Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008. Other countries to abolish or repeal blasphemy laws include France in 1881, Sweden in 1970, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, Iceland in 2015, Malta in 2016 and France for its Alsace-Moselle region in 2016. Australia abolished and repealed all blasphemy laws at the Federal Level in 1995 but blasphemy laws remain in some States and Territories. Denmark is the last country in a series that has finally repealed blasphemy law, voting 75 to 27.

Denmark was one of only five countries in the European Union that has a blasphemy law on the books. The last time the law has been successfully used against anyone was in 1946. In 2017, a 42-year-old man was charged with blasphemy for posting a video showing him burning the Qu'ran in his garden on social media under the parole “Yes to freedom - no to Islam.”

Only members of the opposition Social Democrats voted against the move. “This means that we can have a freer and less prejudiced discussion about religions,” Bruno Jerup of the opposition Red-Green Alliance party, which launched the proposal, said.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union, is celebrating the end of the “blasphemy” law, which has been a major campaign goal of the organization since its founding nearly 10 years ago. “It is a victory of freedom of speech,” said President Lone Ree Milkær. “Let us use it to inspire respect and tolerance of any religion or belief and let us hope that the rest of the European countries which still have Blasphemy Laws will be inspired to abolish them.”

This is a huge step for Denmark and it should serve as an example to other civilized countries to abandon this archaic and inhuman law. Laws against “blasphemy”, or which place similar restrictions on free expression about religion, remain on statute in several other European countries, which now look increasingly isolated. These include Ireland, Liechtenstein, Italy, Germany, Austria, Poland, Finland, Montenegro, Greece, and some laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland (constituent countries of the United Kingdom).

The Abolition Of Political Parties

Michael Doherty , a member of the Spirit of Freedom, 1916 Society, Derry, with a piece favouring the abolition of political parties.
In assessing what passes for politics in the North of Ireland, I often find myself in almost complete agreement (no mean feat) with Patrick Murphy’s weekly column in The Irish News. On 22nd April he opened with this:

Since the Troubles began in 1969, voters here have gone to the polls over 60 times. We have had European elections, Westminster elections, Stormont elections, local government elections, by-elections and referendums. [I think I counted 61, but I lost interest after about 30.] In 1969 our highest unemployment areas were Derry/Strabane and West Belfast. Last week Foyle and West and North Belfast still sat near the top of UK unemployment black-spots. So what did our 61 elections achieve and does anyone really believe that a 62nd election will make any difference?

Electoral outcomes on this island and elsewhere remind me of Oscar Wilde’s observation that when it comes to politics: “The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence.”  In every election, it would appear, the majority of us revert to the party that most inflames our emotions rather than what appeals to reason, regardless of what they have actually done (or not done) with our votes the last time, or the time before….or the time before that! 

Simone Weil’s  1943  essay  On the abolition of all political parties provides a sharp, if retro,  critique of  the whole political party system.  She aligns herself with Rousseau’s  Social Contract which regards politics as a forked road between reason and passion. Reason, Rousseau argued, lends itself to justice whereas passion tends to its opposite – injustice – just as surely as absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Weil first makes a rationalist argument for democracy based on the premise that if every individual considers an issue separately and if, afterwards, we compare all their opinions, we should find that the opinions expressed coincide inasmuch as they are just, reasonable, and true whereas they diverge inasmuch as they are unjust, unreasonable, and untrue. Truth is one but lies are many. This idea of democracy is called a Republican doctrine that regards politics as governed by “the general will”. Written in 1762, it excluded the idea of political parties. At that point, continental revolutionaries regarded political parties as a corrupt British phenomenon.

Weil’s essay was written during WWII, in a world controlled by political parties and engaged in mass slaughter in pursuit of party-political objectives.  

Weil identifies three key characteristics of political parties: 

“1. A political party is a machine to generate collective passions. 

2. A political party is an organisation designed to exert collective pressure upon the minds of all its individual members. 

3. The first objective and also the ultimate goal of all political parties is its own growth without limit.” 

Take, for example, being a supporter of Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, born out of opposing sides and enflamed passions of the Civil War. What’s the ideological or policy difference between them today? Hardly a cigarette paper. And yet there is still a deeply ingrained need to vote for ‘our’ side and keep the ‘other’ side out. At election time every party goes out of its way to enflame the passions of its support base to “Get the vote out”.

In the recent Stormont election, Sinn Fein expertly turned Paul Givan’s Líofa grant cut into a crusading call for an Irish Language Act. The fact that during the previous ten years Sinn Fein never once included or demanded an Irish Language Act in any Programme for Government, and a Sinn Fein Minister imposed more cuts on the Irish Language in 2014 than the DUP ever did ... none of that mattered, ‘Our’ rights are denied, ‘We’ must vote for those demanding these rights! 

The party’s policy manifesto receives the loyal support of the members, usually whether they’ve read it or not. Weil sees this as a form of lying on which the whole system of party politics is based. In most cases, people tend to agree with one or two broad ideas of a party (their own interpretation from the woolly language of party literature) and tolerate, ignore, or simply don’t know about the rest. Engineering absolute party loyalty demands multiple lies: 


‣ lies to yourself that you agree with the whole manifesto; ‣ lies to the party that you agree to the whole manifesto; ‣ lies to the public that you agree with the whole manifesto. 


The party regards itself as more important than any other factor, more important than free or rational thought, it is an end in itself with an almost messianic message that if only it can secure enough power, all will be right with the world. The party’s growth is the only measure of political goodness. Loyalty to the party is the measure of every member’s worth. Of course, the party’s appetite for power is infinite, a black hole that can never be satisfied. There can never be too many donations, members, or votes. Add to this that parties combine this need for growth and power with elitism. The very broad base is like the bottom of a pyramid leading to a pinpoint at the top where the real power is held and exercised. Seemingly justified by universal suffrage (one person, one vote), the expression of the general will, parties seek to centralise this power for a small circle of elites: ‘The Leadership’.  In short, it is in the nature of political parties to be totalitarian.

The party then exercises fairly rigorous discipline aimed at making people comply and think ‘rightly’ or, in other words, agree with the leadership. Weil offers the example of taking 100 mathematicians who carry out complex calculations. If those who arrive at an odd number get a nasty electric shock, how long would it be before all their calculations are tweaked in order to arrive at an even number? 

An obvious example of this is the Ard Fheis or Party Conference. 99% of motions put to the floor are only there because the leadership has already decided the policy and wants the rubber stamp of ‘democracy’. The party faithful are told how the leadership wants the vote to go, and so it’s very difficult to step away from the comfort and warmth of the herd.

And what happens if ‘The Leadership’ decides policy on the basis of a brown paper envelope or wire transfer to their offshore account? In fact the whole system of parties makes it easier to corrupt politics. Multinational and corporate interests just have to buy off elements of the leadership; the party structure makes this a convenient and efficient transaction. The party whip will do the rest assisted by a compliant media and some creative spin doctoring. Doesn’t the party always have your best interests at heart?

Simone Weil reaches the obvious conclusion about political parties:  

“The mere fact that they exist today is not in itself sufficient reason for us to preserve them. The only legitimate reason for preserving anything is its goodness.”