Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1209

Sectarian Dynamic In Northern Politics The Consequence Of British Policy

Writing for TPQ on yesterday's election in the Six Counties, Sean Bresnahan, Chair of the Thomas Ashe Society Omagh , equates the rising nationalist vote in the north with increased desires for Irish Unity in that constituency. He writes here in a personal capacity.

The sectarian headcount that clearly now is northern politics, while never what republicans would wish to see, is the outworking of British policy in Ireland and the British government's refusal to leave. Perversely, given that 'normalisation' is the only direction aside from this in which politics can travel, it is also, sadly, necessary if there is to be constitutional change.
The responsibility for the current state of politics here, then, lies with the British government and none other. With Britain having dictated, through the Framework Document and subsequent agreements imposed therefrom, that she will not relinquish her sovereign claim absent a confirming majority towards that end, it is inevitable that we will get this kind of election and election result. Expect nothing but the same going forward for as long as partition endures.

While Irish republicanism is about the unity of our respective traditions within an Irish Republic, conversely, given that Britain refuses our right to live under such a republic – preserving and encouraging for its own selfish interests the sectarian dynamic required to sustain her 'right to rule' – if there is to be a United Ireland, given that republicanism lacks the strategic capacity to impose its terms on the British state, it requires that this gerrymander be eclipsed.

Given that republicanism, in its traditional sense, has been effectively contained and given also that unionism remains, effectively, a monolith towards sustaining the Union, this necessitates the outnumbering of the unionist cohort internal to the contrived gerrymander if there is to be a United Ireland any time soon. We might not like that it is so and argue against this in principle but the fact remains that this is where things are at.

To that extent, the so-called slippage towards 'orange and green' should present issue only to those who seek that the normalisation / 'Project Northern Ireland' agenda become further embedded. While far from progressive, this is the course reality of a sectarian gerrymander – a lá the northern statelet – when it faces off against an internal minority on the rise within its boundary, a minority for whom the gerrymander exists to deny their rightful place within a United Ireland in the first instance.

To this extent the sectarianism bemoaned of today, which straddles northern politics in a more obvious, indeed overt, fashion than seen in decades, can only be accounted for once the gerrymander sustaining it is no more – and with it the Union which gives rise to the same. It is only when that Union has been ended that the divisions between the Irish people can begin to heal.

That further polarisation along the orange and green axis is the likely direction of travel in the interim is the unavoidable consequence of British policy – not the doing of Irish nationalism. It is not, then, related to nationalist voting behaviour and changes to nationalist voting behaviour reflect that reality, rather than any slippage towards sectarian considerations. When an occupying force insists that a contrived majority be surmounted in a sectarian numbers game before entertaining our national rights, it can be no other way.

While recent election results reflect a growing nationalist demography in the Six Counties and have brought into focus the prospect of a United Ireland, we should not get carried away. We must, as republicans, ensure to the best of our combined abilities that a United Ireland – should one come to pass – is a sovereign Ireland and not a halfway house arrangement, as is now being advanced by some in the constitutional fold.

While awaiting a nationalist majority is in no way a revolutionary strategy it does not, though, necessitate that should one be realised that a revolutionary outcome should not proceed. For ourselves as Irish republicans that outcome must be a democratic all-Ireland republic – a 'New Republic' for all. The rising nationalist vote in the north suggests this could be closer to hand than until now has been estimated. Republicans must respond accordingly. It's either that or we wither and die.

A Propaganda Struggle To Recognise ISIS Members As Victims

Christy Walsh disagrees with Larry Hughes on the status of ISIS members who carry out attacks on civilians.

Myself and Larry Hughes (LH) exchanged opposing opinions about the Manchester Bomber Salman Abedi. LH was critical of the MSM (mainstream media) and thought they were unfair to Abedi who LH believed was a victim of western ‘carpet bombing’ in the Middle East. Our exchanges can be found at Daithi O’Donnabhain’s article Cubs of the Caliphate.

I have heard others make similar excuses for young British Muslims traveling to the Middle East to commit unspeakable war crimes. I remain unconvinced by arguments that young British Muslims face nothing but discrimination and marginalisation in the UK; thus what alternatives have they got? But more, I am repulsed by LH’s view that ISIS members, no matter the atrocity, are victims and not calculated perpetrators of their own acts of barbarity like the one in Manchester.

I do not know if The Manchester Bomber was ever mistreated by the UK. But I do know that he was the son of a Libyan defector, Ramadan Abedi. In the 1990s, the UK provided Abedi senior, and his then young family, safety from the Libyan Gaddafi regime. This is hardly enough evidence of Abedi as a victim of anything other than maybe the Gaddafi regime.

LH’s arguments highlighted the fallacy of trying to apply the logic of freedom or resistance struggles attacking oppressive occupiers on their home territory. This logic does not work with religious fanatics. In attempt to explain Abedi’s actions LH replaces the word ‘Allah’ with ‘retaliation’; in other words Abedi was acting in retaliation to western aggression and not really in the name of Allah. This is the same error others in the West make; they impose their own judgment value on Islamists because an action in ‘retaliation’ implies there was a provocation. This sort of altered narrative suggests that Islamists are acting with noble motives and not out of religious fanaticism in its own right. If Islamists blow themselves up or slaughter others in the name of Allah then we should take them at their word the reason why they do so and not impose our own reasoning in attempt to justify or rationalise their actions in ways that Islamists do not. Islamists are well able to articulate their motives and they do.

In a conventional freedom or insurrection struggle the oppressed demand emancipation from tyranny and oppression. There is a cogent connection or rational between attacks, which tend to be more primitive and understandable than complex or obscure. When oppressed indigenous activists plant bombs in the homeland of their occupier the message is simple; you leave us in peace and we will leave you in peace. Or, an attack might be in direct retaliation for an atrocity committed by the occupying forces.  

My difficulty with LH is that he uses the rational of the oppressed to explain religious fanaticism. This is not to say the fanatic has not been oppressed, maybe they were/are, but their objectives are not one of emancipation. Islamist objectives are to convert everyone to Islam or kill the non-believer where they find them. Although their atrocities might have a retaliatory element at times but that would only be incidental to their primary objective in securing the Caliphate.

The MSM is the creation of various influences and motives which helps maintain its own ruthless self-interests; be they viewer ratings; the wishes of advertisers; or political wheeling and dealing. Their news outputs cannot always be trusted. Unlike LH, I do not fault the MSM for not portraying the Manchester Bomber as a victim because Abedi is not a victim but a cruel perpetrator who deliberately targeted children. The evils of the MSM are much lesser than that of the objectives of the Islamist and the ISIS member Abedi.

Without any direct evidence LH related the Manchester atrocity to bombs being dropped in the Middle East. Based on his speculation, it is LH’s view that ISIS are victims. Conflicts are made up of complex mix of interests and alliances. But neither Abedi nor ISIS ever claimed that the Manchester attack on children was intended as a message to leave the Middle East or was in retaliation for some event committed by western forces. Had they done so then perhaps we might relate 'cause and effect'. But that is not ISIS motivation nor its objective. ISIS readily commit horrific war crimes and genocide out of religious fanaticism alone.

LH attempts to re-interpret ISIS objectives and motives is an injustice to not only the victims of the Manchester Bomb but to all of ISIS victims wherever they might happen, be that in the UK, France or the Middle East. ISIS claim their atrocities in the name of Allah and their objective is a holy war to convert the world to Islam. LH was motivated to explain Islamists in better light; that they, and the Manchester bomber, are fighting a nobler and more just cause. He is mistakenly trying to graft or morph religious fanaticism into an underdog fighting a just liberation struggle. His thinking reveals the dangers of being fixated on the single story of conflict between an oppressor and their down trodden oppressed victims.

Religious fanaticism defies rationale and is self-motivated.

The Right To Think And Live Outside The Confines Of Religion

Maryam Namazie & Sadia Hameed make an appeal ahead of the Glastonbury of Freethinkers conference in London later this summer.
2 Months To “Glastonbury Of Freethinkers”


Dear friend,

There is less than 2 months left for our 22-24 July conference in London which is being called the “Glastonbury of Freethinkers”. With over 70 speakers, comedians, musicians and artists, it’s going to be the largest ever gathering of ex-Muslims and freethinkers in London and will reaffirm the right to think and live outside the confines of religion. (Read an interview, which discusses the importance of the conference at a time when atheists and secularists are increasingly under attack). As our spokesperson, Maryam Namazie says:

If anyone feels there is no hope, it is only because they are not familiar with the resistance. Everyone knows Khamenei, Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi but why are Raif Badawi, Avijit Roy, Nadia El Fani, Fauzia Ilyas, Waleed Al Husseini or Zineb el Rhazoui not household names? This conference is the conference of the resistance and resistance to totalitarianism always brings hope.

Help us mark the 10th anniversary of the CEMB with a celebration of apostasy and blasphemy. Get your tickets today and support our important work.

In the run-up to the conference, please also send 30 second videos or photos that defend freedom of conscience and expression, notably the right to criticise and reject religion, to exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com using hashtag #IWant2BFree.

CEMB Pride London

CEMB is pleased to announce it will be taking part in the Pride in London parade on Saturday 8 July 2017 and will use the event to protest Islamism’s violence, including the death penalty, directed towards LGBT people. In particular, CEMB will focus on the harrowing roundup, detention and torture of LGBT people in Chechnya where its president, Ramzan Kadyrov, has expressed the desire to “eliminate” gay people before the start of Ramadan. By participating in Pride in London, CEMB hopes to highlight the persecution of LGBT under Islamic law, defend LGBT equality, and increase solidarity between ex-Muslims, Muslims and LGBT in defence of basic human rights. To join the CEMB contingent, please contact Daniel Fitzgerald at exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com, telephone 07952 593 227.

Feminist Enlightenment Founding Congress in Sulaymaniyah

Maryam Namazie spoke at Dabran’s Founding Congress of Feminist Enlightenment in Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan during 22-24 May. Dabran’s slogan for this year’s conference was “Religion for the Individual; Democracy for All”. At the Congress, Maryam spoke about Islam and Islamism as the greatest stumbling blocks for women’s emancipation and how Islamists target women and girls first – whether in Tehran, Peshawar or Manchester. Speaker upon speaker reiterated the importance of secularism and universal human rights as a challenge to Daesh and in defence of women’s rights. You can read Maryam’s speech and see photos of the historic event here.

In a related event, CEMB’s next monthly meet-up will be with Journalist and Activist Rahila Gupta who will speak on Rojava, Northern Syria and secular space in the middle of a war.

Actions and Petitions

Over the past few weeks, we have called for support of Mohamed Salih, a young Sudanese accused of apostasy for filing a request for the removal of mention of Islam from his official ID and adopted a Declaration on Apostasy and Blasphemy at “Days of Atheism 2017 – For the Right To Choose” in Warsaw in defence of Sina Dehghan and Mohammad Nouri sentenced to death for apostasy in Iran and Ayaz Nizami and Rana Noman arrested on charges of blasphemy in Pakistan, amongst others.

Moreover, we have reviewed Sayeeda Warsi’s book and its shockingly blinkered view on Islamism in the Evening Standard, issued a statement about hate preacher Yasir Qadhi‘s visit to London, as well as joined petitions against Facebook’s censorship of ex-Muslims and Denmark’s blasphemy ban.

Support us!

Please take some time to volunteer with us if you have time to spare. We are currently in need of volunteers who can help with poster and book graphic and layout design. We also could use help in getting the word out about our international conference in July.

If you can, please donate to our organisation. No amount is too small and much of what we do has been made possible with your donations. You can donate to CEMB here.

Thanks again for all your support; a special thanks to those who donate on a monthly basis. We hope to see you at some of our events.

Warm wishes

Maryam Namazie
Sadia Hameed
Spokespersons
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Today .... Begin The Process Of Turning This Nation Around

Ahead of today's UK general election Mick Hall @ Organized Rage thinks:
Those who parroted the mainstream media mantra the Labour party under Corbyn was unelectable may have to eat their words.
Vote Corbyn Labour on June 8.In an excellent Guardian article by Gary Younge he highlights how the political elites have failed to recognise the nation has changed dramatically since the economic crash of 2008 and the impact this is having in the current general election:

The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture; what people wanted from a centre-left party changed. But the received wisdom about electability did not. Its high priests kept insisting elections are won in the centre, without any apparent understanding that the centre can move and, in times of extreme polarisation, disappear. The pragmatists turned dogmatic; the modernisers became conservative.
Within the LP not only have a minority of elitist Labour MPs been fighting a rearguard action since 2015 against the party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Within the small number of constituencies they still control they have all but curtailed any mention of the party leader in their general election literature. By doing this they have neutered the party's greatest campaigning asset, it's leader. It's to the credit of Jeremy's supporters in these constituencies they have ignored these shenanigans and gone out and campaigned for their local Labour candidate no matter what wing of the party they're on.

As Gary wrote "these critics and naysayers wrote him off with the certainty of scientists, but forgot that it’s voters who decide." Even though this stared them in the face when Jeremy won not one, but two leadership contests, they ignored it and blindly pooh poohed his victory as a mere aberration.

They parroted the mainstream media mantra the Labour party under Corbyn was unelectable and not only that as Gary Younge points out:

Not simply that it would lose, but that there was no plausible way it could compete. These were not presented as opinions but as facts. Those who questioned them were treated like climate change deniers. Those who held the wisdom were the scientists. To take Labour’s prospects seriously under Corbyn was to abandon being taken seriously yourself.

People who refused to believe such nonsense were often either ridiculed, sidelined, smeared, or if they had political ambitions reminded about their future prospects.

Gary continues:

The political class imparted as much to the media class, and the media class duly printed and broadcast it. The political class, drawn for the most part from the same social class as their media counterparts, then took those articles and bulletins and presented them as evidence. The wisdom was distributed to all who mattered. Those who did not receive it did not, by definition, matter. Within this fetid ecosystem the air was too stale for new ideas to grow.

Indeed, yet today the situation is volatile:

According to one poll, one in five voters could still change their mind. We won’t know whether Labour will be elected or not until Thursday night. To those who have insisted on its unelectability, the matter of people actually going to the polls was always a formality. Now it seems, from reporting and the polls, that even if Labour doesn’t win under Corbyn, it is a viable electoral force.
Received wisdom aside, this should not surprise us too much. Electability, whether it relates to a person or a programme, is not a science. There are, it is true, gifted people out there who have studied elections and traced voting patterns to make predictions and projections. They are pollsters and psephologists; they are not clairvoyants.
Nor is it a neutral category. The people who “decide” whether someone is electable or not are not the electorate – that comes much later – but opinion-forming elites and those who fund and promote them. They apply themselves to the task with great prejudice and select both people and programmes in their own image and interests.

Here Gary Younge is spot on and it raises questions about those Labour MPs whom the MSM have been promoting since Corbyn became party leader. Those who have been whispering in journalists ears, the party leader is not leadership material have lost all credibility. Whatever the outcome on June 8 only a nincompoop or charlatan would claim today Jeremy is not leadership material, for he has passed with flying colours the harshest test for a leader of a political party, a general election campaign.

Gary concludes:

In America, money selects the candidates before the voters get a look-in. In Britain, the media are the key arbiters. “The ideas of the ruling class,” Karl Marx pointed out, “are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” That’s how a man who talked with Sinn Féin (a strategy that stood the test of time) can be constantly interrogated about his support for “terrorism” while a woman who joined a party that branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist is never asked about her support for Apartheid.
Nor are the attributes that comprise electability fixed. Political cultures are living organisms. They change, evolve and develop – the qualities voters look for in politicians change. That’s true for candidates. In America, it was once commonly understood that you had to be white to be elected president. In 1958, when asked if they would vote for a black candidate, 53% of white voters said they would not; in 1984, it was 16%; by 2003, it was just 6%. We know now that’s no longer true. But until election night in 2008 we couldn’t be certain.
It’s also true for their agendas. Even as parties anchor themselves to basic principles, they have to adapt their promises to the times they are in. Blairites and Clintonites did not only once understand this, it was their credo. But having crafted a neoliberal agenda that made their parties electable in the 90s and beyond, they apparently believed their work was done: that the shift to the right was both unidirectional – you could never shift left – and unique – they would never have to shift again.
But the principal problem with the notion of electability is that it is promoted on the premise that what has not been tried cannot possibly succeed. It suggests the way people see the world at any given moment cannot be changed through argument and activism and instead erects borders for what is permissible discussion and polices them determinedly. Those who dream outside those borders are utopian; those who speak outside them are fools.
The trouble is that in times of crisis, like this, the cost of thinking outside those borders becomes lower for many than the price of living within them. While received wisdom comes with no receipt, it’s always the same people who pick up the tab. A candidate who has connected domestic terrorism and foreign wars and argued for the redistribution of wealth to shore up public services has been surging. This, we were told, was not possible. It’s why, for the first time in a long time, a significant number of people are excited about an election.
We don’t know if his party will win. We will find that out on Thursday. The only way to truly know if something is electable is to fight for it and vote for it.

What Corbyn has shown is it doesn't have to be this way, there is a better way of governing this nation. Due to his hard work, tenacity and straight talking during the general election campaign a large number of the British people have come to agree with him. There are alternative policies to austerity, cuts to services, privatisation, zero hour contracts, unaffordable housing, dismantling the NHS, and giving massive tax cuts to the rich.

We need to stop those who wish to enrich themselves and harm us in the process from setting the political agenda. We are not utopians, dreamers or scoundrels because we believe this, we are just ordinary men and women with hope in our hearts.

If we turn out in great numbers today and vote for the Labour candidate to be our MP, Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister, and we will begin the process of turning this nation around, making it a country where the many not the few ride at the front of the bus.


Gary's article can be read in full here.

Sinn Féin And DUP Were Never In Coalition. Apparently

Writing in Brocaire Books author Matt Treacy looks ahead at some features of todays UK election in the North.
Sinn Féin are fighting the British general election on the basis of absolute opposition to the Democratic Unionist Party, and their corrupt ways. You would imagine that it might have been two other parties who had been in coalition in the Stormont Executive since 2007. And that it will be two other parties entirely who will re-enter such an arrangement once the dust of the elections dies down.

Some facts:

Not only were Sinn Féin in coalition with the DUP for the guts of a decade, but for most of that time they effectively operated as an adjunct of the Tory government in London. Which included implementing the dreaded “austerity” measures that are so disliked in Dublin. Until the Shinners get to implement them most likely.

It is ironic indeed that having made ten years of “difficult decisions,” including cuts to public service pay, schools, hospitals, not to mention advocating lowering corporation tax, that Sinn Féin’s bottom line issues now are to do with the Irish language and “legacy issues.” All of which were fudged in the Stormont House Agreement.

There is also the canard that they will be able to institute a Border poll and that they will win it. Neither is likely. A border poll is not in the gift of Stormont even if Sinn Féin were to become the biggest party. Election results for the past 20 years also indicate little or no change in the balance between pro Union parties and those putatively in favour of a united Ireland. There is not a mission that an internal border poll would be in favour of unity.

So, all the talk of being on the verge of a united Ireland is just a smokescreen. Republican voters to be sure were getting frustrated and annoyed with the meaninglessness of Sinn Féin being in “power.” That forced them to pull out, against the wishes of the apparat, in January.

In February 2004, An Phoblacht published a long article by Laura Friel bemoaning the fact that West Belfast, on a whole range of indicators, was the “most deprived constituency” in the United Kingdom. Of course that was all the fault of the Brits and so on.

In 2013, a survey found that West Belfast was the second worst constituency regarding a whole range of deprivation indices across 650 Westminster constituencies . A 2015 Northern Assembly report showed that West Belfast was by far the most deprived part of the six counties.

Now, while in 2004 it might have been vaguely plausible to blame all of this on the Brits, we are talking about a place where you couldn’t fart for the last 40 years without republican approval. Where the only jobs are either in the “community sector” or with various gombeen low wage employers who are invariably “well connected.”

If any constituency in the 26 counties had such an appalling demographic and the place had been controlled by the same party for 40 years, including having ministers, the shinners would be up in arms about it. No wonder the Trotskyist People Before Profit won and retained an Assembly seat there, despite considerable “community pressure,” ahem. Many people are sick of the pretence and the Orwellian lies.

Once the dust settles, Sinn Féin will face the option of either re-entering coalition with the dreaded DUP, or refusing to. In either case, they will be accepting the internal partitionist parameters of the Good Friday Agreement, which make it quite clear what the procedures for any move towards a united Ireland are. These people negotiated it. They know very well what it means, despite all the electoral hysteria.

At the moment they are on a bit of a high and there are no shortage of eijits who believe the hype. The real fun will begin once the votes are counted in any possible Stormont election, or if there is an agreement on the basis of the last one.

Oh, more “difficult decisions,” no doubt….

A Tunnel To The Moon

Mark Hayes , author and researcher, reviews a book by long time republican activist and former IRA prisoner Matt Treacy.

Matthew Treacy, an ex-IRA volunteer and Sinn Fein activist who spent more than 30 years in the Republican movement, has chosen to publish a book about his experiences. Before I make any substantive observations about the content of his text, in the interest of honesty and transparency I should make a confession - I have been a friend of Matt Treacy for many years. Indeed, I remember visiting him in the dreary edifice of Portlaoise prison during the “troubles”. So disentangling personal and political motivations in the context of writing a review might be construed as a challenging task.
In fact this proposition is less onerous than one might assume because I have often disagreed with Matt Treacy, and I know he is sensible enough to welcome robust debate and intelligent discussion. Which brings us to the book itself.
Treacy’s text deals with the “endgame” in Ireland and the demise of militant Irish Republicanism: “the end of the Irish Republican Army”. This delicate subject is tackled through the lens of his own personal experience as someone who was at the very epicentre of the Provisional Republican machine for many years. If anyone was a Sinn Fein “insider” it was Matthew Treacy, which affords his recollections a heuristic value which perhaps evades other, similar account.
The first point to make is an obvious one. Treacy is a talented writer and has a keen eye for the subtle nuances of political subterfuge, and he covers the choreography of the “peace process” with dexterity and skill. Indeed, anyone wishing to track the electoral fortunes of Sinn Fein in recent years could do far worse than consult the psephological analysis contained in this text.
Treacy takes us through the “peace process” and examines how it played out from a Provisional perspective.  However, in the process of outlining these historic political developments Treacy also outlines a critique of Sinn Fein which is both insightful, acerbic and, occasionally, humorous. The essence of Treacy’s thesis is that Sinn Fein is, fundamentally, an organisation which is “opportunist” and “tactically promiscuous”. Sinn Fein, according to Treacy, has had its ideology subverted by new post-modern political fashions and been bought off by the “benign corruption” implicit in British government funding of community projects in the north of Ireland. In effect Treacy argues that Sinn Fein has succumbed to the “liberal left” and the “soft power” of the British state.
The logic of this process, of course, has been to underpin the Union and reinforce sectarian categories in the scramble for scarce resources. Traditional Republican aspirations have thereby been seriously attenuated, or discarded altogether. In effect Sinn Fein has become an electoral machine designed to win votes at any cost, and what Treacy’s narrative describes is a sorry tale of relentless political pragmatism – a party driven by an instrumental calculus of cost-benefit analysis and cynical self-interest. 
In terms of actual political dividends, Treacy suggests that the results for Sinn Fein have been meagre, to say the least. The Good Friday Agreement was concluded as an “internal settlement”, which has meant that the “Unionist veto” has remained intact. The much vaunted “cross border bodies” have clearly had no measurable impact on the contours of the Union, and are described by Treacy as “impotent” and “irrelevant”. He should know.
However, Treacy does make the rather more interesting point that the hostility and acrimony of the Unionists at key moments in the process made it much easier to sell the GFA to a republican constituency because there was an implicit assumption that if the loyalists were unhappy it must be good for republicans. It wasn’t. In fact, the GFA was little different (and may be worse) than Sunningdale or Hillsborough, a point that Treacy makes to good effect. Indeed, Matt Treacy goes on to say that the GFA represented “nothing less than almost total capitulation by revolutionary republicanism”. Of course, this is hardly surprising given the fact that, as noted in the book, British government official Jonathan Powell was writing speeches for Martin McGuinness, to be delivered at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis. One is reminded, in reading this, of Brendan Hughes’s explanation of the acronym GFA as “Got Fuck All”.
This makes for uncomfortable reading if you are a Republican, but it is hardly news. However, in playing their particular political parlour games Treacy also reiterates that the leadership of Provisional Republicanism have been less than honest with their activists. As he points out:

…at no stage did Adams and McGuinness and their closest supporters ever let on, to the very end, to the IRA or the republican support base, that a united Ireland was not an achievable objective. Had they done so then they would not have been able to bring the IRA or Sinn Fein to the stage where they agreed to an internal settlement and de facto to Partition.

Whether this was a deliberate misrepresentation or a more piecemeal accommodation with emerging “political realities” is immaterial – the fact is that many in the Provisional movement were deceived. That Matt Treacy confirms this should at least be of some comfort to those that have claimed this all along. Many republicans were, in effect, misled into surrendering. However, according to Treacy submission was not the worst possible option, because the task which Republicanism had set itself was far too difficult to accomplish - the “war” was unwinnable.
In the book Treacy notes, in confessional tones, his own growing disenchantment with military option, despite the fact he was recruiting officer for the Dublin Brigade while working as a researcher for Sinn Fein in Leinster House. It became increasing clear to Treacy that the military strategy was no longer viable. However, he notes that during the “peace process” many in the IRA were very slow to grasp the new realities, indeed “some chaps were still avidly following the progress of an increasingly erratic ‘war’ with the blind faith of stranded Japanese soldiers on a Pacific Atoll convinced that some stroke of military genius would turn the tide in favour of the Army of the Republic”.
Interestingly, Treacy points out that to a large extent the IRA in the prisons were largely kept in the dark over key developments during the “peace process”. For example, the so-called debates around the TUAS document, which was circulated to prisoners, was designed to foster ambiguity. Treacy recollects that he was told TUAS was “Towards an Unarmed Struggle” but the various alternative explanations fitted well the “Orwellian machinations designed to convince disparate parties of whatever the Army Council thought they wanted or needed to hear”.
Treacy clearly felt that he, and other members of the IRA were “unwitting pawns in a game” where they were “unaware of the rules”. Yet some volunteers were nevertheless anxious to believe the leadership were not leading them astray: “from what I saw myself, both in prison and afterwards, most IRA members believed anything they were told, no matter how absurd”.
Treacy clearly came to a realisation that the armed struggle was a dead-end, as he puts it: I felt under no obligation to make any more stupid decisions on the basis of some illusion. It was every man for himself as far as I was concerned”.
Unsurprisingly Treacy now rejects the “deluded fantasists” and “retro Provos” who believe a new army can achieve what the PIRA could not. As Treacy confirms in a telling turn of phrase: “No doubt Adams was the consummate Machiavellian in bringing an unwinnable war to an end. If for no other reason he deserves thanks for that”.
Yet there was another dimension to the acquiescence of Sinn Fein to British rule. Sinn Fein, according to Treacy, had been subverted by an infatuation with “identity politics”. The idea of an “Ireland of equals”, “parity of esteem” or “national reconciliation” is regarded by Treacy, as vacuous nonsense, which meant Sinn Fein constructed a strategy consisting of “politically correct soundbites”.
Treacy notes that “the meaningless slogan of ‘equality’ has pretty much replaced any pretence to being socialist”. The “Shinner left” had become infected by “ultra-liberal” concerns, which focused on abortion, immigration and certain marginalised social groups. Moreover, Treacy notes that militant socialism was abruptly and unceremoniously jettisoned in order to form an alliance with constitutional nationalism in the hope of invoking the support of Irish and US governments. Diplomatic pan-Nationalism therefore displaced radical, socialist anti-imperialism as the key strategic imperative.
Treacy also points out that “the move away from anything that might be construed as Marxism caused little stir within either the IRA or Sinn Fein, where even in the rare cases that it was properly understood, had never been more than an exotic minority interest”. Sinn Fein, with its focus on “identity politics” was perfectly prepared to abandon the notion of class conflict and ride the new zeitgeist. Of course, Treacy is correct to call out the “happy clappy” lefties, many of whom had infected the “New” Labour party in Britain. Indeed, Treacy mentions Ken Livingston and Jeremy Corbyn in this context, although there are much better examples – Anthony Giddens or Geoff Mulgan for example, whose muddled musings on the “third way” and post-modern “designer socialism” nearly destroyed the Labour movement in Britain.
The bottom line for Sinn Fein, according to Treacy, was that a new breed of activists, many of whom were motivated by careerism, had replaced many of the old “revolutionaries” who were “active when it was dangerous”. Treacy is clearly angry at this transformation, and it is difficult not to concur with him that “the left” in general has indeed been infected by the most insipid type of middle class lifestyle lobbyists who have absolutely no organic link to working class people at all. They are indeed a pestilential nuisance.
However, where Matt Treacy is far less convincing is when he talks about the “shedding of ideological illusions” especially his summary dismissal of the left-wing critique of Sinn Fein. This is where, politically speaking, he and I part company. Treacy is dismissive of the Republican Congress, and he notes (perhaps correctly) that Eirigi is “moribund”, but the vitriol deployed to deride any and all efforts at egalitarian transcendence suggests a much deeper animus - and Treacy repeats this often enough in the text to suggest that he genuinely believes it. For example, Treacy talks about:

‘the urge to make men perfect against their will’. They have learned nothing from the horrors of Leninism and Stalinism and Nazism and Maoism, and all the other simplistic myths that murdered tens of millions in order to make them and the rest of us better people.

Now this is contentious stuff. It would indeed be interesting, for example, to try and tease out exactly how Nazism was designed to “make better people”. However, of greater importance for republicans is the fact that Treacy has his eyes more firmly fixed on the “delusions” of “scientific socialism”, “the failed economics of socialism” and “simplistic slogan ridden diaper Marxism favoured by left wing Republicans”. Indeed, Treacy argues that “most serious historians of political ideology would claim that there is a profound disjunction between the pursuit of a nebulous concept like ‘equality’, and democracy, other than of course equality before the law”. Enough is enough. This is just not true, in fact one of the reasons why right-wing political theorists got so agitated about the electoral process and the extension of the franchise is precisely because of the seemingly inexorable logic which drives democracy toward equality – of rights, opportunity and material outcomes.
Nevertheless, not content with traducing Marxism, Treacy quotes favourably the likes of Popper, Berlin and Hayek, and goes on to talk about “utopian totalitarian ideologies”, the “totalitarian nightmare”, “totalitarian myths of class or of race”, and “the mass murder of millions in the Soviet Union”. This is dangerous territory, and such comments are particularly disingenuous because, as Treacy surely knows, the “freedom loving” nations of the West were also constructed upon a mountain of corpses (slavery, colonialism, imperialism) and the black farce of counting victims cannot eradicate that fact.
Moreover, “totalitarianism” as a theory (as articulated by the likes of Schapiro or Brzezinski for example) was a conceptual remnant of the Cold War which was specifically designed to tar Communism with the same brush as Fascism. It is a simplistic conceptual trap which Dr. Treacy (apparently gleefully) has fallen into. The “totalitarian” theory is flawed principally because it focuses on political methods rather than desired social outcomes but, more importantly, it defames the memory of those brave communists who actually fought and died fighting fascism. To paraphrase Primo Levi, it is perfectly possible to conceive of a communism without concentration camps, but the idea of fascism without them is utterly inconceivable. In short, connecting fascism and communism is lazy politics, and “totalitarian theory” is nonsense on stilts - it is the usual neo-liberal bullshit dressed up in a tuxedo and no amount of semantic chicanery can make it otherwise. Reading Hayek et al is entirely excusable in an effort to stave off the boredom induced by enforced incarceration, but taking them seriously is quite another matter – their self-serving theoretical constructions were drivel before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the financial crash of 2008, and the idea that we should take them seriously now is risible.
Without some kind of extended analysis, Treacy’s perfunctory forays into political philosophy are not simply ill-judged, they can be easily construed as gratuitous grand-standing. Indeed, it might be argued that Treacy has thrown the baby out with the bath water because there is an obvious left-republican tradition which eschews the trendy post-modern, politically-correct notions of “equality” as deployed by Sinn Fein – and we need to look no further than James Connolly to find it (Connolly does not feature at all in the book).
Perhaps if I was forced to walk a mile in Matt Treacy’s shoes I would also be sceptical about the utility of political ideologies and their “malign consequences”. I haven’t, so I am not, but to put my point in another more personalised way, it is relatively easy to malign Martin McGuinness or indeed marginalise Micky McKevitt, but dismissing Tommy McKearney or Eddie O’Neill (men who have experienced the very worst of the “troubles” but who have retained deeply held socialist principles) is not quite so easy. Matthew Treacy knows this, and I know he knows.
Of course, Treacy is undoubtedly correct to point out that Sinn Fein “has been able to survive the regular expulsion and resignations of large numbers of experienced people including elected representatives without that cohering as a political threat”. The sooner that changes the better, but it is difficult to see how Matt Treacy can contribute to that process.
In conclusion, maybe sceptics are entitled to ask why it took Matt Treacy so long to write this book, and they might even point to the issue of remuneration and his refusal to comply with Sinn Fein’s party line on wages (which is dealt with at length), but it is very difficult to argue with his critique of Sinn Fein. Indeed, Treacy now adds his name to the ever-expanding pantheon of those who have managed to detach themselves from the eviscerated husk of Provisional Republicanism.
We might note that the title of the book “A Tunnel to the Moon” uses a phrase borrowed from Anthony McIntyre, which is entirely appropriate because McIntyre’s thesis on the trajectory of Provisional Republicanism, outlined many years ago, has proven to be remarkably prescient. I have disagreed with Matt Treacy, McIntyre, and other ex-Provisionals on many things over the years but the consensus that has been constructed around the reality of Sinn Fein’s egregious apostasy is absolutely compelling. They have abandoned militant socialist Republicanism to become a meaningless political cult that worships the electoral process and Matt Treacy’s latest treatise confirms this in a spectacular way.
Matt Treacy isn’t going to win many friends with this book, which in many ways seems deliberately designed to be provocative, but that will not bother him in the slightest. Treacy is a formidable talent and his loss to the Sinn Fein is a very serious blow – and they will doubtless try to undermine the substance of his critique by attempting to destroy his integrity. They will fail. The real tragedy, however, is that Matt Treacy, and many other so-called “dissidents”, committed themselves to a movement that was not worthy of the many magnificent volunteers that supported it.
Matt Treacy, 2017.   A Tunnel to the Moon: The End of the Irish Republican Army. Publisher: Brocaire Books, Dublin. IBSN: 5-800122-479495

The Father

Sean Mallory reviews a true life story by " Anton Svensson ."
I was given this book by my better half as a gift, I can’t remember if it was for Christmas or what, and when I saw it the first thing that came in to my head was: ‘God, one of AM's books!’

Only this book was by an author with an easily pronounceable Scandinavian name. As it turns out on reading the blurbs of the book it is a collaboration of works by Anders Roslund and Stefan Thunberg, both also with equally easily pronounceable names. The omens were looking good! Both writers are well known in their own respective fields. Roslund, for investigative journalism and Thunberg for screen writing, particularly his connection with the original Scandinavian Wallander. Anton Svensson being a pseudonym for both writers. The oddity of the book is that it is based on the real life story of Thunberg's family. 

The story centres on a dysfunctional family, mother, father and three boys, living in a high rise tower block. A block of the kind that is mostly associated with European ‘white trailer trash’ residences. The father, an immigrant, alcohol dependent and mentally and physically abusive, dominates the boys childhood with his warped ideological take on the concept of ‘the family’ and based no doubt on his own past experiences with his own father. The mother, native and much more intelligent, is ever so slightly disconnected from the reality of their precarious and potentially violent position.

The book fluctuates from ‘now’ to ‘then’ and recounts the events in the families early life that would go on to influence the boys becoming the most notorious bank robbers in Sweden's history.

Leo, the oldest with his friend Jasper, guides his two brothers, Felix and Vincent, and girlfriend Anneli on a two year heist. The audacity of their robberies and the continuing lack of evidence thwarts the police in their investigation. Their notoriety soon eclipses their intentions and they become known in the media as the Military League for the way they execute their robberies.

A name that implies solidarity among the gang but unknown to the police the reality is the slow disintegration of the gang through clashing egos. Dysfunctionality in family and in gang that eventually leads to their dissolution.

A more inverted reversal modern take on the James / Younger gang. Like them, the books and the films about James and the Youngers, the constant theme of crime doesn’t pay runs through this book and heavily supported with the Mounty slogan ‘Always gets their man’.

An enjoyable read but slightly disappointing as I was hoping for a better or different ending than the usual crime doesn’t pay. I suppose that's the old romantic rebel blood in me but really when I think about it, what other ending could there have been?

Anton Svensson, 2015. The Father . Publisher: Sphere Books. ASIN: B0182Q99MS

To Connect or Disconnect? ... That is The Question

Larry Hughes  with a piece looking at unrest in the Philippines and the distortionist role played by the MSM. The piece also puts Islam in the region in a historical context.

What we now know as the Philippines is an archipelago of over seven thousand islands that when 'discovered' by Europeans in the 16th Century had countless tribes and languages and whilst Islam had arrived on the southern most shores, paganism was deep rooted in the rest of the islands. Bathala was their God, the creator of everything and an Adam and Eve Garden of Eden belief system existed among them long before Christianity arrived. Indeed there remains today high in the mountains of Luzon island a pagan tribe, the Ifugao, that has shunned all modernisation and has managed to remain isolated, cultivating rice terraces and living as they have always done.

Catholicism has flourished here since Spanish colonists arrived in 1521, but on northern Luzon island - where the sky meets rice terraces 1,500m above sea level - former headhunting tribes have lived uninterrupted by outsiders for at least 2,000 years. They even defied the Spanish conquistadors who ruled the Philippines for 300 years until 1898. Among those tribes are the Ifugao of Banaue. In the village of Batad, declared a UNESCO-protected site in 1995, the natives have painstakingly guarded most of their traditions, despite steady modernisation in the rest of the country. Thanks to their remote location, the Ifugao have managed to hold off the influence of Christian lowlanders for centuries, along with their ways.


Ifugao tribe elderly women
The ongoing unrest in what has always been regarded as Muslim Mindanao has its roots, like many of the current and ongoing global trouble spots, in the colonial period. During the 16th Century when Christopher Columbus was discovering the Americas for the emerging Spanish superpower of the day, it would be a mere thirty short years later that another Spanish sponsored explorer Ferdinand Magellan, found a way around the southern tip of the Americas and reached a group of 7000+ islands and gave it the name Philippinas, after the Spanish monarch Philip ii of Spain.

On arrival in the archipelago the Spanish Catholic Conquistadores were horrified to discover Islam was already rooted and present in parts of the region. Indeed the derogatory term moros, was given to those natives during the Spanish colonisation and was as a result of the Spanish conflict with the Moroccans during the Middle Ages in Spain, when Spain itself had been colonised by Islam. The word moros is now a badge of honour for Muslims in the Philippines. Islam is the religion of not just the southern Philippines but also in what are now called Indonesia, Malaysia and Southern Thailand. This had come through the arrival of traders from the Middle East over centuries who brought Islam with them to some of the tribes most prevalent at the time.

Whilst not successful in spreading Islam to the entire archipelago where there are to this day thousands of different Filipino groups and language dialects it took strong root in the southern region and the second largest Philippine island of Mindanao. There is a very strong kinship between Muslims of the Southern Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei to this day. Also a strong and enduring connection between the area and the Middle East, North Africa, (Libya) and pilgrimages are also taken to Mecca and children sent for education to the Muslim nations in the Middle East. The Muslims of Mindanao proudly assert with a slightly begrudged acknowledgement from the massive Philippines Catholic population that Islam and not Catholicism is in fact the oldest faith of the nation. Muslims assert with pride that they have resisted the Spanish, American and Philippine governments based in Manila and have never been effectively subjugated by any of them nor changed their faith. 

The Spanish, as colonialists did and do, enlisted the help of some indigenous peoples/tribes against the others. One who refused to submit to Spain was Lapu Lapu. Claimed by both Muslim and Christian Filipinos as a national hero today, he defeated the Spaniards at the battle of Mactan. Being originally from modern day Borneo and returning there in later life, Lapu Lapu was residing in Cebu at the time the Spaniards arrived and whilst from Borneo originally it has been disputed as to his Muslim faith given that the Islamic faith had not spread and dominated as far north as Cebu during his life time nor indeed has it done so to this day. However the story of his encounter with the Spanish and Magellan is an interesting one. The Spanish through a combination of arrogance, hubris and underestimating the skill and resolve of their native enemy came to a very embarrassing end. An estimated 60 Conquistadores told their local allies to observe as they waded ashore to meet Lapu Lapu and his warriors. This was to be an exhibition if European superiority to those native tribal allies. What could possibly go wrong?

When Magellan arrived in the Philippines in 1521, he got involved in the rivalries of the local rulers, and managed to secure the allegiance of some of these men. One of the most important of these chiefs was the Rajah of Cebu, Rajah Humabon. Near the island of Cebu was the island of Mactan, which was home to two rival chiefs, Zula and Lapu-Lapu. The former submitted to the Spanish and agreed to pay tribute, while the latter refused to submit to either the Spanish or Rajah Humabon. The defiance of Lapu-Lapu seemed to have made it impossible for Zula to send tribute to Magellan, causing him to request Spanish aid to defeat his rival. This resulted in the Battle of Mactan, in which the Spanish were defeated by Lapu-Lapu and his warriors, and Magellan himself lost his life.
                 


Although now Muslims are only an estimated 5% of the population of the country and a minority in Mindanao too after centuries of aggressive policies of Catholic plantations and confiscations of land, discrimination, migration and enforced attempts at assimilation by Spanish, American and then Philippine governments in Manila, radical Islamic groups there like Abu Sayyaf (bearer of the sword) hold steadfast to their faith and sense of separateness.

Moros are confined almost entirely to the southern part of the country--southern and western Mindanao, southern Palawan, and the Sulu Archipelago. Ten subgroups can be identified on the basis of language. Three of these groups make up the great majority of Moros. They are the Maguindanaos of North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Maguindanao provinces; the Maranaos of the two Lanao provinces; and the Tausugs, principally from Jolo Island.

The historical and deliberately consistent lack of investment in the Mindanao region it has been claimed, has led to a situation developing of rival groups headed by feudal style overlords vying for any economic advantage. They are generally family/tribal based and there has been an endless series of blood letting and feuding. Since colonial times against the Spanish, piracy has been a mainstay industry in this bandit, lawless region and today kidnappings for ransom are commonplace. Government inconsistency has hampered the greater efforts at a resolution to the trouble there. Now a minority in Mindanao, Muslims in general are content with the huge degree of autonomy afforded to the region by Manila. The population of Mindanao is more than happy in general being part of the Republic of the Philippines. The Islamic militants are not fighting to join Indonesia or Malaysia.

Generally though, the area in recent times has been opened up to tourism. Fishing, notably tuna fishing industry, is again making great progress and the island has a huge amount of unspoilt tropical rainforests as well as massive mineral wealth resources. All in all, during recent times Mindanao has come a long way and Duterte's recent imposition of marshal law may appear to potentially serve to impact as a 1916 Dublin style stand-off opportunity for the small, unpopular and fragmented radical Islamic groups in the area. They have very little support and we can only hope not. Duterte like Thatcher in Ireland could be just the man to pour petrol on the embers of an all but dead fire. On the other hand however, unlike Thatcher, Duterte is from Mindanao and was governor there for a long time before becoming President of the Philippines. Unlike Thatcher, Duterte knows his enemy in Mindanao and is extremely popular there. Indeed not just there but throughout the entire Philippines. The international MSM media on the other hand seem to hate him.

So, had the casino attack/robbery in Manila been connected to the internal Muslim unrest in the Philippines and ongoing military operation in Mindanao, what exactly would that prove other than it is safe for Western MSM to make the connect in Asia in search of a common enemy, but prohibited for political reasons to do so in the UK? This in order to keep up the pretence of non governmental responsibility? Where exactly any of this historical reality for Muslims in Europe, the Middle East and Asia plays into the MSM portrayal of events today is questionable to say the least. Attacks against western citizens, they would have us believe, occur in isolation and in a vacuum. The Western media of today like medieval court jesters, portrait painters and fortune tellers to the Kings of Europe, live and die by projecting their masters' best image and viewpoint to his/her subjects and telling us what their masters want us to hear and to believe and to hell with everything and everyone else. The western MSM cares little for the internal realities of the Philippines.

How badly then the UK - MSM must feel at the moment after dutifully and diligently doing its job only to be let down by the Tory Party 2017 election performance, just about the most arrogant and contemptible towards the UK electorate in history. The MSM has been left totally exposed as naked with nothing to protect it or with which to disguise its political lies and Tory government bias. Any semblance of party political impartiality now emerging is more likely to do with spite for the Tory leadership failings than with any desire for factual reporting. We can only make up our own minds in the end whether we subscribe to the MSM and its biased reporting agenda or not. A case it seems for the western media and governments of , “If you aint with us you're against us” perhaps?

Duterte for his part was not rushing to find any pretence at common ground with the western media and its agenda. No cynical use of the incident for political gain. Good For Him.[image error] [image error]

Larry Leprechaun meets Lapu Lapu in Manila, Philippines.
Sources:

Muslims And Moros In The Southern Philippines

Paganism in Catholic Philippines

Chief Lapu Lapu Warrior and Hero Philippines

On The London Attacks

A statement from Humanists UK on the weekend theocratic fascist attack on civilians in London.

This weekend’s attacks in London come to us as a sobering reminder of the fragility of human life, and, so soon after the heinous terror attack at the Manchester Arena, an urgent reminder of our need to do more to protect our diverse society from the growing threat posed by extremist ideology.






As in Paris, as in Manchester, as in Berlin, as in Mosul, as in Stockholm, as in Nice, as in Mogadishu – just a few of the 61 Islamist terrorist attacks globally in the last 18 months which have left over 1,700 dead and over 3,500 injured – the targets of Saturday’s murderers were not strategic sites of national importance. They were bustling centres of civilian activity: restaurants, bars, cafes, and free public spaces, symbolic only of the pursuit of community and happiness. In Borough Market or London Bridge on any evening, you’ll find people enjoying themselves, spending time with friends and loved ones, living their lives.
The war that Islamist extremists preach is not only a war on ‘the West’, in vague geopolitical terms, but a war on a way of life that prizes freedom: whether that’s the freedom to drink alcohol, the freedom to choose one’s own beliefs, to dress how we like, or to simply let off steam after a busy week’s work.

The victims of the attack represented London in all its diversity and strength: they included people from all around the world, of many different races and creeds. The only named victim so far is Canadian woman Chrissy Archibald, who lived her life according to a belief ‘that every person was to be valued and respected’, who spent much of her adult life volunteering to help the homeless, who was a contributor to human happiness and welfare and wellbeing.

Every victim of this attack, like Chrissy, will no doubt have stories from their life that can inspire us as they emerge for us – stories that have now come to a dramatic and sudden end. When we consider the victims of recent terror atrocities in London, Manchester, Paris, and Brussels, or in towns and cities in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, or Iraq, it only takes a few moments of reflection to realise just how amazing most people are. The vast majority of us, however imperfect and complex and contradictory we may be, are good people trying to live good and fulfilling lives.

What, then, can we make of this current spate of atrocities? These attacks conform, no doubt, to the classical aims of terror: to disrupt our way of living, to turn neighbour against neighbour, to weaken our democratic community. As ever, they also invite us to strip away our own freedoms in the name of safety. They inspire fear and loathing. Their intention is the corruption of our hearts and the weakening of our resolves so that the way will be paved for the victory of a brutal alternative vision of the world.

But as for the increasing frequency of such attacks, and the cause, our elected representatives surely have more thinking to do. If when these attackers are named we learn that they were of British origin, as was the case with the Manchester Arena murderer, then surely it will be more apparent than ever that the UK is suffering not only from adherents of a creed hellbent on destruction, but from failures of our own domestic policy across education, the building of social cohesion, and anti-extremism efforts, which have allowed an ideology of hate not just to fester but to spread.

For the moment, with the names of victims still to be announced, grief and reflection are all that are called for. But, in the weeks and months that follow this, we re-commit ourselves as an organisation to working to address the many causes – religious and otherwise – of the murderous campaign of the current extremists, and to work together in this with the rest of civil society, including with the many religious believers who share our aim of a free and tolerant world.

We all have the power, as individuals, to choose life and to continue enjoying ourselves. To do less than this would be surrender: it would fulfil the aims that ISIS set for itself when it called for a holy month of attacks on UK soil. As humanists, we have to be idealists: to consider how it is we should aspire to live and to hold ourselves to those high standards. But just as important to our way of thinking is realism: and it is the tragic truth that we do not have the power to make ourselves perfectly safe from harm.

We have no platitudes to offer, and at this tragic time we only offer one thought: life is short. Life is far, far too short. These are both words of caution and also a reminder of why it is we value freedom.

For the humanist, there is only this life, and it is a life imbued with ultimate importance. So, please, remain vigilant. Do your best to stay safe. But just as importantly, remember that it is essential, that it is imperative, to stay true to who you are and hold tightly to those values of reason and kindness that we cherish.

Notes

At Humanists UK, we want a tolerant world where rational thinking and kindness prevail. Our work helps people be happier and more fulfilled, and by bringing non-religious people together we help them develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them.

Jettison Dinosaur Dynasty

Sinn Fein needs to finally dump abstentionism at Westminster after 8th June, argues former Blanket columnist Dr John Coulter with his  Ireland's Eye Column from Tribune Magazine last week.
If the republican movement is to have a meaningful voice in the UK’s Brexit negotiations, it must exorcise the demon of abstentionism from Sinn Fein.

Since its formation in 1905, Sinn Fein has maintained its public stance against British rule in Ireland by refusing to allow its MPs to take their Commons seats. Yet Sinn Fein elected representatives take their seats in every other parliament.
Even the late Ian Paisley senior and late Martin McGuinness successfully ran the DUP/SF power-sharing partitionist Executive at Stormont during the so-called ‘Chuckle Brothers’ era in the peace process.
June 8th could see a major shift in the Orange/Green balance of power in Northern Ireland. Unionists have already lost their majority in Stormont. There is the real possibility that republicanism could become the majority voice at the ballot box with nationalist or republican candidates clinching the balance of Northern Ireland’s 18 seats. 
In mainland Britain, Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs as well as anti-monarchy or republican MPs within Labour all take their seats, leaving Sinn Fein as the political odd-ball.
Republicans who cling to the ‘dinosaur dynasty’ of abstentionism would do well to remember the Commons success of former Mid Ulster MP Bernadette Devlin, who became one of the youngest MPs to take her seat in 1969 as a Unity candidate. 
She is a devout republican socialist, but clearly recognised the sterling merits of the political phrase – if you’re not in, you can’t win!
Eloquent republican elected representatives have made significant impacts in Stormont, Dublin’s Dail, and the European Parliament so if they truly want to prove that Sinn Fein has totally embraced the principles of democracy – as well as campaigning effectively for the best Brexit deal for the UK – all Sinn Fein MPs elected on 8th June must dump abstentionism into the dustbin of history.
The Brexit deal will not get final approval in Brussels or Strasbourg, Dublin or Belfast – Westminster will be the key battle ground and the Commons chamber in particular. 
In the nationalist community, the SDLP will be fighting for its very survival with all three of its MPs facing stiff competition from Sinn Fein with the moderate nationalist party needing tactical voting by unionists to stop a Sinn Fein onslaught.
The secret of Sinn Fein’s success has been the cultivating of the so-called ‘draft dodger’ candidate – people who have no known links to the Provisional IRA.
Since IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands won the 1981 Fermanagh South Tyrone Commons by-election, the trend in Sinn Fein for almost a generation was that most candidates should be either ex-jailbirds or have links to the IRA. The ballot box went hand in hand with the bomb and bullet.
But since the 1994 IRA ceasefire, that trend has been radically diminished. A new generation of republican from the Catholic middle class and well-educated has emerged, none of whom served their political ‘apprenticeships’ in the Provos. This is now the era of the ballot box and bachelor honours degree!
Electorally, it has meant that Sinn Fein can emerge from its hardline republican working class heartlands and roam into the bastions of middle class moderate nationalism. Sinn Fein is sweeping up votes that normally went to the SDLP. 
Ironically, Sinn Fein is dishing out to the SDLP at the ballot box what the SDLP did to the original Irish Nationalist Party in the 1970s. The INP was the main Stormont Opposition party during the era of unionist majority rule. 
Indeed, SF2017 is almost a mirror image of a former republican party, the Irish Independence Party, founded by hardline republicans within the SDLP in the 1970s who felt the SDLP had too much of an emphasis on socialism and not enough on republicanism. 
In another twist, the IIP was led by Protestant John Turnley, a former British Army officer who was later murdered by loyalist terrorists in 1980. 
In hard political terms, if the ‘draft dodgers’ rule the Sinn Fein roost after 8th June, then SF2017 equals IIP1977. 
While the IIP did not win any seats in the 1979 General Election which saw Maggie Thatcher sweep to power, had Turnley lived and the 1980 and 1981 republican hunger strikes avoided, the IIP would now be sitting pretty at Stormont and Sinn Fein would merely be a social supporters club for the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising.
But cue the reality pill. The ‘draft dodger’ strategy is not only putting SDLP seats under severe pressure; at least two unionist-held seats could fall to Sinn Fein. This is forcing unionists to put up ‘unity’ candidates to defend its seats in both North Belfast and Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
While the SDLP may well be fighting for its very survival within nationalism, so too is the once dominant Ulster Unionist Party battling for its future in unionism. Lose its two MPs and the UUP will split with the centre right heading off to the DUP, and the liberals sucking up to the centrist Alliance Party.