Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1219

Dissent On The Lower East Side: The Post-Political Condition

Stanley L. Cohen  writing in Counterpunch about a forthcoming conference. Stanley L. Cohen is lawyer and activist in New York City.

Timely, and simple enough in its reach, this discussion will include myself and a number of intellectuals such as history professor Norton Mezvinsky, whistle blower Michael Lesher and author Gilad Atzmon. The panel will focus on the collapse of identity politics, the crises within new left thinking, and the future of liberal and progressive thought.

In particular, I will discuss “Insular View of the American Left” while Professor Mezvinsky will speak to “The Quagmire of Current Political Terminology in U.S. Society.” Mr. Lesher will explore dichotomy between “Jewish Identity and Jewish Religion” and Mr. Atzmon will address “The Tyranny of Correctness- deconstructing identity politics and understanding its origin.”

Although the panel will necessarily touch upon Zionism, Israel, and events in the Middle East, these topics will play but a small part in a much broader exploration of the political winds of today.

To some, the subject matter of the discussion is apparently of less consequence than the makeup of the panel itself. In particular, the presence of Gilad Atzmon, a onetime Israeli citizen and Jew who has since renounced both, has triggered an organized effort to bully the theatre into canceling the event or, failing that, to disrupt it.

I’ve long been accused of being a “self-hating” Jew largely because of my work as legal counsel for the political wing of Hamas and my fervent opposition to the state of Israel as one built from the marrow of ethnic cleansing.

Described as controversial because of my opposition to Zionism, and a long list of revolutionary clients and movements that have included more than a few accused of domestic or international terrorism, I’ve grown accustomed to being “shunned ” by the political opposition that rarely seeks to engage in public discussion or debate. That’s fine. For some, it’s so much easier to toss barbs from the safety of the shadows then it is to withstand open exposure for the weakness of one’s thought.

Yet, Gilad Atzmon presents another picture. Mr. Atzmon’s stinging criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity… perhaps even Judaism itself… have so enraged both Zionists and some anti-Zionists alike, that the mob seeks to silence him and thereby deny us all the benefit of his speech.

Censors of thought are not new to time or place. Throughout history, they have deigned to dictate the parameters of acceptable dialogue and, when unable to control the discourse, have sought to shut it down as if ideas are in themselves dangerous.

One need only look to recent events in Washington D.C. to understand that those who fear the market place of free ideas often seek to shutter it whether by economic intimidation or through resort to violence.

Just this past month, JDL (Jewish Defense League) imports from Canada brutally attacked, and seriously injured, a 55-year old Palestinian-American professor from North Carolina who had the temerity to pass an anti-AIPAC demonstration with his family.

The mindless brutality of the Canadian JDL members, that day, cannot be seen in a vacuum but rather must be viewed in the light of 50 plus years of terrorism carried out by its US counterpart, now formally designated as an outlawed terrorist organization.

Over these many years, the membership, indeed, leadership of the American branch of the JDL… or “associate organizations”… have unleashed an unprecedented reign of terror which has produced dozens of convictions for crimes ranging from a plot to bomb the office of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa and the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, Calif. to numerous bombings of foreign embassies and properties to attacks on US buildings to conspiracies of kidnap and murder to assaults on foreign nationals and US police. Countless other crimes, including murder and conspiracy to bomb, have been laid at the feet of the JDL but to date remain un-charged.

Despite this documented, nay, unprecedented history of violent attacks by zio-fascists upon free speech and association, neither the JDL of Canada nor its US counterpart will suppress this panel discussion at Theatre 80 or silence our voice. Ours is a community of free spirits and thinkers. Women and men directed by little more than the pursuit of truth and justice.

Indeed, long ago the community of the LES of New York City opened its arms to refugees who fled tyranny abroad and, in so doing, became a welcome host to the dissident, the politically unpopular, the revolutionary idea or person.

Today, that greeting is under attack by some who have failed to learn the history of this community that I have called home for most of my adult life. A journey down the hardscrabble, but exhilarating, road of this community of resistance can say far more than I can about the necessity of the exchange of ideas that will occur this coming Sunday evening at Theatre 80.

The History of Dissent on the Lower East Side

Long before the free speech battles of the 60’s, or the recent ones at Berkeley, there stood a proud tenement building at 208 East 13th Street in New York City. More than a hundred years ago, it echoed with the booming resonance of resistance… a declaration of who we were at the time and, more important, who we could become if only we dared to challenge political and social orthodoxy.

Today, on the façade of that old battered 19th century tenement building on the LES of Manhattan sits a cracked and stained plaque that simply says “Emma Goldman lived here.” Enough said.

The same building was home to “Mother Earth,” Goldman’s periodical that promoted anarchist views and provided a platform for “radical” artists and militant ideas of the day… until it was closed as subversive by the government in 1917.

Goldman was a fierce and tireless supporter of “controversial” revolutionary struggles such as free speech, birth control, women’s equality, union organizing, workers rights, sexual freedom and peace.

Known as “Red Emma”, she was labeled by J. Edgar Hoover as one of the “most dangerous women” in the country.” Among her closest friends and comrades were Alexander Berkman, Margaret Sanger, Roger Baldwin, Max Eastman, John Reed, Dorothy Day and Floyd Dell… a veritable who’s who of radicals who, long ago, confronted political convention not all that different from that which seeks to intimidate or to silence us today.

In 1917, Goldman was sentenced to two years in prison after founding the No-Conscription League in protest against the draft. It was one of several stints she did, beyond bars, for political beliefs that ranged from a year in prison for “inciting to riot”… for a speech she gave at a Union Square hunger demonstration where she told the poor to steal bread if they could not afford to buy it… to another one for illegally distributing information about birth control. Following her arrest during the notorious Palmer Raids that began on November 7, 1919 (the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution), she was deported to Russia along with some 250 other “subversive aliens.”

While the Palmer Raids occurred throughout the United States with more than 10,000 arrests for subversion, they, in particular, targeted hundreds of high profile “militants” who were rounded up on the LES which was then home to a powerful and vibrant community of revolutionary thinkers and activists.

In the life blood of the LES, Goldman has been anything but the exception to the rule in a community that historically has been home to the dissident… the unconventional… those who see more to life than surrender to the whims of politically correct dogma or the constraints of “patriotic” mobs.

Dorothy Day heard the call of the LES. Along with Peter Maurin, she founded the Catholic Worker Movement which, with anarchists and communists, fought for the rights of the homeless, workers, women, immigrants and others disempowered by virtue of gender or class.

Although the Movement found its vigor in Christian charity and promoted a political strategy of total non-violence, Day was never one to shy away from direct action. Jailed for picketing the White House in support of women’s right to vote, while imprisoned for her offense, she helped organize a hunger strike at Occoquan Prison.

It is said that, over the course of a long life of civil disobedience, Day was arrested more than one hundred times. A poster memorializing her final arrest at age 76 declares “our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system.” It hangs from the wall of my office.

To Dorothy Day, peaceful resistance necessarily demanded of activists’ controversial speech that directly confronted the tyranny of the status quo… something she excelled at while working as the editor of The Masses.

Based in “Alphabet City” in the LES, Masses was a radical magazine that reported on most of the major labor struggles of its day: from the Paint Creek-Cabin Creek strike of 1912 in West Virginia to the Paterson Silk Strike of 1913 and the Ludlow massacre in Colorado. It strongly supported Big Bill Haywood and his IWW, the political campaigns of Eugene V. Debs and vigorously argued for birth control and women’s suffrage.

Until closed by the government in 1917 for its anti-war and “anti-government” platform, The Masses featured a chorus of militant voices including such writers as John Reed, Crystal Eastman, Hubert Harrison, Inez Milholland, Mary Heaton Vorse, Louis Untermeyer, Randolf Bourne, Arturo Giovannitti, Michael Gold, Helen Keller, William English Walling, Anna Strunsky, Carl Sandburg, Upton Sinclair, Floyd Dell and Louise Bryant. It also featured a host of political artists including John Sloan, Robert Henri, Mary Ellen Sigsbee, Cornelia Barns, Rockwell Kent, Art Young, Boardman Robinson, Robert Minor, Lydia Gibson, K. R. Chamberlain, Hugo Gellert, George Bellows and Maurice Becker.

At other times, the radical history of the LES has been marked not just by controversial speech or passive resistance alone, but by direct action that, on occasion, has exploded into violence captivating the watch of the rest of New York City as if this one hundred square block area is very much of a different world.

Thus, on January 13, 1874, over 7,000 largely unemployed workers gathered in Tompkins Square Park, in the largest demonstration New York City had ever seen, to demand financial assistance from the City during an economic depression.

Ten and a half acres in total, the square-shaped park is bounded on the north by East 10th Street, on the east by Avenue B, on the south by East 7th Street, and on the west by Avenue A. It is abutted by St. Marks Place to the west.

Without warning, not long after the demonstration began, some 1,600 policemen charged the park and dispersed most of the crowd beating people throughout it with clubs. Others, on horseback, cleared the surrounding streets. Some of the demonstrators fought back in vain… attempting to defend the square. Hundreds were injured.

Samuel Gompers, himself a resident of the LES, who founded the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and was scheduled to address the demonstration that day, described the events and his experiences:

. . . mounted police charged the crowd on Eighth Street, riding them down and attacking men, women, and children without discrimination. It was an orgy of brutality. I was caught in the crowd on the street and barely saved my head from being cracked by jumping down a cellar-way.

Little more than a century later, on August 6, 1988, Tompkins Square Park exploded yet once again when police attacked a large group of peaceful demonstrators protesting a newly established curfew intended to clear the park of activists, homeless and so-called squatters that had made increasing use of Tompkins Square for demonstrations against the City and its misuse of local community space. Bystanders, activists, neighborhood residents and journalists were caught up in the violence.

Despite a brief lull in the fighting, the mêlée continued until 6 a.m. the next day. Numerous injuries resulted with over 100 complaints of police brutality lodged following the riot. One headline in the New York Times summed up the events: “Yes, a Police Riot.”

St. Marks Place

If Tompkins Square Park is the heart of the East Village, St. Marks Place is its soul. James Fenimore Cooper lived at 6 St. Marks from 1834-1836. While there, he published his epic “A letter To My Countrymen.” It proved to be his most scathing work of social criticism in which he denounces the “slavery of party affiliations.”

In 1854 The Nursery for the Children of Poor Women…the first of its kind… was set up in a rundown house on St. Marks.

In 1917, Leon Trotsky arrived on St. Marks Place where he wrote for the Novy Mir (“New World”), then based at 77 St. Marks, while living with his family across the street in an apartment at 80 St. Marks. Just a few years earlier, Berkman and Goldman opened the progressive Modern School at No. 16 St. Marks. Among its teachers were famed muckrakers Jack London and Upton Sinclair.

In the 1940’s, W.H. Auden resided on St. Marks. In the 60’s, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin co-founded the Youth International Party (“Yippies”) at No. 30 St. Marks and Lenny Bruce lived for a while, on the famed street, at No. 13. In 1966, Andy Warhol housed his Exploding Plastic Inevitable collective above the Electric Circus nightclub at 19-25 St. Marks… installing the Velvet Underground as the house band. During the same period, Debbie Harry lived at 13 St. Marks. Often were the occasions when a vibrant sweep down St. Marks Place would mean a chance encounter with Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, and Allen Ginsberg… a longtime area resident.

Elsewhere on the Lower East Side, throughout the 60’s, political activists, movements and artists alike continued its well established tradition of serving as a safe haven for cultural diversity, political dissidents and controversial speech.

For example, just up the block from what had been the home of Charlie Parker, stands the Christodora House. Located on Avenue B, directly across the street from Tompkins Square Park, the Young Lords and Black Panther Party maintained their respective headquarters during this period.

The Young Lords, in particular, played an important role in what was, and remains, a heavily Latino neighborhood… creating community projects similar to those of the Black Panthers but with a Latino flavor. Such projects included a free breakfast program for children, the Emeterio Betances free health clinic, community testing for tuberculosis and lead-poisoning, free clothing drives, cultural events and Puerto Rican history classes. The female leadership in New York pushed the Young Lords to fight for women’s rights.

80 St. Marks Place

The venue for Sunday’s panel discussion has a storied history itself in the LES. Beginning as a nightclub during Prohibition, 80 Saint Marks Place was home to performers that included such Jazz greats as Thelonious Monk, Harry “Sweets” Edison, John Coltrane and Frank Sinatra.

After Theatre 80 was established in the former nightclub, its tradition of diversity in the arts continued as it launched the careers of famous performers including the likes of Gary Burghoff, Bob Balaban and Billy Crystal, who once worked there as an usher.

Richard “Lord” Buckley, described by Bob Dylan in his book “Chronicles” as “the hipster bebop preacher who defied all labels”, had his final performance at Theatre 80 when his cabaret card was seized by police from the vice squad and his show closed. Outraged, Buckley went to the local precinct to demand his card’s return. Not long thereafter he ended up dead in St. Vincent’s Hospital of an apparent stroke. That brought about a movement which eventually ended the Cabaret Card system in New York City.

Not many years later, the legendary play “Hair” was cast at Theatre 80. During the 1970s and 80s it also served as a revival house where one could see vintage films. Among those who attended, often to see their own body of work was Gloria Swanson, Joan Crawford, Myrna Loy, Ruby Keeler and Joan Blondell.

More recently Theatre 80 presented a play by noted poet, playwright, author and racial equality activist, Sonya Sanchez. Fred Hampton Jr. was often seen at the theatre to attend events for famed radical defense attorney, Lynne Stewart, who recently died having been politically persecuted and imprisoned for her life’s work.

Actively involved in a wide range of community issues, the theatre, not long ago, along with Patti Smith, sponsored a concert to raise money for the victims of the Second Avenue gas explosion which caused two deaths, injured at least nineteen people… four critically… and completely destroyed four buildings between East 7th Street and St. Marks Place. It has held a number of so-called “truther” forums that explored the events of 9-11… an issue of burning interest to the local community.

Come this Sunday, the panel discussion will proceed in the ideal venue in the perfect community. To be sure, at times, its participants will surely say things that may offend the sensibilities of some in the audience. On occasion, panel members will disagree with one another as the market place of ideas is not a group-speak but rather a challenge to explore diverse and often competing thoughts in the pursuit of truth.

Ideas may sting, they may hurt, and they may challenge us to explore issues that can cause great personal discomfort. That’s precisely what they are intended to do. There is no question that while the clash of ideas causes pain; the suppression of ideas causes greater harm… and sometimes pain is the stretch of growing.

Thanks to the refusal of Lorcan Otway, owner of Theatre 80, to surrender to howls of a few, join us this Sunday, April 30 at 5PM in the heart of the ongoing American evolution at Theatre 80, 80 St. Marks Place in the Lower East Side of New York City.
Join the debate on Facebook 


More articles by:Stanley L. Cohen

Learning From The Irish Experience

Tom Abernethy, of the New York 1916 Societies writes that:

As Irish Republican activists here in America we have long espoused certain principles and ideals in pursuit of our goal of justice and freedom in Ireland. As Irish Republicans in this country we should be clear that we remain consistent in these values that are at the heart of Irish Republicanism.

Add caption

Irish Republicanism, of course, was founded on the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity originally espoused by the United Irishmen. They believed that the Irish Nation included all; Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter. Non-sectarianism, bridging the religious gulf, was at the heart of ethos of the United Irishmen. They faced huge challenges in advancing this position, as there was a large degree of mistrust and antagonism between the different religious groups. Protestants could point to the Massacres of 1641, Catholics to the Penal Laws, as grounds to keep apart from one another. Wolfe Tone, the key figure in Irish Republicanism, was a Protestant who advocated for Catholic Emancipation when it was a very radical idea. Many at the time thought that the native Catholic population, with their “backward” religion, was too wild and violent to ever trust to be near a position of power in Ireland. It took courage and vision for those leaders of the republican movement in the 1790s to espouse religious tolerance and to preach against religious bigotry and sectarianism. The British government, of course, used religious bigotry to divide the people of Ireland from each other and to promote their own interests in Ireland. The British ruling class assumed that the native Irish population was incapable of self government and it was this belief that lay at the core of the British decision to impose partition of Ireland against the democratic will of the Irish people.

This belief in native Irish inferiority was not, of course limited to Britain. Here in the U.S., the belief that the Irish, and especially Irish Catholics were violent, rash and superstitious and therefore impossible to assimilate into American society was common throughout the nineteenth century. Those who promoted negative images of the Irish, such as the cartoonist Thomas Nash, of course, did not think of themselves as mean bigots. They thought they were simply reacting to what they saw as a danger arriving on the shores of this country.

Of course, later immigrants to America met with similar attitudes from those already here. And by the time that immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe began to arrive in massive numbers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, some of the descendents of those earlier Irish immigrants were among those looking down at these newer arrivals. To some in Irish America, these new immigrants from Italy, Poland and Greece were now the dirty, violent and “uncivilized” ones.

For these Nativists, there was nothing positive about the people or culture of these new arrivals. There was no interest or appreciation of their language, music, literature, food, etc. Now, of course, there are countless celebrations of Irish America, Italian Americans and other ethnic groups. The contributions of these earlier ethnic groups to American culture and society are widely acknowledged. There are countless books and documentaries and much nostalgia about our immigrant fore parents and many politicians are quick to tout their ethnic identity when searching for votes. Many of these same politicians are, at the same time, warning of the claimed threat posed by new immigrants and refugees. Of course, the United States, like any other country has the right to control its borders and make a determination as to how many new arrivals it desires and to insist that people arrive in the country through legal channels. But when the argument turns to the alleged dangerous nature of certain immigrants it is important to remember what was said of the older immigrants, including the earlier wave of Irish immigrants. The Irish were considered alien, a violent, savage lot who practiced a religion that was incompatible with American values and which would, if allowed to spread here, destroy religious freedom in the United States. These anti-Irish Nativists, like today’s advocates of travel bans, would point to some example that allegedly made their point. In the case of the earlier immigrants, there were of course some individual members of these white ethnic communities that were in fact dangerous. Some were involved in street crime or organized crime and some individuals were certainly involved in the deaths of Americans after they were admitted to this country. The Gangs of New York gives some indication of how violent these early immigrant neighborhoods could be in fact. These white ethnic immigrants of earlier generations, moreover, went through nothing like the severe vetting that current immigrants to this country have to endure. Using current standards that advocates of “extreme vetting” are seeking to impose, these earlier immigrant would certainly qualify as a threat to the American homeland and would never have become part of the American nation.

If we were to hear an American political leader talk of Irish America only in terms of violence or drunkenness, of the gangs of the Five Points, ignoring the contributions of Irish America has made to the political, military and cultural heritage of this country, we would have no hesitation to object. We would also not be favorably disposed to those showed no sympathy for the thousands of refugees from the Irish Famine and from British misrule in Ireland, who failed to recognize the humanity of the Irish refugees, and instead saw them only as an undifferentiated mass of ignorant and dangerous foreigners.

How then should the experiences of Irish immigrant impact how we think and talk about immigrants and refuges from Syria or Iraq or other countries currently suffering from war and hardship? Like the early Irish immigrants, they are certainly often spoken of in unflattering one dimensional terms, simply as “threats, devoid of any appreciation of their humanity. If we make the same mistake that the Nativists made with the Irish and fail to see that these people have a culture: food, music, storytelling, humor, just as the Irish have, then we have not learned from our own history. The importance of hospitality and generosity in Arab culture is indeed quite similar to Irish culture. As with the Irish, those in the Arab world have had first hand experience of British interference and imposed partition in their lands. The Proclamation of 1916 asserted the “right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be sovereign and indefeasible.” The same of course, should hold true for those who live in the Middle East. We now hear talk that we should steal the oil from the people of Iraq, a sovereign country that had not attacked or invaded us. There does not seem to be a way of reconciling the words and spirit of the 1916 Proclamation with a nakedly colonialist call to plunder the wealth of another country.

Nor when people with valid visas are denied entry into this country can we forget the many decades of work by Irish American activists fighting restrictions on entry into the United States of people from Ireland. For example, the Visa Denial Repeal Committee kept fighting for years to try to get a ban on Irish Republicans such as Ruairi O Bradaigh from entering the U.S. lifted. Others from Ireland who were prevented from entering the U.S. at one time or another have included Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and Marion Price. Although these excluded Irishmen and women were all militant political activists and some were tagged with the label “terrorist” based on their involvement in the republican struggle, Irish activist in this country argued that they posed no danger to the U.S. and that Americans had the right to hear their views. Surely then we cannot be frightened by those seeking to come to the U.S. from many countries in the Middle East, not to forward any political agenda, but simply to escape from the horrors of war and violence . Many indeed are small children whose lives have been traumatized by what they have had to experience. At least some, although certainly not all, of this strife in this part of the world, moreover, has been exacerbated by outside interference in the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq.

Irish activists in this country have also organized for many years to keep those former Irish Political Prisoners who did get into the U.S. from being deported. Activists have argued that these people have families here that should not be forced to make the horrible choice of leaving the country or dividing up their family. We have argued that former Irish Political Prisoners have jobs, families, and community connections to this country. We have argued that they should be treated as individuals, real human beings, not as stick figure “Irish terrorists.” We must, therefore, look at the individuality of the Syrian refugee and the humanity of the Iraqi family looking to stay in the U.S. if we are to remain true to the values that we espouse when we talk about the families of Irish Deportees.

There are those who act as if the danger that a single Syrian refugee or a single visa entrée from a country in the Middle East might commit a terrorist act is enough to justify the denial of entry of anyone from entire national populations. The first question it should raise is what if that standard had been adopted when many of our ancestors were seeking to enter this country? Simply put, there would have been no Irish America or Italian America as we now know it. That standard would also have allowed Britain to bar all Irish people from its shores for most of the past number of decades. In 1974 the Birmingham pub bombing killed 21 civilians and wounded 162. The British security forces responded by rounding up suspects, and coercing confessions based on physical and psychological abuse. Mistreatment of Irish prisoners has recently surfaced again with the papers from 1972 produced by the Pat Finucane Center in Derry that documented fours cases of water boarding of Irish victims by the British Army and RUC. Now of course, there is talk of bringing back water boarding and “a whole lot worse” here in the United States. Listening to this we should immediately recall the legacy of the Hooded Men, Irish citizens who were tortured by the British Army. As for the Birmingham Six, their story is now of course a well known example of a British miscarriage of justice. Yet even The British did not impose a complete ban on Irish travel to England.

The experience of the Birmingham Six was horrible enough and was a deserved stain on Britain’s reputation. Imagine, though, if the British had gone even further than they did and threatened the family members of the Birmingham Six with murder or torture. Yet we now hear also talk in the U.S. of torturing or murdering the families of those accused of terrorist offenses. Beyond the sheer immorality and criminality of such an act, what would be the after effects of such State torture or murder? Could any sane person believe that murdering the families of the Birmingham Six before they were exonerated would have worked to Britain’s long term advantage? Similarly, can anyone think that murdering innocent families would not come back to haunt us in this country? In the case of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, there were at least some people who could look beyond the label of “convicted terrorist” and see human beings who might be victims of a grave miscarriage of justice. We cannot be blind us to the fate of those on the receiving end of these measures taken under the pretext of security. We must also be aware of the ways in which the State can use fear of terrorism as a pretext to implement repressive “security” measures. This is also something that we should be familiar with from the example of Ireland.

A famous case in recent Irish history was the passage in December 1972 by the 26 County government of the infamous Offenses Against the State Amendment. Two car bombs exploded in Dublin while this repressive legislation was being debated in Leinster House. The Act , which was directed at Republicans, and reversed the legal norm that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty ,then passed. No responsibility was ever claimed for the bombing, although suspicion fell on the Littlejohn brothers who had links to British Intelligence. The purpose of the attack appeared to be to encourage passage of this repressive legislation. We see now see the disturbing sight of those in power in this country spreading lies about non existent attacks or events in order to lay the groundwork for State repression that may focus on certain groups at first but which can be used against us all in the future. Our Constitutional freedoms already unacceptably weakened and watered down over the years, will now be under even more assault. The question is whether we will see through these tactics and speak out against them when those on the receiving end are not Irish?

It might be useful to look at the example of O Donnovan Rossa when considering this question. Padraig Pearse, of course, gave his famous oration at the burial of O Donovan Rossa in August 1915 when he spoke of the “fools, the fools, the fools, the have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree will never be at peace.” Rossa was a militant Fenian. He suffered horribly in a British prison, with long stretches of solitary confinement. He was released from prison by an amnesty and took up residence in the United States. Rossa, though, did not cease his militant activities when he came to the United States, quite the opposite. From his base in the United States Rossa organized a dynamite campaign against England.

The Irish American community is now quite respectable. So what to make of a militant felon like O Donnovan Rossa? When we are told of the appalling conditions that he and his fellow Fenian prisoners had to endure in English prisons we are still moved to anger and sadness, even though Rossa’s sufferings have long since ended. But are we concerned about the mistreatment of political prisoners, or even non political prisoners,, that is occurring right now? Solitary confinement drove some Fenian prisoners, such as Thomas Clarke’s compatriot Thomas Gallagher, mad. Yet solitary confinement is still in use throughout the world, including right here in the United States. So how can we be moved by the treatment Rossa and his compatriots endured in the distant past and not care now about political prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, or in a black site prison in Eastern Europe or in an Israeli prison camp? It cannot simply be that O Donnovan Rossa was Irish and his tormentors were English. That would be a disservice to Rossa and to his compatriots.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

For one thing O Donnavan Rossa was an Irish Republican and Irish Republicanism from the beginning has always had a universalist and international component, inspired at it was by the Enlightenment, as well as the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Irish Republicanism has looked for and obtained support from outside Ireland and the Irish Diaspora, and has supported liberation movements around the world.

True Irish Republicanism therefore is not a narrow tribal movement. It is animated by universal principles of right and justice. For example when Harry Boland was in America trying to gain recognition from the U.S. Government for the Irish Republic during the Irish War of Independence he was as involved in Dudley Field Malone’s League of Oppressed Peoples, and other Irish Republicans here in New York, such as Liam Mellows, were also involved in Friends of Indian Freedom. This connection between the Irish struggle and other victims of colonialism or occupation continued on with support for the anti-apartheid movement and other liberation movements. This history and legacy of the Irish struggle does not mean, of course, that we must automatically support every group or movement that claims to speak for the oppressed of the earth. We have a responsibility to be discerning and there are clearly groups out there who do not deserve anyone’s support. As Irish Republicans, though, we have an obligation to at least listen to the voices of those who are marginalized, those who are vilified, and those who live under occupation, as well as those who are imprisoned or are targets of state surveillance or violence.

Irish Republicans is based on the premise that right does not make right. It is why Irish Republicans do not accept a partition of Ireland that was forced on it by Britain’s threat of immediate and terrible war against the Irish people. It is why true Irish Republicans do not seek to dominate the unionist population but want, instead. a new Ireland with guaranteed rights for all of Ireland’s citizens. It is why they want the civil liberties of all of Irishmen and women to be protected, why they want to end the mass surveillance by the British Government and to stop the harassment of young Irish people in the Six Counties.

It is why groups such as the 1916 Society through the One Ireland One Vote Campaign is demanding an all Ireland vote on Irish Unity that does not recognize a partition that was imposed by British might. Irish Republicans do not waiver in their commitment to these principles. This steadfastness is part of the character of Irish Republicans.

As Pádraic Pearse wrote in The Spiritual Nation when discussing another great Irish patriot, Thomas Davis, “character is the greatest thing in a man.” Character of course is dependant on honesty and integrity. Even those who disagreed with him, for example, seldom questioned the honesty and integrity of a man such as Ruari O Bradaigh. Activists in Irish America know that those who claim they will bring about great things for the country but who lack basic honesty and integrity are not to be counted on and will eventually let down even their own followers. We have an obligation to use the insights we have gained from the Irish experience and apply them to situations in our own country and around the world. By doing so, we will help ensure that we keep true to the principles we have for so long espoused.

From The Backbone Out

The Day The Music Died For Ireland's Water Movement - Politics as Usual.

James Quigley & Enda Craig writing in Buncrana Together ponder what is from their perspective the demise of the Anti-water Movement in Ireland.


It wasn’t last Thursday when Dáil  Éireann voted 96 to 47 to accept a Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil cobbled report from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Funding Domestic Water.

Nor was it the last 10 days of pretence negotiations between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that shook our world when one day we were told we had a victory, only to find out later that in fact we didn’t.

No, the day the music died for us can be traced back to when the movement was usurped by the parliamentary system and political agendas prior to and during last years inconclusive general election The water charges movement played second fiddle to political parties percentage points and organisations vying for power. This was further compounded by parties like Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil competing for the ‘republican’ and anti water charges vote.
Also Sinn Féin and other left wing parties were also competing for the working class and anti water charges vote. Fianna Fáil although campaigning for abolition of water charges and Irish Water was not part of the Right2Water or later the Right2Change campaign as it had become. On the other hand Sinn Féin and some trade unions controlled the Right2Water organisation.
Donegal demonstration, Nov 2014, in Letterkenny

One of the major issues at the time for the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil right-wing rapprochement was how to deal with the inconclusive 2016 Irish election result and the gains made by the ‘left’ and ‘left of centre’ opposition TDs and parties that incidentally can be attributed to the massive public opposition to the previous Fine Gael/Labour government’s water charges policy and it’s forceful handling of that issue.

February 2016 Irish general election
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael knew that they had to come up with a plan to allow Fianna Fáil to somehow row back on recent election promises of abolishing Irish Water Ltd and Water Charges, promises, by the way, they both knew ran contrary to right-wing and EU neo-liberal policies. The establishment knows instinctively that such promises are part and parcel of the political parliamentary game and understand that Fianna Fáil had to make them in order to claw back 20 of the 51 seats lost in the 2011 general election. Fine Gael, on the other hand, had to somehow save what they could of it’s water policy fiasco.

So the two right-wing parties set about cleverly devising the ‘Expert Water Commission’ and the ‘Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water’ processes. These delaying tactics were all directed, managed and scripted by Fine Gael’s Simon Coveney with the tacit approval of Fianna Fáil.

But to our amazement the left and centre left deputies and prominent campaigners didn’t put up much of a fight and allowed the processes to continue for the next year and a half. Not only did they eventually even taking an active part in the setup.

No matter how significant the role that the Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil right-wing pact played in the affair, we feel that that was a natural establishment reaction but what we believe much more sinister was the role play by some of the movements political supporters. In our view it was this political undercurrent and personal agendas that ripped the legs from under the anti water movement that in the end made it easier for FG/FF pact to plot it’s course. The wily Fianna Fail fox in the chicken run is easier to spot that the chameleon slithering in our own ranks.
Feb 2017 Stevie Fitzpatrick and David Gibney admit agreement with excessive use charge
Final report neither comprehensible nor comprehensive


Eoin O'Broin, SF calls for setting up a Select Expert Commission and admits says there is no alternative to Irish Water.  RTE 13/3/2016,

The Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil report that went through the Dáil last week, was in our view not definitive nor comprehensive. It will lead to further controversy and political wrangling. It is a bureaucratic quagmire that promotes inequality. It is vague, misleading and obtuse and it will allow the government or system of the day to tamper with the fine print and legislate accordingly. Presently the minister responsible for interpreting it and drawing up initial legislation is none other than Fine Gael’s Simon Coveney.

Perhaps we may get lucky again, like we did with the ExpertWater Commission but everything is pointing to the controversy continuing , with the status quo circling their wagons and tinkering with the small print.

Just what have we won or maybe the question is also much have we enabled? Note there was only two changes between the draft report the week previous and the final report.


‣The report copper-fastens Irish Water Ltd, the much hated and now entrenched quango. It will remain in place in it’s present form for the time being but could even subtly change in future.
‣The report mentions that ‘Domestic Water’ will be funded through taxation. However, this is not written in stone and is subject to EU legislation. There is nothing about ‘Domestic Waste Water’ or ‘Commercial Water’. Nothing about rivers, lakes or underground aquifers etc. It qualifies the funding mechanism by stating that in the future the utility must be adequately funded and guaranteed long term stability. We do not know what ‘if required’ Section 2.4 means and the entire section is only recommended.‣There is a lot of ‘recommendation’ and not much specifics.‣The report doesn’t mention anything about present funding methods of VAT and Motor tax.
‣Constitutional referendum. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. This might or might not happen and the report only ‘supports the concept’ one. The wording and time-frame are presently unknown. In the meantime or even if it happens, private public partnerships (another name for privatisation) will be running the show.
‣Water allowances, whether the 133 litres per day and whether it is going to be a household or personal average is still unclear. CER will have the responsibility who in turn base their averages on of Irish Water’s sliding scale of consumption figures. It turns out that Ireland has the lowest water consumption in all the OECD countries. So it seems we are going to get the lowest of the low water allowance. Even this allowance will, in the future, be subject to intense downward pressure, with costs veering upwards. It has all the hallmarks of a bureaucratic nightmare where households will struggle to keep within limits, fill in forms and apply with cap in hand for waivers.
‣Meters in new builds recommendation looks like a fig leaf. Along with millions of clandestine meters already installed and the recommended incentive of ‘grading scheme’, ‘retrofitting’, ‘strong building standard’ etc, it looks like the emphasis is on full meter coverage.
‣We are not looking forward to whatever draconian legislation Mr Coveney comes up with and it seems he has almost carte blanche to do what the State legal advises. With regard to legislation, no doubt he is aware of calls of whipping out unwanted meters.
‣There is no mention of who is actually responsible for installing or maintaining meters. There still remains a legal questions of ownership of boundary boxes and recognition of Irish Water.
‣The report never mentions ‘Smart Meters’ or their possible health and privacy issues. Not a mention from the Green Party or any party for that matter even those Right2Water TDs. However, one would assume that a so called ‘environmental party’ would have some policy on said electronic devices. One obvious question arises about Smart meter, can people choose an analogue one instead?
‣There is no mention of how the report recommendations might affect conveyancing and prices of property.
‣There was absolutely nothing in the report about the RBMP (River Basin Management Plans) nor was it discussed in the Joint Water Committee. For those that don't know this is the building block of our whole water system. The RBMP was a direct result of the WFD (Water Framework Directive 2000). If you would like more info on it just search our 'Archives'. This is a serious flaw.
‣The Irish RBMP contains plans which ( also sent to the EU Commission) on how we intend to structure our water resources and its funding now and into the future. We are on our 'First Plan' now and are overdue on our 'Second' which has to be finalised by the end of this year.
‣This Oireachtas report does not mention Article 9.4 or the WFD Directive. Somehow our politicians even those R2W ones seem to have given up on the vital exemption clause, one of the most important defenses against EU diktats. This 9.4 Section shouldbe emphasised and inserted into any water policy including the RBMP. * (edited18/3/17)
‣One of the most significant clauses in the report is Section 4.5. It was a clause that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil haggled over for two weeks and eventually agreed on ‘Levies’. We will have to pay close attention to how Mr Coveney interprets this section because the report seems to throw the kitchen sink at it, unsure about ‘wastage’, ‘excess use’ and ‘willful abuse’. After reading this section over and over we defy anyone to explain it’s actual meaning.

Anti Austerity Alliance Dublin Demo April 2013
Since those inspiring days of mass protests and hope of change it seems we are back to the usual Irish corrupt ‘politics as usual’ system. They know best, they have the clout and experience of the parliamentary beast. Backroom dealing and party whipping are the order of the day. But it even more depressing when the movement our own crowd follow suit imitating the big boys and directing opposition to suit their agenda. There is no such thing as humble pie or sincerity. Alternative politicians and unions are falling over each other claiming victory with a patronising nod to the innocent campaigners around the country. You think that’s cynical, well, it gets worse. There is a dearth of humbleness and frankness but lorry loads of intimidation and outright condemnation of any criticism.

Unfortunately we have few answers, only regret and sorrow. Our observations and experiences tell us that anyone supping at the parliamentary trough or positions of power tend to get sucked into the very system they are supposed to be fighting. Everything tells us that the system is unreformable and we are fast coming to the conclusion that what is needed is a revolution in mind and politics.

From above the tumult of cowards, the mediocre and the poor of spirit, it is necessary to pass a brief but courageous and constructive judgement. Whoever believes that up to now everything has been done well, that we have nothing to reproach ourselves for, is a man who demands little from his conscience.  - Dayan Jayatelleka, Fidel's Ethics of Violence

The Ex-IRA men: ‘United Ireland? It’s All Guff’

Simon Carswell writes in the Irish Times 0n 8 April 2017 that:
A group of paramilitary veterans say Brexit won’t derail the peace process, violence won’t return, and they’ll never see a united Ireland
'United Ireland? It’s all guff': Colm Lynagh, Anthony McIntyre, Gerry McGeough and Tommy McKearney Colm Lynagh, Anthony McIntyre, Gerry McGeough and Tommy McKearney

Brexit will not lead to a return to bloodshed in Northern Ireland, says one Provisional IRA veteran. Talk of a united Ireland is all guff, according to another. A third former republican paramilitary suggests that Ireland would be better off in an economic bloc with the UK rather than with the European Union.
These are among the surprising views expressed by a number of former hard men of republicanism, interviewed by The Irish Times for their unique insights into the thorny issues of Brexit and Northern Ireland’s future.
Three of the four are convicted killers or have served time in relation to a killing. The fourth was imprisoned for offences that included attempted murder. They were active in some of the bloodiest campaigns of the Troubles, and for three of them much of that activity took place along the Border.
Since June 2016, when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, there has been much speculation about the risk to the Northern peace process. The fear that a hard Border along the UK’s only land frontier with the EU could stir tensions in Northern Ireland has focused minds not only in Belfast, Derry and Dublin but also in London and Brussels.
In initial papers filed last week both the British prime minister, Theresa May, and the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, referred to their desire to protect the peace process. May has said that the British do not want a return to the Border of old. Tusk has said that the EU will seek “flexible and creative solutions” to avoid a hard Border.
But these four veterans of the Provisional IRA’s armed campaign, who are all now critics of Sinn Féin policy, do not think that Brexit will derail the peace process. They see that threat as little more than a scare tactic to force the future of the 499km Border to the centre of the two-year Brexit negotiations.
Partition is going to become more obvious

“I think a lot of the concerns are exaggerated,” says Tommy McKearney, an IRA volunteer originally from Moy, in Co Tyrone, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing a part-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldier in 1976.

Certainly, I think we can rule out the idea of a hard Border with British troops on the Border. That was not to do with economics. That was a security situation. I don’t think we are going to see that again.

McKearney, one of the 1980 IRA hunger strikers who went without food for 53 days, sits in his Co Monaghan kitchen next to Colm Lynagh, sipping coffee and eating biscuits, reflecting on the unknown period with Brexit ahead.
Lynagh, a fellow republican, served eight years, from 1982 to 1990, in Portlaoise Prison over a charge related to the killing of a nightclub bouncer in Monaghan in 1981.
Former republican prisoner Colm Lynagh (left) and former Provisional IRA hunger striker Tommy McKearney in Monaghan Town. Photograph: Simon Carswell/The Irish Times
The two men have a long personal history linked to a time and territory around the Border that witnessed some of the region’s bloodiest episodes. Their brothers, Pádraig McKearney and Jim Lynagh, were among eight members of the IRA’s east Tyrone brigade killed by the SAS during an attack on an RUC station in the Protestant village of Loughgall, in Co Tyrone, in May 1987. It was the biggest single loss of life for the republican movement during the conflict.
Two more McKearney brothers died in the Troubles. Tommy’s older brother Sean was killed in May 1974 when a bomb he was planting at a petrol station outside Dungannon exploded prematurely. Another brother, Kevin, and Tommy’s uncle John, neither of whom was in the IRA, were killed by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Volunteer Force in an attack on the family’s butcher’s shop, in Moy, in January 1992.
There is very, very little appetite among republican circles in the North for a resumption of any armed campaign. Why would article 50 change that?
While Brexit raises uncertainty around how the UK manages trade across a frontier running through those former battlefields, McKearney and Lynagh believe that the climate and conditions – the anti-Catholic discrimination and economic inequality – that ignited the Troubles no longer exist.
Even a few customs posts stopping HGVs crossing the Border would not change that, McKearney says. He considers threats of a return of the British army to Border towns like Aughnacloy as a “cheap shot” and the recent “pantomime” of mock Border checkpoints and anti-Brexit protesters dressing up in customs-officer uniforms as “the hysterical interpretation of what may happen”.
“There is very, very little appetite among republican circles in the North for a resumption of any armed campaign. Why would article 50 change that?” says McKearney.

The reality of it is that after 25 years of armed conflict there is less possibility of an armed campaign of any significance. There will always be a handful of people, but there is nothing can be done about that in any society. But as a community willing to return to armed conflict, there just isn’t an appetite for that.

Lynagh adds:

There is a vested interest in hyping up the political impact and the scare tactics that it is going to open a hornet’s nest of dissident activity against British rule. I don’t see that.

It is going to be very embarrassing for a lot of Irish political parties that almost pretended that partition was going. But the reality is that it is going to be more and more obvious
McKearney and Lynagh are dissenters, not dissidents; although they support the peace process they object to the policies pursued by Sinn Féin and some of their former comrades who moved into politics.
Lynagh is irked by the way political parties in the Brexit debate are portraying people in the Border counties as lawless Irish, similar to the people of Pakistan’s tribal areas, with a pathological predisposition to violence who “will rush out and go to war again because they can’t stand the sight of customs posts”.

‘The EU is as imperial as Britain’

He believes that Brexit will instead encourage various shades of dissenting republicans to engage politically and that there is a chance of a postsectarian debate among unionists, republicans and nationalists, north and south, about what is in the best economic and sovereign interests for both parts of the island.
“This is the only concern for this area: how can we pacify them and stop them engaging in any violent activity? [It’s] not about what are their economic interests. It is hugely insulting,” Lynagh says as he picks nicotine gum from a wrapper.
Neither republican sees a great prospect of a united Ireland after Brexit.
“It is going to be very embarrassing for a lot of Irish political parties that almost pretended that partition was going. But the reality is that it is going to be more and more obvious,” Lynagh says. “The embarrassment is that a customs man might arrive and show that there is a Border.”
Both share left-wing views and believe that the interests of Border counties are not being well served by the European Union. McKearney argues that cross-Border economics has operated in a beggar-thy-neighbour way: Newry has over the years benefited at the expense of Dundalk, and vice versa, depending on currency fluctuations.
“This is not a land of milk and honey under the European Union. We have been neglected,” McKearney says, citing patchy broadband in parts of Co Monaghan as an example.
Lynagh refers to the high proportion of social-welfare recipients in Monaghan, the county’s “low-wage and no-wage economy” and his work distributing charity food to families. He goes so far as to propose an Irish exit from the EU, given the way that Brussels and the European Central Bank, in Frankfurt, landed Irish people with austerity and a hefty bill from the bank bailouts.
He recalls the “EEC No” signs that accompanied “Brits Out” graffiti around Monaghan when he was growing, up in the 1970s. Euroscepticism had a long history in the area, he says, before Ireland went into the EU.
The lifelong Irish republican even suggests that it could as easily be argued that breaking from the European Union and joining forces with the UK would make better economic sense for the country.
“The European Union is as much of an imperial power as – if not more than – Britain at the moment,” Lynagh says. “We are faced with the possibility of two foreign powers implementing the partition of Ireland, and where is the demand in Ireland to say, ‘What gives you the power to do this?’”
McKearney adds:

It is economic imperialism we are dealing with, as opposed to the imperialism that was so raw and so in our face under British imperialism. This is the infrastructure that the European Union has created, and concentrating on a customs post in Aughnacloy is taking us off the core argument.

The Troubles were ‘ostensibly a failure’
Not far from that Border town is the home of Gerry McGeough, a former IRA man who calls himself a traditional republican rather than a dissident. He voted for Brexit in the hope that it would lead to a united Ireland through the disintegration of the UK.
“It was never going to be delivered by the normal means, by the Irish themselves, but it could come about through the break-up of the so-called United Kingdom,” he says as he sits in an armchair in his living room, in front of shelves of history books that reflect his past studies at Trinity College Dublin and his background in teaching.
Next to the living-room window, with its panoramic views of the farmland and gorse-filled hedgerows of this part of the Border, is an imposing portrait that shows the tradition of agrarian agitation McGeough hails from. It is of his great-grandfather Henry McGeough, a member of the Ribbonmen, the 19th-century society of often violent Catholic rebels.
Former Provisional IRA volunteer Gerry McGeough on his farm near Dungannon, Co Tyrone. Photograph: Simon Carswell/The Irish Times  Gerry McGeough, who is now a farmer, served time in German, US and Northern Irish prisons for paramilitary-related offences, including trying to buy Stinger surface-to-air missiles in 1983 with the aim of taking down British army helicopters. He was arrested in 1988 for crossing the Dutch-German border with AK-47 rifles in the boot of his car and charged with attacks on British soldiers based in Germany.
After breaking from Sinn Féin he stood as an independent republican in the 2007 elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was arrested on the night of the count by the PSNI for the attempted murder of a part-time UDR soldier in 1981. He was sentenced to 20 years in 2011 but was released after two years, under the Belfast Agreement.
McGeough is a supporter of the peace process and now president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in Co Tyrone. He does not see republican militarism rising up again over a post-Brexit hardening of the Border or a customs presence on country Border roads, although he does believe that it would hit “an atavistic nerve” among people who have grown accustomed to freedom of movement across the Border. "I know from the old days there were very few people willing to do the business of fighting. I don’t see it has changed any bit since then,” he says. “I don’t see any bloodshed coming from our side. There may be little bits here and there, or attempts here and there, but nothing significant."
He has vivid childhood memories of seeing the Moy Bridge and the road to his grandmother’s home in Monaghan lying in the Blackwater River after being blown up the night before by B Specials – members of the Ulster Special Constabulary quasi-military reserve.
The air of foreboding he once sensed when crossing the river into the North doesn’t exist today because the Border is imperceptible, he says. He thinks it would be silly of the British to build a hard Border again and potentially stir up those tensions. “We are an unruly people, and if there is an opportunity to be unruly again we will take it, but it will not be violence,” he says.
The British are sending a plausibly deniable mixed message. They are saying to us: if you want to go down that road we are not going to step in your way. They don’t throw away remarks like that
McGeough sees the Troubles as “ostensibly a failure”, but the UK government does not want a return to those days “any more than anybody on our side” does. He believes that the British had intended to withdraw from Ireland around the late 2030s, by when demographic trends would have led to an overwhelming nationalist majority.
Brexit may prove a catalyst for a much earlier withdrawal, he says, as he knows Protestants who are “soft Irish nationalists” and farmers who do not want to lose EU subsidies.

The genie is out of the bottle, so you are not going to put it back in again, and at this point in time we are in the uneasy calm before the potential storm. I don’t mean that in terms of violence. I just mean in terms of chaos and upheaval – political, economic and otherwise.

The Tyrone republican believes that Sinn Féin is wrong to propose a special status for Northern Ireland within the European Union. “They should be pushing instead for a united Ireland, that the day the UK leaves Europe is the same day they leave Ireland,” he says.
McGeough points to the “huge statement” last week by David Davis, the UK’s Brexit secretary – formally, secretary of state for exiting the European Union – who said that Northern Ireland would not have to reapply for EU membership as a new state if it voted for reunification with the Republic.

The British are sending a plausibly deniable mixed message,” he says. “They are saying to us: if you want to go down that road we are not going to step in your way. They don’t throw away remarks like that.

United Ireland? ‘It’s all guff’

Anthony McIntyre, an IRA man turned writer and historian who is another supporter of the peace process but critic of Sinn Féin, fails to see how a hard Brexit would fuel any new armed campaign, given that it was not the Border that brought the Provisional IRA into existence but the response in Belfast and Derry to the British army’s behaviour when it came to the North.
“You might have someone taking a potshot sometime, but if you are talking about a serious insurgency or a serious campaign, anything that remotely emulates the Provisional IRA’s campaign, it is not going to happen. What would it achieve?” McIntyre says in his home, on an estate in Drogheda, Co Louth.

Anthony McIntyre, an IRA man turned writer and historian .

Somebody who might find it difficult to smuggle because of a Border post might go out and shoot a Border-post official? But somebody not being able to smuggle is not what revolutions are made out of. Nobody cares.

The former IRA volunteer served 18 years in the Maze prison for the murder of a UVF man in Belfast in February 1976. Now he has a doctorate in political science and writes a lively blog, The Pensive Quill, firing off opinions on the peace process, among other topics, and offering a platform to others.
Dissidents who backed Brexit with the objective of destabilising the UK are not going to wage an armed campaign, he says. Although logically it makes more sense for Sinn Féin to start an armed campaign, “that is not going to happen – no chance,” he says.

Where’s the insurrectionary energy going to come from? The cops and the security services have been so on top of the armed republican groups that have been operating in the wake of the Provisional IRA. What have they achieved? Maybe a lot of huff and puff – but nothing is going to get blown down.

McIntyre sees the argument that unionists would be better off economically in a united Ireland within the EU than they would in a post-Brexit UK as a “crass case of economic reductionism”. He pours cold water on the possibility of a nationalist majority in the North voting for Irish reunification in light of the unionists losing their majority for the first time in last month’s Assembly elections.
Unionist opposition to a united Ireland is, as he sees it, considerably stronger than nationalist opposition to staying within the UK if treated equally. "Anybody who has ever fought in the Provisional IRA, as distinct to those who hid in the Provisional IRA, or joined after the ceasefires, will never live to see a united Ireland,” he says. “I think it’s all guff.”
As for the warnings made by diplomats, bureaucrats and Eurocrats about the threats to the peace process from Brexit, McIntyre says it is similar to Sinn Féin’s use of the peace process to expand its political influence, where “the process must always undermine the peace”.
“The peace process is dead if you can’t throw up the old monster of potential violence,” he says. “The peace process always has to be broken down, has to be in a state of crisis for it to be protected.”

Vanity Certifications: The Scam Of Kosher And Halal Products: Part 2

Via Atheist Republic , Lishka Klein follows up with the second part of piece on a religious food scam.


Disclaimer: Sources cited here not an open endorsement of all views of these sources. Some websites mentioned are biased on both sides of the debate. Sources are cited and used for educational purposes under Fair Use.

Halal

Welcome to part two of the Vanity Certification series! Today we are discussing the Islamic certification called "halal", which means "permissible" in Arabic. Halal is to Muslims what kosher is to Jews.

Again we have the dilemma of the vast majority of the food catering to a tiny minority. Muslims only make up about 2% of the US population, yet halal is growing in popularity. It is astounding how religious certifications are treated as the new trend.

Halal certification is much the same as kosher in that both cater to religious dietary rules. From US Halal Chamber of Commerce:Why? Because Allah said so. That explains it all now doesn't it?

A description of the benefits of halal certification is vague, redundant, and seemingly not all that beneficial:
This, like the supposed benefits of kosher, is circular logic. They don’t tell us what their processes are to determine quality, cleanliness, etc. They also don’t seem to be picky about dairy, meat, and “neutral”. The descriptions on the certifying agencies’ websites are incredibly vague but do like to talk up their internal processes.

What meat is considered halal? Quran 5:3-4 answers that question.

Verse 3:Verse 4:I’m amused by the squeamishness of some of the terms included in the list of terminology:




Of course no one wants to eat icky pus, vomit, excrement, etc., of any kind. But again, the US has tolerances of these contaminants in meat, and there is no guarantee that halal slaughterhouses even hold to FDA standards. Kuffar are not allowed to work in halal slaughterhouses, which is religious discrimination.

Certification costs money though. We all pay for those costs when we purchase products stamped halal. Where do these funds go? Rumors abound that the money goes to fund terrorism, but I’ll leave it up to you readers if you’d like to research that or not. I’ve not seen evidence either way, just claims usually by people who have an agenda to push. I did share some later for entertainment purposes, if nothing else.

Halal slaughter is the same filthy and brutal process as kosher slaughter, except that Islamic prayers must be said during the process. The “logic” is that since the animal isn’t stunned, it will somehow hear these prayers while blood and stomach contents are gushing from its throat. Because all animals can speak human while dying a viciously painful death, right? Speaking in tongues, halal style?

Does anyone really think that an animal dying in excruciating pain cares about the imaginary friends of humans?

I must say I’m disgusted by the dhimmitude displayed by cooking show hosts who pretend they know something about “halal” by equating it with kindness to animals. Let me make this perfectly clear: there is nothing kind about ritual slaughter as we saw with kosher slaughter, and here is a video specifically about halal:




No matter how many times I’ve tried, I can’t make it past 23 seconds.

This video claims that halal food is such a big business because of "flavor" and "humane treatment of animals". This is ridiculous because the products used would be of the same if not better quality without halal certification. What, does the presenter think that the non-halal cumin would ruin the flavor of the product?

Muslims claim that they treat animals better during the animals' lives than non-Muslims. They don't mention their vicious slaughterhouse procedures, conveniently. As far as their claim goes, there is no evidence that Muslims are nicer to animals than kuffar. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, however, as we can see in these horrific examples here, here and here. How does this blatant abuse while the animal is still alive help the quality of the meat? It won't, as we know that live animals can be bruised. And it's cruel beyond belief.

Cosmetics companies have jumped on the halal bandwagon, treating this “certification” as some great new fad. This is utterly absurd. “Natural” cosmetics aren’t natural because no one is born with a painted and decorated face. Besides, how can something become halal when an imam who won’t wear makeup says some magic words over them? Cosmetics aren’t tolerated in all Islamic circles, and were banned temporarily in Iran in 1979 after the revolution. How are cosmetics determined to be halal anyway? Does anyone know of any references to cosmetics in the Quran or hadith that would specify which kinds of cosmetics would be considered halal and which kinds wouldn’t?

Now for the biggest halal joke ever: WATER. Yep, plain old ordinary drinking water. Just read the link. The sarcastic comments are hilarious and too numerous to screenshot. On that note, let's refer back to the secular issue of cross-contamination degrading the quality of the product and diminishing the possibility of sales. Is that not common sense? What about chemicals used in the containers? Were they ever mentioned in the Quran as halal or haram? Why would a Japanese company care about halal certification anyway? I'm pretty sure that a Muslim on a long flight would want safe drinking water, even if it's safe without the halal stamp and prayers to the Muslim sky fairy.

Oops, my bad. THIS is the biggest halal joke ever: someone thinks that cheesecake doesn't count as dairy.P.S. Bugs are apparently halal.
What you’re not told about halal

Halal isn’t even necessary for Muslims. Quran 5:5 states that what is good for “the people of the book” meaning Jews and Christians, is good for them as well. If the food is questionable to Muslims, they can say “bismallah” and wave away any bad juju that the food may contain. Some imams discredit that idea but others don’t.

(Rant alert: I find it disturbing that women as sex objects are thrown into this verse, in a surah (chapter) called “The Table Spread”. Was surah 4, “The Women”, not specific enough about women as sex objects and mere property? And what’s this about all who aren’t interested in Islam being “losers”? Oh, right. It’s the usual, intolerant and insecure threat of hell followers of the Abrahamic faiths use against all non-believers. *Yawn* carry on.)

Alcohol will never be halal, nor will products containing alcohol be. This includes flavorings with alcohol as a base. Cheers!

Here’s an *oops!*
On a more serious note…

Halal certification is so upsetting to some that there are organizations set up to protest this “invasion”, as they see it. Boycott Halal goes into detail about animal welfare, consumer rights, ethical business practices, interfaith conflicts, and tips to avoid halal products.

Bare Naked Islam has done some homework on this as well, exposing Campbell’s, Cadbury, Subway, and Whole Foods among others, trying to pander to a tiny minority. They even mention the use of the funds but that’s not the focus of this article. It’s scam enough to have to pay extra to cater to the discriminatory imaginary friends of minorities.

Why is there none of this protest about most products being kosher? Oh sorry, it's anti-semitic to even think such a thing. This question actually got me banned from one of the many halal critic groups on Facebook. Oops!

Chobani

This controversial New York company gets special mention here. Founder/owner Hamdi Ulukaya is a wealthy Kurdish businessman from Turkey with supposed ties to the also controversial Clinton Global Initiative. Chobani has apparently spent millions lobbying for monopolies for school lunches, promoting refugee resettlement programs which could be good or bad or bad in this way or bad in this way or skewed, GMOs or no, quality control problems, inflammatory marketing practices, etc.

Chobani claims on their website and over Twitter to not be halal, but is mentioned as halal on notable halal sites and trackers. Note that some of their products made the haram list, at least as of 2012, due to alcohol-based flavorings.Add caption
Add caption


Laughably Chobani tried an anti-science approach to labeling their products, conveniently forgetting about the science behind the creation and packaging of said products. This, fortunately for us in need of humor, did not go unnoticed in the Twitterverse. It also got them sued for misrepresenting sugar.



Chobani got spanked for misrepresenting its products in the UK, implying that production takes place in Greece.

Chobani had to ask for legal protection in 2016 when it attacked other brands of yogurt as "chlorinated" and "insecticide".

It seems that Chobani can't decide to be halal in Australia or not. This is an old post but worth mentioning as it seems Chobani wants to provide halal for Muslims but tell non-Muslims they aren't halal.
A big plus for Mr. Ulukaya: he did stand up to the state of Idaho, protesting the "ag gag" law which prevented secret recordings of animal abuse being made to expose companies. This ag gag proposal was made into law anyway but was later overturned.
Another plus is a pro-LGBT ad featuring a lesbian couple in bed. Personally I have no problem with viewing humans as humans. I have to admit I giggle at the thought of homophobes getting all squeamish by obsessing over what other people do with their own naughty bits.
Jizya

Who pays for the cost of halal certification? Presumably all consumers. Like for kosher, I assume that Muslims have no problem passing the costs of halal certification on to non-Muslims. Maybe they see it as a form of jizya, a tax on non-Muslims to remind them of their second-class status.
It’s a wrap!

This concludes part two of Vanity Certifications. Last up is a summary and a special surprise!

Lishka Klein's blog

See More Atheist Articles

Brexit, Demographic Change And A 'New Republic' For All

Sean Bresnahan, Chair of the Thomas Ashe Society in Omagh, argues that a United Ireland demands full Irish Unity in a 'New Republic' for all. He writes here in a personal capacity.

[image error]


With Brexit looming and unionism fast becoming not only a national minority but one within its own gerrymandered statelet, what is now required is a national dialogue, inclusive of all stakeholders in society, that moves to agree – freely and without impediment – proposals for an independent all-Ireland republic. An elected Constituent Assembly is arguably best-placed to speed that function and should proceed at the earliest opportunity.

Such a 'new Ireland' requires a modern, pluralist political arrangement, where the identity of all is secured and upheld regardless their class, tradition or creed. Republicans must prepare a solid proposal that puts substance to that vision, giving form to a new and vibrant democracy in tune with the needs of today. Our initiative must speed an advanced proposal towards that end, offering a new beginning for Ireland and her people as is their democratic entitlement.

If there is to be such a 'new Ireland' – spoken of increasingly by many and which no doubt will come to pass given changing demographics – then republicans must influence its form and appearance, ensuring to the greatest extent practical that it is bound by our rights to national freedom and sovereignty. Our banner is the Irish Republic and we must position to ensure that when constitutional change arrives that republican objectives are achieved.

The revisionist concept of an Agreed Ireland is out of sync with traditional notions of a full republic. It is instead yet another compromise with the occupation. Britain should not be allowed to negotiate the terms of her withdrawal, the shape and structure of the new Ireland with it, and should not be facilitated in so doing in the event of Irish reunification. That is what the 'Agreed Ireland' project is really about and it must not go forward unchallenged.

If a United Ireland should come to be then as a people and as a nation it will be for us – ourselves alone – to determine its constitutional form. By agreement among and between our people, yes; inclusive of their number entire. But the link with Britain, fully and in its totality, must go and without equivocation.

Key here is that a United Ireland must be an Irish Republic. Indeed it must be THE Irish Republic – the Republic of 1916. It is there in that Republic where our rights to freedom and sovereignty reside. As such it should be restored to the people, albeit in newly-agreed form where the requirements of society, in all its diversity, can be accounted for as they must in the Ireland of today.

Post-Irish Unity, allowances for Ulster's Protestants – their culture, identity, traditions and fears – should only be accounted for under the constitution of a united and sovereign republic. The 'Agreed Ireland' notion of 'enhanced ethnic status' for unionists, encompassing a constitutional recognition of their attachment to the Crown, is an anathema to the idea of a republic. Constitutional protections should be afforded all citizens, not a group within their number, if sectarian division is to be consigned to the past. If there is to be Irish Unity then contrived divisions, fostered by colonial rule, must not carry through into a new beginning.

The republican position is simple: British rule derives from conquest and is without legitimate title. Accordingly, Britain should leave Ireland and allow her people to determine their own future, freely and of themselves. It does not and should not require a vote, of any description, to see this made good – not even an all-Ireland referendum. Nevertheless a vote could prove useful in the face of Britain's refusal to leave. Indeed, given that one such vote has already been signed-off for under the British-Irish Agreement and given also and in turn the shifting demographics exposed by the last election, republicans would ignore this at their peril.

With that in mind, republicans should be conscious of the emerging dynamics, laying out in turn that constitutional change – regardless how it comes to pass – must deliver, in full, Irish Unity. There is no reason we can't hold that Britain should leave Ireland – no matter of any poll and on the basis that she has no right here – while taking stock of emerging realities, factoring them in as we proceed on a nuanced basis, exploiting them where we can and at the ready. It seems at times as though republicans are good at saying what we're against but not so strong regards what we're for.

The real task before us is to contest the narrative of what should happen should constitutional change unfold – to 'steer the bus' towards destination Irish Republic rather than the emerging consensus that a role reversal, within the Good Friday set-up, should follow a nationalist majority. Why should it? We have waited long enough. Britain has outlined her terms for leaving and should they be met – regardless whether we consider them legitimate or otherwise – then out must mean out.

As much has been codified in the British Irish Agreement – an international and binding Treaty between two sovereign states registered at the United Nations – which allows only for 'continued Union with Britain' or a 'sovereign United Ireland', depending on unionism's ability to retain its majority internal to the north. Should that majority be eclipsed by a rising nationalist population within the northern gerrymander then Britain's feet should be held to the fire: full Irish Unity should proceed without delay and as agreed.

On that basis, Irish republicans need to forward a detailed plan as to what should happen, from our perspective, in the event of Irish Unity. With the British Government's triggering of Article 50, this is now a matter of urgency. Republicans must get their heads around the game-changer 'Brexit' will prove. Its implications for Ireland are massive. The time to get this moving is now, with immediate effect. Slogans and rhetoric, while useful to an extent, will not carry the day and will simply bounce off the establishment's narrative.

The establishment cannot be allowed to frame the agenda unhindered but to challenge it, as we must, requires something more comprehensive – a solid proposal, with substance behind it, that all can lend their weight to. It remains to be seen how far we are capable of putting this together but it stands as the task now before us.

Ultimately, how Irish Unity is to be achieved – whether by national referendum, six-county border poll, a declaration of intent or some other means – is secondary to the form it will take. Brexit and demographic change are set to bring forward that day and so we must get our house in order. The time to put this together is now. A Constituent Assembly as spoken of above, its remit to determine the form and specifics of a new all-Ireland republic, is arguably where our weight needs applied. It is here and here alone where the new Ireland should be agreed.

In such an initiative lies new opportunity to reconnect republicanism, and the notion of the Republic, with the broad mass of the people – without whom constitutional change is a near-impossibility. As much is the task before us and we cannot afford to wait. We must set forward our proposals now, placing the Irish Republic at the centre of the debate as a viable alternative to the failed status quo.

Onwards to the Republic – An Phoblacht Abú.

Shame, Stitch-Up, Hangmen

Gabriel Levy, writing in People And Nature, endorses a drive to:

Free Nurbek Kushakbayev! Support independent workers’ organisation in Kazakhstan!Trades unionists have launched an international campaign for the release of Nurbek Kushakbayev, who was jailed this month for his part in organising strike action in the western Kazakhstan oil field.

A court in Astana, the Kazakh capital, sentenced Kushakbayev to two-and-half years in jail, followed by a further two-year ban on organising.

Kushakbayev is a trade union safety inspector at Oil Construction Company (OCC), an oilfield service firm based in Mangistau, western Kazakhstan. He is also deputy president of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Kazakhstan, which the government banned last year under a law designed to straitjacket unions not controlled by the state.

In January, workers at several oil companies in Mangistau staged a hunger strike in protest at the ban on union federation, to which their workplace organisations were affiliated. Dozens of participants in the hunger strike were arrested. Most were released without charge, but Kushakbayev and another union organiser at OCC, Amin Yeleusinov, were arrested and secretly transported to Astana, more than 1000 kilometres to the east. Yeleusinov is still awaiting trial.
Nurbek Kushakbayev, in the cage for defendants, and his wife, after the verdict. Photo by Radio Azattyk.

Kushakbayev has been found guilty under Kazakhstan’s vicious anti-labour legislation of “instigating an illegal strike”. In court the prosecution claimed that he convinced workers at another oilfield service company, Techno Trading, to go on strike – and he has been ordered to pay compensation of about $80,000 to that firm.

Journalists and human rights activists have raised numerous questions about the prosecution, starting with: why was the trial held in Astana, so far from the place where the so-called “crime” was committed?

The principal evidence against Kushakbayev was an audio recording, made by a trade union official at Techno Trading, who was fitted with a microphone by security service agents and encouraged to converse with Kushakbayev. Not only was the quality of the recording poor, but defence lawyers complained that a translation (from Kazakh, the language in which the conversation was held, to Russian) had twisted Kushakbayev’s words. His “advice” about “striking” was presented to the court as “orders” to “revolt”.

The court’s verdict was greeted with cries of “shame”, “stitch-up” and “hangmen!” from Kushakbayev’s supporters in the public gallery.

Zauresh Battalova of the Fund to Develop Parliamentarism, an NGO campaigning for democratic rights, was reported by Fergana news agency saying: “This is not only a judgment against Nurbek Kushakbayev, but against trade union organisation in general. This two-and-a-half year jail sentence – for someone who professionally undertook his workplace responsibilities and defended workers’ rights – I consider illegal. We can not accept this.”

Tolegen Shaikov, Kushakbayev’s lawyer, said that an appeal would be launched as soon as a full text of the verdict was made available. (For details of the court case, in Russian, see reports here and here.)

Workers’ organisations in the western Kazakhstan oil field suffered a harsh crackdown in 2011, after a six-month strike over pay, working conditions and the right to form independent workplace organisations. A wave of state repression culminated in the shooting of strikers at a demonstration on 16 December that year: 16 were killed and 60 wounded, according to official figures.
Demonstration in January in defence of the independent trade union federation in Kazakhstan
Since then, the government has also lashed out at the democratic political opposition, against trade unions seeking to organise outside the state-controlled Federation of Trade Unions of Kazakhstan, and against activists who initiated protests last year over changes in the land ownership laws. Nurbek Kushakbayev and Amin Yeleusinov are the latest victims.

An international campaign to defend Kushakbayev and Yeleusinov is highly appropriate, since it is a web of international oil companies who profit from the western Kazakh oilfield where they are fighting for workers’ organisation.

The protests launched so far are supported by IndustriALL, an international trade union organisation formed in 2012 from earlier international union federations of metalworkers; chemical, energy and mine workers; and textile, garment and leather workers.

The Confederation of Labour of Russia, the most prominent independent union organisation there, also supports the campaign. “The conviction of Kushakbayev, who has organised collection action against the enforced liquidation of an independent union organisation, amounts to an open trampling down of civil and labour rights in Kazakhstan”, the Confederation’s president Boris Kravchenko said.

■ Read: Investors who profit as oil workers suffer repression

■ Send an email protest to Kazakhstan via LabourStart, here.

■ More on Kazakh oil workers on People & Nature.

Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting @ 22 April 2017

Martin Galvin with details of this weekend's output from Radio Free Eireann.


Mary Ward of Republican Sinn Fein will be an in-studio guest, discussing her party's political analysis of issues like Brexit and the Stormont talks and her upcoming address at the Irish Freedom Committee's Michael Flannery Award's Event.

Author and political commentator Dr. Anthony McIntyre will discuss what the announcement of a British General Election will mean in Ireland, and the continuing fallout of the BBC Panorama program "The Spy in the IRA" about British agent Freddie Scappaticci.

Larry Kirwin, will talk about his new play Rebel In The Soul, which opened at the Irish Repertory Theatre last week.
Go to Radio Free Eireann's web site rfe123.org for written transcripts of last week's headline-making interviews with Joe Barr of Saoradh, on his party's protest against British Crown Veterans trying to block inquests or investigations which might expose murders and other crimes, and with award winning journalist and author Ed Moloney about the rise of Freddie Scappaticci within the IRA. There is also a link to the Panorama program on the right side of our site.

John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.

Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.

It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.

Check our website rfe123.org.

IRA Must Clear Names Of Stakeknife's 'Informer' Victims With Pardon

Interviewed by Suzanne Breen for the
Clear Names Of Stakeknife's 'Informer' Victims With Pardon
Freddie Scappaticci
The IRA should issue “posthumous pardons” to all those killed by its security department on the watch of British agent Freddie Scappaticci, a former republican prisoner has said.

Anthony McIntyre last night said it would be hypocritical for republicans who campaigned against other miscarriages of justice to continue to rely on “corrupted and contaminated evidence”.

And he accused IRA and Sinn Fein leaders of engaging in a “massive cover-up” when Scappaticci was identified in the media as the top British agent Stakeknife.

Mr McIntyre was speaking after a BBC Panorama investigation linked Stakeknife to at least 18 murders.

A £35m inquiry — Operation Kenova — has been set up to investigate his activities.

The Ulster Unionist Party yesterday said that the inquiry, led by Bedfordshire Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, would be “very uncomfortable” for senior Sinn Fein figures.
Police chief Jon Boutcher
And the party warned that the probe must not be compromised for the sake of the peace process.

Scappaticci was identified in the media in 2003 as Stakeknife, the Army’s most senior known agent in the IRA. He has denied the allegation.

The Belfast bricklayer ran the IRA’s security department, known as the ‘nutting squad’, for over a decade while working for Army intelligence.

Former IRA member McIntyre, who knew Scappaticci, said that the Provisional leadership had “behaved disgracefully” after the spy had been unmasked. He said:

Like the Catholic Church hierarchy in sex abuse cases, the IRA leadership acted to protect themselves and their own reputations by covering up the truth about Stakeknife, rather than reaching out to help those who had been wronged. Stakeknife sent dozens of people to their deaths as alleged informers. Surely the IRA leadership is not going to continue to rely on the evidence of a British agent?  Any case he was involved with is tainted beyond salvation. The evidence can’t be relied upon.

Anthony McIntyre
Mr McIntyre said there should be a “posthumous pardon” for everyone killed by the IRA’s security department on Scappaticci’s watch.

“Republicans who were screaming about miscarriages of justice in the cases of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cannot remain silent on this,” he added.

Stakeknife’s involvement makes the verdict reached against dozens of men and women gravely unsafe. I’m thinking in particular of the executions of Charlie McIlmurray, Michael Kearney, Vincent Robinson and Anthony McKiernan.

BBC Panorama reporter John Ware has claimed that when Scappaticci was outed by the media, he decided not to flee the country but instead met two senior IRA figures.

They reached “an understanding” that he would issue a firm denial that he was Stakeknife, which the Provisionals wouldn’t challenge.

After Stakeknife’s outing, the Sinn Fein PR machine also swung into action. Martin McGuinness denounced the “nameless, faceless securocrats” making outrageous allegations against the west Belfast man.

Gerry Adams said that he would “have to accept” Scappaticci’s claims of innocence and rebuked those journalists who had pursued the story.

Mr McIntyre said:

The IRA leadership, who put people down holes for the slightest misdemeanour, effectively colluded with a top British agent to cover up his nefarious role in the deaths of Irish citizens. Freddie Scappaticci continued to live in west Belfast and no senior Sinn Fein or IRA figure said a single bad word about him.

Ulster Unionist MLA Doug Beattie yesterday said that the current investigation into Stakeknife’s activities would be “very uncomfortable for a number of senior republicans”.
Ulster Unionist MLA Doug Beattie
He insisted that, if there was any “evidence of wrongdoing”, then those responsible must be brought before the courts.

“I sincerely hope that the Operation Kenova investigation into the activities of Stakeknife covers all angles, including looking at the inner workings of the republican movement,” Mr Beattie said.
“It is crucially important that this investigation is allowed to proceed unhindered, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient that may be for Sinn Fein. In the past we have seen investigations dropped to facilitate the peace process. In terms of Stakeknife, it looks like the tentacles go right to the top of the republican movement in both the IRA and Sinn Fein.

Mr Beattie said he had received reassurance from the Director of Public Prosecutions Barra McGrory that the investigation would examine IRA structures “right up to Army Council level”.

The UUP man said that there must be a “clear and unambiguous statement” from Sinn Fein that it would co-operate with the inquiry.

Related Content
Stakeknife: There's too much at stake for any in this dirty war ever to face trial in an open court
I acted properly, says prosecutor who didn't charge Scappaticci
Agent 'killed by IRA despite warning from British spy'