I've just been listening to Newstalk 106, where Des Dalton of Republican Sinn Féin was briefly interviewed on the subject of that party's Ard Fheis, to be held this weekend.
In the course of the interview it was put to Dalton that the people of Ireland, north and south, voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. Dalton denied that this was true: "The people of the 26 Counties didn't even get a chance to vote on the Stormont Agreement," he said.
This is an allegation the GFA's opponents have been levelling for years, and it baffles me. Did they not bother to read the text of the constitutional amendment they (presumably) voted against in 1998? The very first line of it reads:
The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998, hereinafter called the Agreement.
You can't get much clearer than that. Obviously the most emotive part of the referendum, for most people in the 26, was the removal of Articles 2 and 3 but it's pure historical revisionism to claim - as RSF and the others constantly do - that that is all the southern electorate voted on.
I'm not the world's biggest fan of the GFA, but I really don't see any credible argument that its passage wasn't the will of the Irish people as expressed at the time.
Showing posts with label dissident republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dissident republicans. Show all posts
One more note on Croker
Watching the news reports on the protest, I spotted one fella holding up a sign that read "No to Foreign Games". I thought at the time that that was a poor choice of slogan, suggesting that the issue was one of the narrowest of nationalisms, rather than the history of England's presence in Croke Park.
I didn't notice what the sign-holder was wearing at the time. Here's a picture.
And RSF wonder why nobody in this country takes them seriously!
I didn't notice what the sign-holder was wearing at the time. Here's a picture.
And RSF wonder why nobody in this country takes them seriously!
On the Croker controversy
Most of the media coverage I've seen of this has been fairly predictable, so I confess I stopped reading it after a few articles. But I doubt that any of them could have been just so wildly inaccurate as this piece by - surprise surprise - a Sunday Independent columnist, Eamonn Sweeney.
Mr Sweeney writes that
when the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) voted to allow foreign games at the ground, England was hardly mentioned... That God Save The Queen would be played in the stadium was not uppermost in anyone’s mind.
Now, I don't know which debates he was listening to at the time, but I can tell you that that was certainly one of the key issues raised by republican opponents of the change to Rule 42. In fact, I can remember a few people having to deny that it was the only issue, because it was starting to get to the point where some were suggesting that there would be no problem if an agreement could be reached whereby the anthem would not be played. So the idea that this is a newly-thought up controversy is simply untrue.
Sinn Féin's position on the matter was reached at an Ard Fheis a couple years ago, just before the change to Rule 42, when we passed a motion stating that we would accept whatever decision the GAA took. It wasn't a unanimous decision on our part, and there remain large numbers of people within the party who disagree with it - and even those of us who voted in favour would have had serious reservations, among them the spectre of GSTQ and the union flag. But that it was the GAA's decision to make and not ours is, I think, not really debatable.
Which is why today's protest doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, if you think about it. Not that people who oppose England's presence at Croke Park don't have a right to protest - of course they do. But we all knew this was coming as soon as Rule 42 was scrapped, two years ago, and I don't recall any organised effort to prevent it in the intervening period, say by announcing a boycott of the GAA until the change was reversed. Indeed, a couple of the people I know who were most vocal against it have continued to give their money to the very organisation whose decision they'll be protesting today.
It isn't the England team, or the IRFU, who are ultimately responsible for GSTQ being played at Croke Park today. It just seems a little bit silly to me that they and not the GAA will be the protestors' target.
***
On another note, I've been asked to post up another letter on the policing issue which didn't make it into An Phoblacht. I'm happy to oblige, although I do want to point out (especially for any muckraking journos reading this) that the paper has published other letters dissenting from the party line on this issue.
A Chara,
I wish to reply to issues raised by Seán McGabhann's letter in the February 8th edition of your paper. In it, Mr McGabhann claims to have recently realised that joining the policing boards was the right way to go and that those 'misguided' individuals who opposed it, needed to be persuaded that the struggle continues.
The problem I have with Mr McGabhann's remarks are twofold. Firstly, he argues as if it is the existence of a politics-based route itself that is the most problematic aspect for those who opposed joining the policing boards. If this were the case, why would people have stayed for so long? I would argue that people who opposed this just simply did not see the same advantage in it as they did with say, the GFA. Essentially, the present policing arrangements are a solution imposed by the two governments, with some minor tweaking by republicans. If the policing boards were such a site of struggle, why did we have to wait until now?
Secondly, he fails to adequately explain how he came to this sudden conversion? What became so radically different in the past few weeks? Perhaps it is those who voted yes who need to be persuaded that the road to a unified Democratic Socialist Republic will be an extremely long one which involves much thinking outside the box, rather than jumping into bed with homophobic fascists (the DUP) and accepting Brit- influenced policing solutions, just because we worry that people won't like us. (What else is new?)
Is mise le meas
Donal O' Driscoll
Co Cork
Mr Sweeney writes that
when the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) voted to allow foreign games at the ground, England was hardly mentioned... That God Save The Queen would be played in the stadium was not uppermost in anyone’s mind.
Now, I don't know which debates he was listening to at the time, but I can tell you that that was certainly one of the key issues raised by republican opponents of the change to Rule 42. In fact, I can remember a few people having to deny that it was the only issue, because it was starting to get to the point where some were suggesting that there would be no problem if an agreement could be reached whereby the anthem would not be played. So the idea that this is a newly-thought up controversy is simply untrue.
Sinn Féin's position on the matter was reached at an Ard Fheis a couple years ago, just before the change to Rule 42, when we passed a motion stating that we would accept whatever decision the GAA took. It wasn't a unanimous decision on our part, and there remain large numbers of people within the party who disagree with it - and even those of us who voted in favour would have had serious reservations, among them the spectre of GSTQ and the union flag. But that it was the GAA's decision to make and not ours is, I think, not really debatable.
Which is why today's protest doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, if you think about it. Not that people who oppose England's presence at Croke Park don't have a right to protest - of course they do. But we all knew this was coming as soon as Rule 42 was scrapped, two years ago, and I don't recall any organised effort to prevent it in the intervening period, say by announcing a boycott of the GAA until the change was reversed. Indeed, a couple of the people I know who were most vocal against it have continued to give their money to the very organisation whose decision they'll be protesting today.
It isn't the England team, or the IRFU, who are ultimately responsible for GSTQ being played at Croke Park today. It just seems a little bit silly to me that they and not the GAA will be the protestors' target.
***
On another note, I've been asked to post up another letter on the policing issue which didn't make it into An Phoblacht. I'm happy to oblige, although I do want to point out (especially for any muckraking journos reading this) that the paper has published other letters dissenting from the party line on this issue.
A Chara,
I wish to reply to issues raised by Seán McGabhann's letter in the February 8th edition of your paper. In it, Mr McGabhann claims to have recently realised that joining the policing boards was the right way to go and that those 'misguided' individuals who opposed it, needed to be persuaded that the struggle continues.
The problem I have with Mr McGabhann's remarks are twofold. Firstly, he argues as if it is the existence of a politics-based route itself that is the most problematic aspect for those who opposed joining the policing boards. If this were the case, why would people have stayed for so long? I would argue that people who opposed this just simply did not see the same advantage in it as they did with say, the GFA. Essentially, the present policing arrangements are a solution imposed by the two governments, with some minor tweaking by republicans. If the policing boards were such a site of struggle, why did we have to wait until now?
Secondly, he fails to adequately explain how he came to this sudden conversion? What became so radically different in the past few weeks? Perhaps it is those who voted yes who need to be persuaded that the road to a unified Democratic Socialist Republic will be an extremely long one which involves much thinking outside the box, rather than jumping into bed with homophobic fascists (the DUP) and accepting Brit- influenced policing solutions, just because we worry that people won't like us. (What else is new?)
Is mise le meas
Donal O' Driscoll
Co Cork
Should I stay or should I go?
Media reports on the Ard Fheis have made much of the lack of a walkout or a visible split in the ranks. And it's true that in that regard, the fallout has been less than it probably could have been. But it's also true that a lot of people had already left in the months immediately preceding - and I suspect a sizeable number of others are considering their options now, and may still vote with their feet.
I've thought about it too but, as deeply unhappy as I am with the decision taken yesterday, I don't think that leaving is the answer. For starters, where would I go? None of the alternative organisations seems to have a notion of how their idealised vision of a 32-county republic could actually be brought into existence. Without exception, their strategies all rest on the presumption that if only their voices could be heard, they could persuade the Irish people to rise up and demand the republic.
That's just not going to happen.
The SF strategy has its faults, obviously. But at the very least it's more plausible given that it rests on the persuasion of a far smaller number of people: enough in the North to tip the nationalist ratio over 50%, and/or enough in the South to put us in government.
And if all the other organisations are out, that leaves only the option of becoming a non-aligned republican, which seems entirely pointless to me. Most of the people I know who've gone down that route end up doing little more than posting bitter rants about their former comrades on internet message boards. And often ultimately emigrating.
There's also damage limitation to consider. The enemies of republicanism are obviously delighted that we've signed up to colonial policing; they'd be even more delighted to see us decimate ourselves in the process. I don't want them to have that satisfaction.
And finally, leaving SF would mean not only turning my back on their policing policy, but on everything else that they're doing. I think most of the rest of what they're doing is good, and I still want to be part of it.
Now I know that some people who have recently left, or are considering leaving, read this blog, and I know they're probably thinking: yes, yes, yes, BUT. It's a matter of principle. How can I remain in this party after it's turned its back on such a key principle? And I understand that view, I really do. But at the same time - and at the risk of causing great offence, for which I do apologise and offer the usual disclaimers - I can't help thinking that there's something a little bit egotistical about it. It seems to me to be overly concerned with the thought that MY image, MY republican credentials are at stake if I stay here. Yes, I'd like to be able to look in the mirror and say without hesitation that I had remained true to all my principles, and no, I can't quite do that at the moment - but I don't see what practical benefit would derive from leaving the party on that basis. I don't see how it would help end partition and achieve the republic that we all want.
The party has made its decision and we're stuck with it, so we can only make the best of it that we can. I'm going to do this by continuing in my specific role within the party, where I do think we're achieving something, and by using whatever limited influence I have to try to prevent further bad decisions being made.
But who knows. I could still change my mind later.
I've thought about it too but, as deeply unhappy as I am with the decision taken yesterday, I don't think that leaving is the answer. For starters, where would I go? None of the alternative organisations seems to have a notion of how their idealised vision of a 32-county republic could actually be brought into existence. Without exception, their strategies all rest on the presumption that if only their voices could be heard, they could persuade the Irish people to rise up and demand the republic.
That's just not going to happen.
The SF strategy has its faults, obviously. But at the very least it's more plausible given that it rests on the persuasion of a far smaller number of people: enough in the North to tip the nationalist ratio over 50%, and/or enough in the South to put us in government.
And if all the other organisations are out, that leaves only the option of becoming a non-aligned republican, which seems entirely pointless to me. Most of the people I know who've gone down that route end up doing little more than posting bitter rants about their former comrades on internet message boards. And often ultimately emigrating.
There's also damage limitation to consider. The enemies of republicanism are obviously delighted that we've signed up to colonial policing; they'd be even more delighted to see us decimate ourselves in the process. I don't want them to have that satisfaction.
And finally, leaving SF would mean not only turning my back on their policing policy, but on everything else that they're doing. I think most of the rest of what they're doing is good, and I still want to be part of it.
Now I know that some people who have recently left, or are considering leaving, read this blog, and I know they're probably thinking: yes, yes, yes, BUT. It's a matter of principle. How can I remain in this party after it's turned its back on such a key principle? And I understand that view, I really do. But at the same time - and at the risk of causing great offence, for which I do apologise and offer the usual disclaimers - I can't help thinking that there's something a little bit egotistical about it. It seems to me to be overly concerned with the thought that MY image, MY republican credentials are at stake if I stay here. Yes, I'd like to be able to look in the mirror and say without hesitation that I had remained true to all my principles, and no, I can't quite do that at the moment - but I don't see what practical benefit would derive from leaving the party on that basis. I don't see how it would help end partition and achieve the republic that we all want.
The party has made its decision and we're stuck with it, so we can only make the best of it that we can. I'm going to do this by continuing in my specific role within the party, where I do think we're achieving something, and by using whatever limited influence I have to try to prevent further bad decisions being made.
But who knows. I could still change my mind later.
I wasn't surprised to read this morning that the CORI report due out tomorrow will show that the gap between rich and poor in this state continues to widen. I see this with my own eyes, walking around the North Inner City.
What I do find absolutely shocking in that report is the statistic that 22.6% of the adult population are functionally illiterate. 22.6%!
Very serious questions have to be asked as to how nearly one out of every four people in this state can go through twelve years of schooling and emerge lacking such a basic skill. There is clearly something very wrong with an education system that allows this to happen. And I have to conclude that primary responsibility for this disaster must rest with those who have primary responsibility for education.
I am not trying to engage in gratuitous Church-bashing. I acknowledge that, in many countries, Catholic schools have superior performance records in comparison with other schools (although that is often due to factors such as self-selection rather than anything inherent to Catholic education itself). But the fact is that the Church has been given a job to do in this state and with an almost one-in-four failure rate, it is clearly not being done. This needs to be recognised.
**
In other news, I see that Republican Sinn Féin invited POW-turned-right wing ethnonationalist Gerry McGeough to speak at their annual hunger strike commemoration. I find this a bit perplexing. I know that many RSF members share McGeough's reactionary views on reproductive freedom (as, sadly, do too many members of my own party), but I am surprised RSF would want to associate themselves with someone now in the news mostly for his ties to fascist sympathiser Justin Barrett and for his slurs on gays and immigrants.
RSF are already viewed by a lot of people, including those who tend to share their analysis of the national question, as fundamentalist political dinosaurs. From the discussions I have had with republicans of the dissident variety, I know that this reputation is impeding RSF's growth and they are not going to shake it by offering a platform to the likes of Gerry McGeough.
What I do find absolutely shocking in that report is the statistic that 22.6% of the adult population are functionally illiterate. 22.6%!
Very serious questions have to be asked as to how nearly one out of every four people in this state can go through twelve years of schooling and emerge lacking such a basic skill. There is clearly something very wrong with an education system that allows this to happen. And I have to conclude that primary responsibility for this disaster must rest with those who have primary responsibility for education.
I am not trying to engage in gratuitous Church-bashing. I acknowledge that, in many countries, Catholic schools have superior performance records in comparison with other schools (although that is often due to factors such as self-selection rather than anything inherent to Catholic education itself). But the fact is that the Church has been given a job to do in this state and with an almost one-in-four failure rate, it is clearly not being done. This needs to be recognised.
**
In other news, I see that Republican Sinn Féin invited POW-turned-right wing ethnonationalist Gerry McGeough to speak at their annual hunger strike commemoration. I find this a bit perplexing. I know that many RSF members share McGeough's reactionary views on reproductive freedom (as, sadly, do too many members of my own party), but I am surprised RSF would want to associate themselves with someone now in the news mostly for his ties to fascist sympathiser Justin Barrett and for his slurs on gays and immigrants.
RSF are already viewed by a lot of people, including those who tend to share their analysis of the national question, as fundamentalist political dinosaurs. From the discussions I have had with republicans of the dissident variety, I know that this reputation is impeding RSF's growth and they are not going to shake it by offering a platform to the likes of Gerry McGeough.
The Border Fox goes free
INLA prisoner Dessie O'Hare has been freed from prison today under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
This was absolutely the right decision. There can be no question that he was a qualifying prisoner. Under the GFA, anyone held in prison for a scheduled offence (or in the 26 Counties, the equivalent thereof), who is allied to an organisation on ceasefire, qualifies for release. O'Hare clearly met this criteria and should have been released long ago.
But by the same token, so should the Castlerea Five. None of the excuses that the Irish Government has given for keeping the remaining four imprisoned stand up. It doesn't matter whether or not the IRA were on ceasefire at the time of the action (although they weren't); nor whether or not the IRA accepted responsibility for the action at the time; nor whether their conviction was obtained before or after the adoption of the GFA. The GFA does not provide for any of these exceptions. The only exception it provides for is if the prisoner's organisation is not on ceasefire. Even the High Court acknowledged this, although it (wrongly, I believe) found that the Government had discretion to refuse to release certain prisoners anyway.
Why was Dessie O'Hare's release delayed for as long as it was? I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine it was to do with the widely-held view of him as someone who remains dangerous notwithstanding his organisation's ceasefire. I have certainly heard this view expressed by a number of ex-prisoners who knew him. But there are no such concerns about the Castlerea men. Now that O'Hare is out, there can be no excuse for keeping Jerry Sheehy, Michael O'Neill, Pearse McAuley and Kevin Walsh in. They should be released immediately.
This was absolutely the right decision. There can be no question that he was a qualifying prisoner. Under the GFA, anyone held in prison for a scheduled offence (or in the 26 Counties, the equivalent thereof), who is allied to an organisation on ceasefire, qualifies for release. O'Hare clearly met this criteria and should have been released long ago.
But by the same token, so should the Castlerea Five. None of the excuses that the Irish Government has given for keeping the remaining four imprisoned stand up. It doesn't matter whether or not the IRA were on ceasefire at the time of the action (although they weren't); nor whether or not the IRA accepted responsibility for the action at the time; nor whether their conviction was obtained before or after the adoption of the GFA. The GFA does not provide for any of these exceptions. The only exception it provides for is if the prisoner's organisation is not on ceasefire. Even the High Court acknowledged this, although it (wrongly, I believe) found that the Government had discretion to refuse to release certain prisoners anyway.
Why was Dessie O'Hare's release delayed for as long as it was? I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine it was to do with the widely-held view of him as someone who remains dangerous notwithstanding his organisation's ceasefire. I have certainly heard this view expressed by a number of ex-prisoners who knew him. But there are no such concerns about the Castlerea men. Now that O'Hare is out, there can be no excuse for keeping Jerry Sheehy, Michael O'Neill, Pearse McAuley and Kevin Walsh in. They should be released immediately.
It's gone largely unnoticed in the mainstream media, but the largest republican split since 1997 seems to have taken place over the past couple weeks, with substantial defections from both the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Féin. The details of the split are disputed, and I'm not particularly interested in them anyway, but I was amused to read the statement issued by RSF in today's Daily Ireland:
"A few people have resigned from the organisation. Some of these have been ex-Provos who joined recently and who had remained with the Provisionals even after they accepted the Stormont Agreement.
"The remainder are young people without political experience who joined in the recent past and who came under the influence of these ex-Provos.
"The unsettling effect for them of Provo destruction of arms and the declared intention of the Provisional movement to support and join the PSNI/RUC forms the background to all this ..."
God love RSF. If (what they call) "the Provisional movement" didn't exist, they would have to invent it!
"A few people have resigned from the organisation. Some of these have been ex-Provos who joined recently and who had remained with the Provisionals even after they accepted the Stormont Agreement.
"The remainder are young people without political experience who joined in the recent past and who came under the influence of these ex-Provos.
"The unsettling effect for them of Provo destruction of arms and the declared intention of the Provisional movement to support and join the PSNI/RUC forms the background to all this ..."
God love RSF. If (what they call) "the Provisional movement" didn't exist, they would have to invent it!
More threats reported against the McCartney sisters, this time from "republican elements". They're saying the McCartneys will be hurt if they persist in "discrediting the republican movement".
Assuming for the moment this is true, I don't believe the IRA are involved in it. If for no other reason than they surely have a sharper sense of irony than that (at least, I hope they do, although after P. O'Neill's last statement about the McCartney murder I suppose you would have to wonder a little bit). It needs to be remembered that "republican elements" includes people other than Sinn Féin and the IRA - and while republican dissidents initially were as keen to latch on to the McCartneys as the SDLP and southern establishment were, many of them were alienated when the sisters went to the US and began rubbishing republicanism in general to the politicians and media over there. And it certainly wouldn't be beyond some of them to threaten the McCartneys in the full and deliberate knowledge that mainstream republicanism would take the criticism for it.
Perhaps I'm being paranoid here, but I wonder if the fact that the reports refer only to generic "republican elements" is telling. When Fergal Toal was arrested on drugs charges last month many of the reports referred to him as "a former republican prisoner", his membership of the INLA rather than the IRA going conveniently unmentioned although most journalists would surely be aware of it. But when the IRA are (alleged to be) involved in something they rarely hesitate to say "the IRA"!
On a final note, I've just heard on the radio that tomorrow's Sunday Tribune will be carrying a column by Nuala O'Faolain wondering why the southern media have gone soft on Paisley and suggesting that it's just "not PC" to blame anyone other than Sinn Féin for the impasse. Should be interesting; perhaps I'll at last get my money's worth on the €2 that I inexplicably continue to shell out on that stupid paper every week.
Assuming for the moment this is true, I don't believe the IRA are involved in it. If for no other reason than they surely have a sharper sense of irony than that (at least, I hope they do, although after P. O'Neill's last statement about the McCartney murder I suppose you would have to wonder a little bit). It needs to be remembered that "republican elements" includes people other than Sinn Féin and the IRA - and while republican dissidents initially were as keen to latch on to the McCartneys as the SDLP and southern establishment were, many of them were alienated when the sisters went to the US and began rubbishing republicanism in general to the politicians and media over there. And it certainly wouldn't be beyond some of them to threaten the McCartneys in the full and deliberate knowledge that mainstream republicanism would take the criticism for it.
Perhaps I'm being paranoid here, but I wonder if the fact that the reports refer only to generic "republican elements" is telling. When Fergal Toal was arrested on drugs charges last month many of the reports referred to him as "a former republican prisoner", his membership of the INLA rather than the IRA going conveniently unmentioned although most journalists would surely be aware of it. But when the IRA are (alleged to be) involved in something they rarely hesitate to say "the IRA"!
On a final note, I've just heard on the radio that tomorrow's Sunday Tribune will be carrying a column by Nuala O'Faolain wondering why the southern media have gone soft on Paisley and suggesting that it's just "not PC" to blame anyone other than Sinn Féin for the impasse. Should be interesting; perhaps I'll at last get my money's worth on the €2 that I inexplicably continue to shell out on that stupid paper every week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
