Social Items

TPQ
Maryam Namazie ✊ Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand’s recent criticisms of feminists, secularists and ex-Muslims under the guise of defending the Palestinian people are worrying given their use of Islamist and pro-Islamist Left propaganda.

Their statement ‘Genocide in Gaza: Where does the Women’s Rights Movement stand?’ rightly condemns genocide but has not one word condemning Hamas and the Islamist movement. (Whilst I agree with it in general, I refused to sign because of this glaring omission.)

This position, which sees US-led militarism as the greater threat and therefore only focus, is particularly disturbing coming from women’s rights campaigners and communists who have struggled against the Islamic regime of Iran for decades.

Though they pay lip service to the third pole, representing humanity, vis-a-vis two poles of international terrorism: US-led state and Islamic (as laid out by Mansoor Hekmat in The World After September 11), in effect, they dismiss Islamism’s role in the suppression and the right-wing restructuring of societies. And they do so with language that has been used against the Left, working class and progressive movements in Iran and the Middle East for decades.

For example, in criticising Mina Ahadi’s call to protest Islamism after an attack in Manheim, Germany, Azar uses scaremongering and deception to make her points. She says an ‘Iranian Leftist’ (meaning Mina) has called for an ‘anti-Islamic jihad’ ‘eight months after a genocide that continues’ (far-Right language not used by Mina). She says this call to protest is preparing the ground ‘for anti-Muslim pogroms,’ ‘Muslim ghettos’ and ‘ovens that this time will be used to burn Muslims.’ (starting at 11:12 minutes). This shocking language is directly from the literary arsenal of the Islamists.

And even worse, in the same video, Azar completely denies the threat of Islamism as she rhetorically asks: ‘Is the Islamic movement really a threat in Europe? Has it really threatened anyone?’ (5:50 minutes). She then lists threats such as the restrictions on freedoms and democratic rights, war mongering, poverty… (as if we cannot have more than one threat in society at any given time). She adds: ‘These are dangers, not Islamic terrorism,’ which she goes on to say is supported by western governments.

She continues ‘Is the Islamic regime really carrying out terrorist activities in Europe now? Is it mad? It must maintain itself. They will bomb it and destroy it. It is suicide for it.’ (10:48 minutes) This despite the fact that the regime’s terrorist activities in Europe against the opposition are well documented.

Whilst Azar rightly criticises the far-Right and anti-Muslim bigotry, she repeats the tired mantra that criticism of Islam and Islamism adds fire to the fascist movement. (Where does that leave criticism of our Islamist fascists then? Are we to remain silent? Are only white fascists cause for concern? And if we stop criticising Islam and Islamism, will that end the rise of the far-Right. If so, countries with blasphemy laws would not have far-Right movements.)

Azar says this call to protest against Islamism ‘should be read as anti-Muslim, since no ordinary person can make a distinction between Islamists and Muslims’ (2:40 minutes)! This is absurd. It is as if to say that ordinary people cannot make a distinction between Christians and the Klu Klux Klan, English Defence League, or National Front so one must stop criticism of white nationalists. Isn’t this the very accusation of ‘Islamophobia’ that we have battled for many decades? How many times have we said that criticism of the religious-Right and religion are not the same as attacking people? How many times have we said that we cannot excuse the religious-Right because of racism, nor excuse racism because of the religious-Right?

In an interview with Partow TV, when asked to further explain her position that Islamism is not a threat, Azar says that she meant that there is no threat in Europe from Islamic terrorism and the Islamic regime of Iran. It’s in the region or in Africa that they are threats. (If they are threats in the region, why are Hamas and Islamism not mentioned in the statement ‘Genocide in Gaza: Where does the Women’s Rights Movement stand’?)

In the interview, she goes on to say that those critical of her views have bought into Israeli and Western propaganda and want to ‘link Hamas and the Israeli genocide in order to ignore a clear genocide.’ (starts at 12:34) Apparently those critical of her views are silent on genocide when the issue at hand is her silence on Islamism’s role and crimes, including in destroying the Palestinian movement for self-determination and liberation.

At the end of the interview, she takes aim at ex-Muslims. It is important to note here that the ex-Muslim movement is a civil rights one, calling for an end to blasphemy and apostasy laws and insisting on the right to freedom of conscience and thought, the right to be non-believers and criticise religion without threats and fear. On this Azar says ‘unfortunately, there are some whose anti-religious activities is only to provoke, constantly provoke Muslim people.’ (31:52 minutes)

She goes on to say that this doesn’t happen to other religious groups. Her example is a shocking anti-Semitic trope usually promoted by the likes of Hamas, the Islamic regime of Iran and conspiracy theorists. She says even though, for example, the NY police found ‘blood and that children have been sacrificed,’ the news about their ‘eating babies’ blood’ in an underground tunnel linked to a Synagogue was censored (32:09 minutes). These allegations of blood libel originate in the Middle Ages when Jews were falsely accused of ritualised murder, in particular of children, so as to legitimise violence against them. See fact-check on the Synagogue incident here.

Any Left political personality should face a political scandal for the articulation of these outrageous right wing views but apparently, any nonsense can be uttered on a Left wing TV programme and not challenged once.

She then goes on to say she is in favour of unconditional freedom of expression But (the famous But) ‘don’t provoke people, don’t go in front of a mosque and drink alcohol’ (34:13 minutes). Again, Azar relies on deception. Our fast-defying annual actions are designed to highlight the repressive nature of theocratic states against citizens who are coerced to fast. It follows from an action that was first carried out in 2010 in Morocco by the group Alternative Movement for Individual Liberties (M.A.L.I.).

In fact, we at the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) always go in front of embassies, not mosques. This year, we had RUMadan in front of the embassies of the Islamic regime of Iran, Pakistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia to condemn the persecution of people for defying fasting rules. She deceptively portrays our political action as provocation against Muslims when in fact many Muslims are also persecuted for eating and drinking during Ramadan. Again, Azar uses Islamist language and morality to make her point. Women defying hijab rules, those transgressing sex apartheid, those who become atheists, etc are always considered provocateurs and punished with the full severity of Sharia. Blurring the distinction between Islamists and Muslims is in actuality another far-Right position made both by Islamists and white nationalists, albeit for different reasons, to scaremonger people into embracing their politics of hate.

In any case, Azar should know that provocation is an important way for the powerless to open spaces, break taboos, force conversations and demand change. But the fundamental question remains, who is provoking whom? Is drinking in front of an embassy provocation or the persecution and murder of those who defy Sharia rules?

Azar’s use of Islamist language is so blatant that she has even been quoted positively in Mashregh, a media outlet of the Islamic regime. The quote from an interview on Ru Dar Ru with Mahmood Ahmadi is telling.

In response to those ‘feminists and secularists’ who did not speak at her online conference on where the women’s rights movement stands on Gaza, she says what the regime and Islamists have always said about women’s rights and secularist organisations; she also throws in an anti-Semitic trop against Soros, who is the bogeyman of the far-Right, for good measure. She says:

‘Some replied negatively because the funds they get from western governments or western foundations will be in danger if they speak about Israel and they will lose their funds…’ (from 7:18 minutes)
‘Some didn’t attend because they want to maintain their organisations that are reliant on western governments and democracy organisations like Soros, which gives money to a lot of secular and women’s groups in the region and effectively makes them corrupt… This is the cause for their silence.’ (From 32:45 minutes)

Which organisations Azar? Why not list them and expose their ‘corruption?’

Whilst I am here, I would be remiss not to mention an article penned by her comrade Homa Arjomand critical of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) for organising a Celebrating Dissent conference ‘during a genocide’. Homa should know that we have organised conferences since 2008 (she has spoken at some) and that it takes more than a year to organise the largest gathering of ex-Muslims world-wide to defend the rights to apostasy, blasphemy and free expression (especially since these are punishable by death in countries under Islamic laws).

Since then, our conferences, CEMB and One Law for All have criticised all religions and all religious right movements, including Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist-Right, and Sikh. See manifestos and conference discussions here. Also, we have worked for years against the far-Right, racism, xenophobia, against anti-Muslim bigotry… See for example our reports: Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right and Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left.

But I suppose when one relies on deception and Islamist language and morality (Homa also says we ‘drink alcoholic drinks in front of places attributed to Muslims’), facts don’t matter. As long as criticism of Islam and Islamism can be vilified and discouraged.

I am curious; did Homa also write a piece criticising Pride for holding its annual Gay Pride, or refugee rights groups for organising around International Refugee Day ‘during a genocide?’ Or is her ire only for those who criticise Islam and Islamism?

This is neither here nor there but she laughably mentions ‘prophet’ Richard Dawkins and his position on Christianity and Judaism as if all atheists think alike. Muslims, ex-Muslims, atheists are not homogenous. Ex-Muslims and atheists are linked in protest for civil rights, not identity or politics and opinion. I vehemently disagree with Dawkin’s position on Christianity. I have said it many times before, religion must come with a health warning: it kills. I also disagree with his calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a hero when she is promoting the Christian-Right and neo-conservatism, but yes, shock, horror, we are both atheists. Grouping people to ‘expose’ them is no different again than what the far-Right does. An Islamist demands Sharia law, therefore all Muslims and those who look ‘foreign’ don’t have proper values, and ergo, they must all be deported to Rwanda or pushed back into the sea.

Of course, a lot more could be said to expose the goldmine of deceptions, smoke screens and tired old arguments but this should suffice to show how Homa Arjomand, Azar Majedi and their comrades have now firmly joined the camp of the Pro-Islamist Left and are diminishing and ignoring the threat of Islamism as a right-wing tool of suppression and restructuring in the Middle East and globally.

If they would care to see what a principled position on the genocide in Gaza and Hamas’ terrorism looks like, I would recommend Feminist Dissent’s Statement on the Genocide in Gaza and Bread and Roses programme on the Israeli state genocide and Hamas’ terrorism.

Azar Majedi says history will be the judge. Indeed it will.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.


Azar Majedi And Homa Arjomand’s Islamist Propaganda And Morality

Anthony McIntyre ☠ Last night Prime Time broadcast an interview with Carol and James Johnston, the parents of the late teen Aoife Johnston.

Ms Johnston died in University Hospital Limerick a few days short of Christmas 2022 after the sepsis she was admitted with went untreated for twelve hours despite the HSA protocol for dealing with the life threatening illness recommending that it be treated within one hour.

The case has generated much controversy and publicity because the life of Aoife Johnston was needlessly lost. The report by former Chief Justice Frank Clarke found that her death was almost certainly avoidable. The simple act of immediate life saving medical intervention - what people have every right to expect in hospital - would have ensured the teenager lived, able to spend Christmas of that year at home with her parents and siblings.  

Although Miriam O'Callaghan was as professional and sensitive as the setting required, Prime Time made for deeply uncomfortable viewing. Earlier in the day I had lunch with my own daughter in Dublin. When viewing the anguish of Aoife's parents, it was impossible not to think of her visits to hospitals when she was not yet eighteen and therefore had to be accompanied by an adult. All minor routine matters, there was never the slightest cause for concern, or fears that she might not return home with me.

Having had a number of procedures carried out in the seventeen years I have lived in Drogheda, in which I have been treated by a range of nationalities and people of a colour different from myself, I find myself loathe to criticise the front line staff. I know the effort and energy they bring to their vocation, the speed with which they have reacted when something untoward presents itself. Hospitals are a pressure cooker environment where a spare minute is gold dust. Long hours, with every patient, preoccupied with what has caused them to attend hospital and, for easily understandable reasons, feeling they should be at the front of the queue, the incessant exigencies bearing down on medical staff must seem Sisyphean. Over the course of my life I have seen lazy cops, screws, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and a whole range of other shirkers, but can think of no front line medical staff who the indolence cap fits. 

Still. something has gone tragically and fatally wrong, which resulted in a young woman “dying in front of the staff’s eyes”. Yet Prime Time's efforts to get to the bottom of it were undermined by a no-show on the part of the CEO for the HSE and the Health Minister, both of whom declined to appear and give the public an account.

Not providing a substantive explanation seems to have characterised the approach of officialdom to the avoidable death of Aoife Johnston. Frank Clarke's investigation was heavily circumscribed by HSE institutional priorities. The former judge complained that:

It is not possible to have it both ways and have a timely resolution while at the same time complying with the obligations of procedural fairness.

Six people face disciplinary action. But to offload culpability onto frontline staff who worked in an already difficult environment which on the day experienced additional overcrowding and shortage of staff would be a serious miscarriage of justice. A former nurse manager told the inquest into Aoife's death that on the evening she was admitted, the emergency department was like a war zone and unsafe for patients:

What I observed was akin to a war-zone. Every available floor space was taken up, trollies were lined up next to each other, blocking doors.
Paediatrics was grossly overcrowded; The seven bays in Resus were all full plus there were seven more patients there on the floor space, some were attached to defibrillators.
We were in a crisis situation, it was a major incident status in my opinion.
. . . I deemed it a serious and immediate risk to patients.

Responsibility for plugging the gaps caused by systemic failings should not rest with staff at the coalface. Those responsible for the management and governance of this society's health system should step up to the plate. When provided with an opportunity by Prime Time last night to do just that they failed to avail of it.

That must add weight to the necessity for the statutory investigation called for by the parents of Aoife Johnston.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Aoife's Agony

KOSU 🖉 Written by Jillian Taylor, Recommended by Christy Walsh. 

Oklahoma had the second-highest number of pregnancy-related prosecutions nationwide in the year after Roe. v. Wade was overturned, according to a new study by the advocacy organization Pregnancy Justice.

From June 24, 2022, to June 23, 2023, there were at least 210 pregnancy-related prosecutions in the U.S. This is the highest number of these prosecutions documented in a single year. Oklahoma trailed Alabama, at 68 prosecutions.

The report notes its total might represent an undercount, as the research team is still uncovering cases from this period. It also notes the team had more resources to uncover cases, meaning they could identify more cases than in past years.

A majority of these defendants nationwide are low-income, and their charges commonly allege a form of child abuse, neglect or endangerment. Prosecutors overwhelmingly charged pregnant people with offenses that did not require proof the pregnant person harmed a fetus or infant.

Janet Levit, a University of Tulsa law professor, teaches a reproductive rights practicum alongside the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center. 

Continue reading @ KOSU.

Oklahoma Represents Nearly One-Third Of Pregnancy-Related Prosecutions A Year After Roe's End

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Two Hundred And Eighty Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 2293

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Over the years Sinn Fein have danced the fandango on their political position more times than I have visited Old Trafford football ground which is many. 

From the once often spoken “32 County Democratic Socialist Republic” which was their view to a unified island of Ireland, a position I never really took seriously as their politics did not add up to socialism, their political stance has shifted more times than the San Andreas Fault.

They then shifted their position after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 to a “New Republic” whatever that may mean? Then a demand, under the terms of the GFA, for an immediate “border poll” which has now been diluted to such a poll within a “lifetime” (whose lifetime is unclear). Once again this is an example of entryism into bourgeois politics under their rules, a once radical party must become representative of the bourgeoisie themselves if they want to play the parliamentary game!

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of former Sinn Fein minister, Martin O’Muilleoir, on the BBCs ‘Red Lines’ podcast. It was an interesting interview by Mark Carruthers and the former minister stated; “if we don’t have the Presbyterians on our side in a new Ireland we are definitely screwed”. This is perfectly true: we do need a sizable number of the Protestant and Presbyterian community on side to have any chance of a peaceful unified country. In today’s world we also need the many minority groups and religions, and those with no faith, on side as all our lives will be affected. He emphasised “engagement” as an important factor which again nobody can disagree with because engaging all communities is pivotal. The former minister continued; “I’m not in a big hurry (for a poll) because this is only going in one direction and we want to take as many people with us as possible.” So far, so good. He went on to strongly point out that “constitutional change is almost certainly coming to Ireland”. Martin believes a border poll will happen, though he never said when, and such changes as the constitutional position of the six counties will change. What about a 32-county poll Martin which words to the effect of are also contained in the GFA? The wording being:

The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under a binding obligation to implement that choice. 

Referring to a border poll Martin never said when this border poll or constitutional change will come about just that it will, a bit like how long is a piece of string!

Martin explained in the interview his memories of gun battles between the “IRA and British Army” after the honeymoon period had worn off. The British troops arrived in December of 1969 and many Catholics (foolishly) welcomed them as bringing relief after the petrol bombings of recent weeks. That was not the purpose of the British troops' arrival as those same residents soon were to discover. He also remembers the hunger strikes of 1981 and “the sadness” in his “mother’s voice when Bobby Sands died”. Martin went so far as to say he “would like to see the Union Jack and the tricolour flying over Belfast City Hall”. You certainly have come a long way Martin. Many people in Britain do not want the union flag flying over their own city and town halls!

Perhaps Martin’s envisagement of two flags flying over Belfast City Hall is not too far away from fruition. For totally different reasons, I dare say, the possibility of the ‘Union Jack’ and tricolour flying over Belfast has in one respect already happened. During the far-right neo-fascist anti-immigrant protests in Belfast the ‘Union Jack’ waving fascist elements within loyalism were joined by far-right racist elements from Coolock in Dublin who were waving the tricolour. Is this the sign of things to come? 

Perhaps the neo-Nazis of Coolock, a minority I must stress, and there are no other words to describe them would like to see this joint flag arrangement extended to the 26-county capital! They appeared very much at home with people from the six counties who once banned the tricolour from Belfast, all very comradely, I’m sure. According to the Documentary, RTE Investigates, English fascist Stephen Yaxley Lenon, better known as ‘Tommy Robinson’ is connected to and is known to have “been present” at the Coolock anti-immigration protests. At these protests neo-Nazi language was used by the people taking part, hence my above description of them (neo-Nazis). This is not to suggest Martin O’Muilleoir and Sinn Fein have shifted ground into the racist camp because they have not, and I must be clear on that. I am simply drawing an analogy between the dual flag syndrome, albeit for differing reasons, and how inadvertently it could come about.

We all should know and agree that respecting different traditions and customs will be essential in any future arrangements regarding incorporating the minority population of Ireland in with the majority. it will be only right and proper to respect other peoples, all peoples, freedom to worship (or not) in whichever way they feel fit. It is also important not to ignore the feeling of “Britishness” felt by many in the minority community on the island. The question is; how far do we take this ‘respect’? It cannot be endless because all traditions including the majority group as well as the minority must be accommodated as they are presently in the 26 counties. Offensive ‘cultures’ should not be tolerated; for example a huge Lambeg Drum with an image of the Pope's head emblazoned getting battered would be offensive to Catholics and should not be accepted. The same rule would apply to republican drums picturing King Charles getting an equal battering which would be offensive to unionists and therefore would not be tolerated. There would be no room for offensive remarks or descriptions of minority groups and would not be accepted.

Let’s take a hypothetical look at some of the unionist ideas and preconditions could be in some cases for a united Ireland. The issue of which flag should the new unified country fly, should the tricolour be replaced with an alternative? Which national anthem should be used? Would there be a special role for Stormont? When asked these questions the former Sinn Fein minister answered “yes, yes, yes” meaning yes, the flag may have to be changed and yes, a new national anthem may be used and yes there will be a roll for Stormont. So, let us examine the possibilities of any changes in these spheres and demands of any ‘reasonable’ unionist, what could their demands be?

The ‘reasonable’ unionist who could argue that perhaps in view of the fact you have your united Ireland, your cherished aim for decades, in order to keep our unionist British identity the national anthem should be changed to God Save the King! This would not be unreasonable, may say the unionist, after all you have your united Ireland, surely you would not deny me my cultural identity which this anthem is part of would you? The reasonable unionist could then go on to say; part of our culture is the union flag so any flag change must incorporate the ‘Union Jack’ as this too is part of my cultural identity, surely as you have your united Ireland you would not deny me that, would you? The not unreasonable unionist might also argue that Stormont is part of his/her political identity so in a united Ireland surely this must be the national parliament, you cannot deny us that, can you? After all you do have your United Ireland! So, we now have a united Ireland under the Union Jack, with God Save the King as our anthem and Stormont replacing the Dail as the national parliament! Of course, these are ridiculous extreme lengths I have explained but they are supposed to be. How far do we go in appeasing unionist and perhaps more importantly loyalist fears about their culture? We can only go so far before our own culture and identity is eroded which, given the direction of travel Sinn Fein are taking would not surprise me!

Martin pointed out when he “talks with his unionist business friend’s” they always ask how they would benefit in “a united Ireland”. They have no need to worry because when it comes to business and making money no compromise on minor details like the national anthem and flag are too much. William Martin Murphy, a nationalist MP at the time of the Dublin Lockout, who was the owner of the Dublin United Tramways Company supported Home Rule. As a businessman he could see profits would not be affected but perhaps increased in a limited home ruled Ireland. This view was shared by some Unionist businessmen, albeit a minority at the time, in what would become the six counties. Profit is the only motivation in either a united or partitioned Ireland to the business community. Now that Sinn Fein are a party of the business classes little wonder they have shifted political position so much over the decades. Just like the British Labour Party who are unrecognisable to the party even of the 1960s, Sinn Fein are not the party of revolutionary change they once claimed to be.

There could be scope for a change to the tricolour but not a totally different flag altogether. Back in the mid-late 19th century some republicans suggested the tricolour, first introduced from revolutionary France in 1848, could be made up of Orange, the Protestant tradition, “Sky Blue” to represent the “Presbyterian” tradition (formerly known as Dissenters) and Green for the majority Catholic tradition. This would encompass all the main historical traditions on the island of Ireland and could be a compromise.

It would appear, according to Martin O’Muilleoir, all the fighting and sacrifice made was to achieve an ambiguous agreement, and have two flags, one imperialist, flying over Belfast City Hall. Is this the united Ireland so many young people sacrificed their lives for? The demands made by republicans of the new Labour Government in London now should be, in conjunction with the 26-county administration, a 32-county nationwide poll on Irish unification. Let us not forget the people in the 26 counties also have a tradition which, along with the unionists in the six counties, must also be respected. Removal of the British Secretary of State’s veto over a border poll is essential, perhaps replacing this clause with something along the lines of the British Secretary of State and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Dublin will jointly oversee an all-Irish poll. This would still be in line with the GFA with a small amendment. Surely that is not too much to ask, is it?

The aims of republican socialists are ideologically poles apart from those of orthodox republicans and cannot be negotiated with any capitalist government in Dublin or London. The socialist republic would, based on the political and economic writings of Karl Marx, and preached by James Connolly in Ireland, eradicate poverty, depravation, homelessness and poor provisions of health services (not to be confused with health care) across the 32 counties. Central to this would be the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange with full democracy in all departments. Production carried out on a not-for profit basis, not to be confused with a non-profit making system, would be the productive method for the needs of the many, not the greed of the few as is presently the case. 

The Good Friday Agreement offers none of these for either side of the so-called religious divide in the six counties and does not tackle any of the economic problems faced by the proletariat of the twenty-six. It was never supposed to. The GFA was never intended to address these problems faced by the majority of people on the island. It was never intended to be an agreement on political and economic ideological change. What the capitalist class are unable, unwilling, or a combination of both to give we must take ourselves now, that’s not too much to ask either, is it!
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

A United Ireland 🚦 Which Flag? Which Anthem? What System of Government?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Two Hundred And Eighty Six

Anthony McIntyre ☠ The leader of India's right wing governing party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is no stranger to controversy.

For the purposes of fear mongering Narenda Modi has seized on the far right trope about Muslims at some point overtaking the country's Hindu majority, despite the data on Muslim growth projection not supporting his assertion. 

Modi's authoritarian populism is buttressed by a right wing nationalist paramilitary body, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS):

India’s oldest and largest Hindu-supremacist paramilitary group and the ideological parent of the country’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) . . . The ongoing relationship between the RSS and BJP has never been hidden . . . one Indian media outlet estimated that one in five BJP ministers was affiliated with the RSS. This includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself, who joined the RSS at age eight.

The origins of RSS can be traced back to the country's strain of fascism. It was the organisation behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 and has been responsible for numerous acts of terrorism against India's Muslim population. 

There is no compelling reason to be attracted to the Modi brand of politics, and every reason to resile from his dangerous Hindu nationalism where the 'ideal Hindu man' has been implicitly encouraged to rape Muslim women in a country where sexual violence against women in general is notorious.

Yet, the criticism directed his way for his embrace of fellow right wing nationalist and authoritarian, Russian leader Vladimir Putin  - when the two men met in July - seems skewed.

The Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented:

It is a huge disappointment and a devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy hug the world’s most bloody criminal in Moscow on such a day.

The day he was referring to was one on which the Russians had bombed a Ukrainian hospital.

Flat earth types might seek to deny that Putin is a war criminal, but he is hardly the world's most bloody criminal. Seriously, worse than Israel's Kapo leader, Benjamin Netanyahu? Joe Biden also - who Zelensky is not averse to hugging - is arguably a much more heinous war criminal than Putin, given his ongoing arming of the genocide in Gaza. 

In his recent UN speech Zelensky warned the West that the objective of Putin's:

present war against Ukraine is to turn our land, our people, our resources into a weapon against you – against the international rules-based order.

Prior to making that statement Zelensky surely drank long and hard from the Kool Aid bottle, branded cognitive dissonance, which helps blur the sad but salient fact that there is no international rules-based order. The UN, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, bodies meant to give meaning to the phrase international rules-based order, have been treated with vile contempt, their rulings and recommendations swept aside by Biden and Netanyahu.

Yeah, Putin is a depraved autocrat but a long way from being the main monster in the jointly produced Tel Aviv-Washington horror show.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Hugging Controversy

RTÉ 📺 Documentary On One tells the story of the first ever shipment of arms from Gadaffi to the IRA. Recommended by Henry Joy. 

Over the next two weekends, on podcast and on RTÉ Radio 1, RTÉ Documentary On One tells the largely unknown and undocumented story of the first ever shipment of weapons from Libya to the Provisional IRA in a two part documentary titled First Consignment.

I first came across this story when during the summer of 2022, I visited Des Long to ask about the possibility of weapons being smuggled into Ireland in 1967, and whether the IRA had anything to do with this. Des Long was involved in the old Munster IRA like his father before him – and he subsequently became Director of Finance for the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s.

The reason for my visit to Des’ home in Limerick was to inquire for another documentary we were making about a woman named Mary Folen who had the most unfortunate story of having her coffin dropped twice from the skies (Mary had died in America, her remains flown home to Shannon before being transported by helicopter for burial on her native Inis Meáin, Oileán Árainn). 

Continue reading @ RTÉ.

First Ever Shipment Of Arms From Gadaffi To The IRA

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Two Hundred And Eighty Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 2292

Seamus Mac Glaisín 🪶 “You cannot compromise on principle.” - So said Michael Flannery shortly before his death, 30 years ago.

Michael Flannery was a veteran of the Tan War, an anti-Treaty veteran of the Civil War, and after emigrating to the US in 1927, he served in many organizations in leadership capacities, most notably as a co-founder of Irish Northern Aid in 1970; President of the NY GAA in 1954; President of Clan na Gael; and co-founder of Cumann na Saoirse Naisiunta (National Irish Freedom Committee) in 1986/87. In his capacity as leader of NORAID and subsequently the NIFC, Flannery was a tireless and unapologetic advocate and fundraiser on behalf of the Irish Republican Movement.


In 1987, when asked about the split in Sinn Fein, and subsequently Irish Northern Aid, Flannery replied “A lot of people are confused at this new conjecture… But personally, I see no reason for the confusion. I’ve been through splits and divisions before.” He described the conditions and people that initiated a breakaway in 1969, as being one in the same in 1986. Flannery rattled off the names of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Dáithí Ó Conaill, Tom Maguire, and a host of others who were founding Provisionals that sided against the Adams faction in 1986 over the issue of abstentionism. To Flannery, the acceptance of British colonial structures in Ireland in 1921 was as revolting as it was in 1969, as it was in 1986.

These recollections of Michael Flannery were recorded by Pete Farley, a member of the NIFC. The tapes were preserved for many years by the Costello family, and now The Gaelic American is making these tapes publicly accessible through their YouTube channel.

The NIFC are hosting a commemoration for Michael Flannery on October 6th in Queens, New York. Beginning with a wreath laying at the grave of Michael Flannery at 1pm, a social will follow at 4pm at the Wild Goose Pub. (Locations below)

At the social, a video will be shown of Michael Flannery’s final message to the Irish Republican Movement, in which he states “You cannot compromise on principle.” This message is of particular value in the present day, when misguided representatives try to explain that bowing to monarchs and supporting juryless courts is all a part of being a republican. The video shown at the event will be uploaded to Youtube afterwards.

Additionally, the social will feature a speech to be given by John Ridge. John Ridge is the President of the New York Irish History Roundtable, and was a character witness for Patrick Mullin when the IRA Five were on trial in New York in 1981. His Irish-American archive is publicly accessible at NYU.

The event is co-sponsored by members of the Flannery family; The Gaelic American; Radio Free Eireann; O’Donovan Rossa GAA; Tipperary Association; Tipperary Hurling Club; and more groups TBA. Also remembered at this event on his 20th anniversary will be George Harrison. Harrison was a Brooklyn-based IRA gunrunner for over 30 years, and a co-defendant of Flannery at the IRA Five trial. Harrison said of Flannery:

It was indeed a singular honor to have known this heroic and historical figure and to have been one of his foot soldiers in the long unending struggle to end British colonialism in Ireland and put the Irish people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter in control of their own destiny.

Mt. St. Mary Cemetery is located at 172-00 Booth Memorial Avenue, Flushing, NY. Image attached indicates the location of Mike and Pearl Flannery’s grave. And The Wild Goose is located at 54-20 Roosevelt Ave, Woodside, NY.


⏩ Seamus Mac Glaisín is an Irish American republican.

You Cannot Compromise On Principle

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Two Hundred And Eighty Four

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)