On behalf of the regional Socialist Republican Unity Committee I’m glad to welcome you all here today to the East Coast H-Block Hunger Strike Commemoration. Today we are paying tribute to Joe Mc Donnell, the fifth of our hunger strikers who died aged 30 on the 8th July 1981 after 60 days.
The ultimate and final sacrifice for political status which are enshrined in the 5 demands.
- The right to wear your own clothes.
- The right not to do prison work.
- Free association with other prisoners.
- Restoration of full remission of sentence lost due to protest.
- Normal visits, parcels, education and recreation facilities.
These were the 5 demands that the foreign army of occupation of the 6 counties and Thatcher’s government would not concede.
Thatcher set out on a course to criminalise political prisoners after the 1st of March 1976.She unleashed her sadistic sectarian dogs in uniform in a manner of brutality and cruelty relentless beatings, strip searches, mirror searches, sleep deprivation and locked up 23 hours a day.
Ironically, every breach of human rights, a total criminal crusade to break the will of our freedom fighters. But they would not concede. Their tortured bodies and screams from the hell holes of Long Kesh did not seem to be heard in Westminster and Leinster House nor did the crimes perpetrated by the regime bother those peace lovers. The prisoners refused to wear prison uniforms and covered themselves with their blanket. Each time they left their cell to slop out they were beaten so they refused, thus the dirty protest. The eventual and last resort was a hunger strike which was led by Brendan Hughes which ended on the 18th of December 1980.The prisoners believed they has won a deal nearing their demands for political status especially on wearing their own clothes.
The British reneged and the 2nd hunger strike began on March 1st 1981 five years to the day since the abolition of political status. It was led by Bobby Sands and you could be forgiven for saying the rest is history but unfortunately that is not so.
Today with pride and sadness I want to share and lend a voice to the plight of political prisoners in Maghaberry Gaol who are being tortured, beaten, strip searched in the same illegal and sadistic manner as our hunger strikers were over 30 years ago. Are these human rights violations an unleashing of sectarian sadistic loyalist screws by prison management an attempt to roll back on the 5 demands that the ’81 hunger strikers fought and died for? Is this the cost political prisoners are paying to further your political careers? After over 30 years campaigning, the blanket protest, the dirty protest, beatings pain and humiliation and the ultimate sacrifice of 10 young lives on hunger strike. I don’t recall this in The Good Friday Agreement or in Peace With Justice or in Parity Of Esteem or in the campaign Not In My Name.
We are yet again experiencing a human rights travesty of equal deprivation to the British criminalisation policy under Thatcher in the 1970’s which culminated in the 1981 hunger strike.
After the closure of The H-Blocks in Long Kesh, Maghaberry Gaol became the only high security prison within the 6 counties. The British once again initiated a criminalisation programme which the prisoners rejected. Protest yet again was their only weapon and their bodies would be brutalised to submit. Sustained in the spirit that they were custodians of political status in the political prisoner tradition that had been fought and won at a terrible cost and human sacrifice of 10 young men they are now part of the resistance and suffering on a daily basis.
After a time the British put in motion a review and the 8th September 2003 they accepted the findings of the Steele Report. This report accepted that Republican prisoners should be housed together separate from loyalists and criminals. On the basis of Steele’s findings along with other guarantees and commitments Republican prisoners ended protest action.
Two units were built, Roe House for Republican Prisoners and Bush House for loyalists. But as usual on entering Roe House a criminalisation regime was put in place. This yet again was a blatant policy claw back and initiated another protest with the same brutal response from the prison regime. This breaching of agreements continued including the 12th August 2010 - as part of the agreement it was agreed that a new technology led search would replace the humiliating strip search in place prior to the 12th August.
Since September 2010 that agreement has been reneged upon. On as many as 40 occasions Republican prisoners have been subjected to brutal forced strip searches by up to 8 members of the search team dressed in full body armour, while leaving for and returning from court and hospital appointments. Another prisoner Harry Fitzsimons had been singled out for special treatment. A gang of thugs in full riot gear entered Harry’s cell and dragged him off the wing to a waiting van. Once inside they gave him a severe beating. He was then taken to the punishment block. His clothes were torn and cut from him and he was chained like an animal to a bed frame. That evening a priest was permitted to have a short visit with Harry. Afterwards he contacted Harry’s family to update them on Harry’s condition and confirmed that all this was in fact true. The following morning Harry was once again visited by these thugs and while he remained chained to the bed he once again received their justice.
Why are the MLA’s, councillors, the press and the public with few exceptions silent on this cancer in your new order of so called peace with justice? When you, the representatives, go home to spend quality time does the sound of screeching agonising torture from prisoners in Maghaberry in your head not drown out the laughter of your children knowing that you in partnership are responsible? When you are guest speakers abroad celebrating your new devolved partnership do you tell them you don’t need a Guantanemo Bay to carry out torture and commit every violation of human rights in breach of every convention?
You just need to create a state of fear.The public does not have a comfort blanket of ignorance.But the knowledge and experience, if you speak out you will be singled out: stopped, searched, house raided, arrested suspected, intimidated and your family. But we will not be silenced. As in the civil rights days we will bring it to the streets and forge these issues in to the public arena.Your attempt to polarise and classify everyone who speaks out about your abuses as an enemy of peace we say NO. As an enemy of your failed system I will gladly add my name.
sean doyle- another one who likes to fiddle with the truth
ReplyDelete1- the regional socialist Republican Unity Committee
[ fuck me- what name will they think of next ]- they and sean say that the
5 demands were not got- and that
thatchers goverment would not concede-
2- going by that then a few are telling lies that Sinn Fein got rid of the 5 demands in 1998-
3- who is right and who is wrong-
we can all have our own thoughts but to me those that lie about the 5 demands and the hunger strike achievements are as low as the brits-
Sean,
ReplyDelete'Sustained in the spirit that they were custodians of political status in the political prisoner tradition that had been fought and won at a terrible cost'
Very important observation
Great statement Sean mo chara,
ReplyDeleteRory
There will be a vigil to commererate hunger strikers Kevin Lynch (died 1st August 1981) and Kieran Doherty (died 2nd August 1981) at 5pm on Monday 1st August at the Billy Byrne Monument, Wicklow Town.
ReplyDeleteOrganised by the East Coast H-Block Republican Socialist Commeration Committee. All welcome.
michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteSean Doyle is right, Sinn Fein's stance or rather lack of stance on this issue is an absolute disgrace.
How can a party which claims to have a republican core blatantly ignore the abuse of republican prisoners?
Maybe you can explain this because no one else seems to be able to.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteSean flags up very real issues so long addressed by yourself.
Fionnuala-
ReplyDeleteWhilst others talk Sinn Fein were at one of the prison's today- dont know of any other party / group
that visits the prisoners as much-
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteI think Sean's question about how these Sinn Fein MLAs and political representatives switch off is very poignant.
How do you detach yourself from something so profound?
We are forever reminded about their mandate and political clout yet on issues such as this they appear powerless to use it.
Everything Sean said hits the nail on the head. Everything that is except the following....
ReplyDelete"....The eventual and last resort was a hunger strike which was led by Brendan Hughes which ended on the 18th of December 1980.The prisoners believed they has won a deal nearing their demands for political status especially on wearing their own clothes.
The British reneged and the 2nd hunger strike began on March 1st 1981...."
The Brits never made a deal nor an offer regarding clothes during the 1st Hunger Strike. Therefore they
didn't renege on anything at that time. It was Bobby himself who created this myth and it is well documented; especially in 'Nothing But an Unfinished Song' by Denis O'Hearn what actually was on offer...
Nothing
In fact when The Dark called off the 1st Hunger Strike, Father Meagher had just delivered a document into the hands of Gerry Adams from the Brits. It contained the line;
'Prisoners can wear civilian type clothing during the working week."
Civilian type clothing was just a new name for prison garb. And that one line also ruled out not having to work, another of the main demands.
Conforming prisoners already had that; in that they could wear their own clothes at weekends when not working.
I was in the wing that night when Bobby returned from the prison hospital to tell us we had got nothing..."Ni fhuaireamar fheic!"
Why say we had got nothing if the Brits had offered something...Anything even?
Because The Dark had called off that Hunger Strike to save Sean McKenna's life. Even had he let Sean die the Brits were only offering the unacceptable 'Civilian-type clothing' to wear during the working week.
The Adamsites used this myth to try and make excuses for not accepting the offer made by the Brits on July 5th 1981 which could have saved 6 lives. They came up with it because Richard O'Rawe had cornered them with their own lies that no such offer was made at that time in the 2nd Hunger Strike.
Adams wants to rewrite history, especially what happened during the Hunger Strikes. He has his followers peddling lies as fact. It is galling to hear those who should know better assisting in repeating Adams' lies, even though it might be unintentional.
If we are to learn from the past then we must learn what actually happened in that past, otherwise we only learn what others want us to know. And then we pass their lies on to the next generation.
A classic example of Adamsites rewriting the past was during the 30th anniversary of the 1st Hunger Strike. Pat Sheehan and Raymond McCartney were on RTE remembering that time. Actually remembering is the wrong word in that Pat talked of the various initiatives to bring about the end of the 2nd Hunger Strike. After peddling the 'Brits reneged on a offer during the 1st Hunger Strike' he onlined the various attempts at ending the 2nd Hunger Strike. He mentioned the ICJP, the Red Cross, Cardinal O'Fiaich among others, yet he didn't mention one. Or did he not remember it?
I replayed the recording of the programme to see if I missed it and I didn't. He had left out the 'Mountain Climber' [Brendan Duddy] initiative. That hit me like the time Adams said on RTE that he was unaware of the Mountain Climber initiative until after the Hunger Strikes.
Why try and write Brendan Duddy out of the Hunger Strikes if he played the most important part? Was it because he carried the July 5th offer to Adams that could have ended it then and saved more lives?
Or was it because the Hunger Strikers hadn't been told about this offer even while dying?
Continued...
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised at the likes of Pat Sheehan even if he's too intelligent to know what he's doing. I am surprised that there are still those, who should know better, who assist them in what they are doing. Not because they are Adamsites but because they don't research what they are saying before they say it.
I apologise for being off topic and can agree with what Sean says about the present day Republicans who follow in our footsteps. However we are going nowhere without the truth and we should remember that.
michaelhenry
ReplyDeleteSF do seem to have been busy in and out of the jail. Even I how watches one news programe a day has noticed that. Fair play to them.
My only reservation is that their low level approach publicly gives the impression they are covering their own backs and careers rather than addressing this from a Republican prisoners issue.
just my 'take' on it.
Dixie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Sean rang me this morning and I was telling himj that this had been published and the reaction it was getting.
He is prepared to stand over every word of this statement, but admits that he can not be 100% certain about what happened at the time of the calling off of the first hunger strike.
He thinks that Brendan Hughes recieved word that the British were about to make an acceptable offer and called off the strike to save Sean McKenna's life. The brits got word that the strike was off and changed the offer from an acceptable one to the one that was delivered. I find this utterly plausable myself but it can never be proven to be the case.
michaelhenry,
East Coast H-Block Republican Socialist Commeration Committee consists of members of Eirigi, IRSP and the Independent Worker's Union, as well as other republicans not associated with any particular group. What is wrong with that or the name?
I find it hard to understand how Sinn Fein can commemerate the H-Block Hunger Strike at all given that they are supporting a system that is beating and strip searching republican prisoners in Maghaberry, not to mention the Brendan Lillis situation.
Rory
Dixie
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with you about the need for republicans to view the past PIRA/INLA campaign truthfully and that includes the struggles which took place in the jails.
The is no doubt omertà reigned as far as the ending of the first H-block hunger strike, led by Brendan Hughes was concerned and in my view it lasted well past its sell by date.
At the time there may have been strategic reasons for misinforming the media and the republic base as to how the hunger strike ended, although it is difficult not to see it as Bobby Sands, and perhaps others bouncing the PRM into a second hunger strike.
Given Sands own heroic role in the second hunger strike, and his limited vision due to his and his comrades imprisonment, it is impossible to condemn him. Although, wether the outside leadership should have taken a firmer line is open to debate.
However to continue with this lie, in some cases right up until today is unforgivable, for how can future generations of republicans plan for the future and avoid the mistakes of the past when they are not given the full picture.
When I was first told about this some years ago I was speechless with shock and said to the comrade who told me I would need time to think through what he had just said. I am certain I was not alone in my reaction.
I would just add this about Hughes calling off the hunger strike to save a comrades life. Far from lessening my respect from him as a leader it became greater, for like all great solders his first thought was for the men he commanded, as in his mind volunteers were not mere cannon fodder. If he felt it to be necessary, I am certain Brendan would have been prepared to gamble with his own life over whether or not the British government would cut a deal in the 11th hour, but he was not prepared to let another man walk in his shoes.
If only the army council had acted that way during the 2nd HS after the the death of the first four hunger strikers?
Dixie,
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment. You totally debunked the myth of the British reneging on a offer to end the first hunger strike, which is key to the Adamsite defence. As you rightly argue, what we know of the details in the document delivered to Gerry Adams in December 1980 proves that there was no credible offer, hence no deal, hence no reneging by the British.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIn relation to Sinn Fein and the prison visits, I would say it is more a case of political play than fair play.
To date they have done little or nothing to address the real concerns of the prisoners.
I recently asked a senior Sinn Fein activist via the newspaper to list what they have done.
I would say his response would make interesting reading.
Dixie,
ReplyDeleteA very good post that goes straight to the heart of the issue. As you also point out there is a tendency to accept the chronology as outlined by Sean. That does not mean that they buy into the notion that the boys in the end were not shafted by the Adams Clique, rather that they have bought into the standard chronology of the Clique pertaining to the end of the 1980 hunger strike, which has become embedded. The general Clique narrative has not had it so easy. Richard completely destroyed the Clique’ account.
Rory
Sean being ‘prepared to stand over every word of this statement’ is not the point. His commitment to the hunger strikers is not in doubt. But the issue of the British reneging has been well settled. They didn’t. The first hunger strike failed to move the Brits and on the very evening of its termination Bobby Sands wrote to the outside leadership stating that a new strike would begin.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. This is not a subject I would even pretend to be and expert on.
Rory
Fionnuala
ReplyDeletedont hold your breath awaiting a response. SF are away off on a journey of self deception. What used to pass among some of those with a 'profile' as arrogance+eliteism now serves as thick skinned insulation for their new found unionism. The wont wish to address coherent questioning, almost as bad as catching their own reflections in the mirror.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI am actually holding my breath trying to get the letter published.
We are now working on a 3-1 ratio, with Sean Murray having three letters printed and me one.
Anyway, I'm sure it will see the light of day sometime.
Anthony, Rory, et al.,
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the ending of the first hunger strike, this is what Gerry Adams wrote in 2009:
"In December 1980 the republican leadership on the outside was in contact with the British who claimed they were interested in a settlement. But before a document outlining a new regime arrived in the jail the hunger strike was called off by Brendan Hughes to save the life of the late Sean McKenna. The British, or sections of them, interpreted this as weakness. The prisoners ended their fast before a formal ‘signing off’. And the British then refused to implement the spirit of the document and reneged on the integrity of our exchanges."
Gerry does not complain that the British offer changed from an originally acceptable one to the proposal in the document that was delivered to the prison in December 1980. He seems to be saying that the British refused to implement the new regime outlined in the document and thus they reneged on their offer. But as Dixie and Richard O'Rawe have shown, the document did not contain any of the prisoners' demands. Yet, Adams found "the spirit" of the document acceptable.
In 2005, however, Danny Morrison was spinning a different yarn:
"The first hunger strike ended whenever the prisoners went to claim their own clothes as they were promised [by the British], and the authorities turned around and said, 'Oh, no. You have to put on prison issue, civilian-type clothing to get your own clothes.' So there was a massive degree of distrust, which is why Gerry and myself were to act as guarantors with the prisoners."
Not even Gerry Adams would be brave enough to put forward that line of shite.
All things considered, there is really no evidence at all that the British promised anything substantial in December 1980 to the republican leadership with regard to the prisoners' demands. We just have the word of Gerry Adams and company. Given that they lie about almost everything else, we would be fools to accept it now.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteyou can always publish them here so that you at least have a public record of your letters
Mackers,
ReplyDeletethanks, that is really good to know.
The word about Maghaberry is slowly seeping through the hard crust of censorship with the help of blogs like this one. Social networking sites are proving to be useful tools for sharing information and reaching far corners of the universe. Information is the key to building support for the prisoners at home and abroad. The key board is mighter than the pen because it can reach millions of people at the push of a button. Keep up the good work, Mackers.
ReplyDelete‘How do you detach yourself from something so profound?’
ReplyDeleteOften think about it. I actually know some former blanket men who - I would safely bet my house on - would go into Maghaberry tomorrow and beat the republican prisoners there. You probably know the same ones.
Dixie,
I think the line Pat takes is inexcusable. He knows Adams is capable of anything but has hitched himself to the wagon nonetheless.
I always credited Pat for his honesty and for his refusal to be a part of the lynch mob. However, he seems to have fitted into his new roll well and is more than happy to play the game. I can recollect a time in the jail when he was vilified for his outspoken views on the armed struggle by those latter day Adamsites.
ReplyDeleteMackers,
ReplyDeletetoo true, but few of them would say it, well not right out not to your face.
I actually had a long chat with Pat about the prisoners and other issues. I was angry and he was very polite but there was no meeting of minds.
The Ongoing Struggle For Political Status
ReplyDeleteMick Hall
'although it is difficult not to see it as Bobby Sands, and perhaps others bouncing the PRM into a second hunger strike ... Although, whether the outside leadership should have taken a firmer line is open to debate.'
I think the leadership was opposed to a second failed strike, not a strike per se.
'However to continue with this lie, in some cases right up until today is unforgivable, for how can future generations of republicans plan for the future and avoid the mistakes of the past when they are not given the full picture.'
But that crowd know no other way. They have been lying persistently from the get go.
'I would just add this about Hughes calling off the hunger strike to save a comrade's life. Far from lessening my respect from him as a leader it became greater, for like all great solders his first thought was for the men he commanded, as in his mind volunteers were not mere cannon fodder.'
That was the difference between him and those who held back information from the hunger strikers in 1981.
'but he was not prepared to let another man walk in his shoes ... If only the army council had acted that way during the 2nd HS after the the death of the first four hunger strikers.'
The Clique as an entity rather than the council. But we know who they are and it is clear that letting other men walk in their shoes is what they have long been about.
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteI think I have gotten myself barred from the AndyTown. I keep re-submitting my reply to Spike Murray but to no avail.
I think my only option, is to contact Mairtin the Managing Director and ask, how can you exchange views when only one view is printed?
The Ongoing Struggle For Political Status
ReplyDeleteRory
Richard O'Rawe's two books outline the matter pretty comprehensively.
Alec,
thanks for your comment but it is always difficult to know how great the impact is. I would like to think it has some effect but it is hard to move mountains.
The Ongoing Struggle For Political Status
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
'In 2005, however, Danny Morrison was spinning a different yarn:
"The first hunger strike ended whenever the prisoners went to claim
their own clothes as they were promised [by the British], and the
authorities turned around and said, 'Oh, no. You have to put on prison
issue, civilian-type clothing to get your own clothes.' So there was a
massive degree of distrust, which is why Gerry and myself were to act
as guarantors with the prisoners."
Not even Gerry Adams would be brave enough to put forward that line of shite.'
That is what it was - a line of bull. Initially Bobby tried to create the impression of movement after the hunger strike ended. He sought to have the protesting prisoners provided with pyjamas and therefore we could claim we were recuperating having reached agreement with the administration. The point of this was not to be put in a position of having to be seen to be in dispute with the Brits over prison uniform. Bobby wanted to create the illusion that this had been resolved; pyjamas would create the impression/illsuion of bridging clothes. Then we would ask for our own clothes to be left in and at that point, when they were not, we could better make the claim that the Brits had reneged. The Brits never at any time agreed to give us our own clothes unless we conformed and part of conforming meant wearing the uniform during the working day.
I can understand Bobby trying everything that would give him a fighting chance but Morrison was still lying in 2005 simply because Richard had put them on a spot and he needed to save face.
Alec,
ReplyDeleteI too found Pat not to be part of the lynch mob. Unfortunately these days I think he would stand idly by while the lynch mob went about its lynching. I think he knew where he wanted to be from the minute he got out or well before. Is there anyone in his position who can fail to understand what the Clique did to the hunger strikers?
'I can recollect a time in the jail when he was vilified for his outspoken views on the armed struggle by those latter day Adamsites.'
They even prevented him and myself going to the gym at the same time because neither of us shared their take on matters. We were in separate wings and the gym was the one place to talk. They did give him a hard time. In his favour he did have views about the armed struggle going nowhere well in advance of most others. They hated him really for reaching conclusions it took them another decade to reach.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to have it posted here in article form as a matter of record. That is the beauty of the blog. Years ago when we could not get to the papers that was it. We had no record. Then we stumbled across the web and decided to commit everything. That meant there would be an undeniable record of it. I think that is why The Blanket was valued by the wider community and hated by SF.
I remember being told by the ATN that I had no right to reply to what they said about me.
As for the prisoners Pat knows the score. Is he going to back the screws on this one? I would be very disappointed if he did. Imagine former blanekt men standing shoulder to shoulder with screws.
AM
ReplyDelete'Imagine former blanekt men standing shoulder to shoulder with screws'.
The same dissbelief that republicans felt from 1994 to mi6 marty at stormont still exists eh? be surprised at NOTHING.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI have read 'Afterlives' and have bought Ed Maloney's 'Voices from the Grave' but have not got into reading it yet. I will read O'Rawes first book as well in due course. I seem to do most of my serious book-reading in the Winter months.
Rory
ReplyDeleteIn my view it is impossible to gain a full picture of the hunger strikes without reading O'Rawe's books.
Rory,
ReplyDeleteMick Hall is right. Blanketmen is one you most definitely should pick up. Compulsive but straightforward reading. I was talking to a guy today from West Belfast who was telling me how Richard faces little hassle up there now because he is so widely believed and the Shinners are seen to have lied about it and everything else.
AM, Mick,
ReplyDeleteI got O'Rawe's "Blanketmen" from the library today and the prologue was so compelling I ordered a copy from my local book store.
Rory
Larry,
ReplyDeleteAs I said there are some former Blanket men who would go into the jail now and beat the prisoners along with the screws. I know it in my heart it is what they would do with relish if asked to by their leaders.