Franklin Lamb from Tehran with a piece on the worrying situation in Syria. It initially featured in Counterpunch on 27 August 2013.
Prince Bandar and the Zionist Lobby
Prince Bandar and the Zionist Lobby
It is not that the chapel is mute about matters that prick its interest. It has shown Olympian sprinting skills when it comes to racing off to complain about something that has offended the editor. Seemingly it is a chapel that worships at the altar of the management.
Immediately upon my ban from the NUJ by its bombastic Ethics Council a journalist from the paper rang me for my thoughts which didn’t really amount to much other than I would hardly notice the suspension. My reasoning was simple. When a union, steered by a leadership not inoculated against the back seat driving folly of the Ethics Council, buckles to Leveson’s demand for state regulation of the press, I very much subscribe to the view, ‘if the National Union of Journalists won't defend journalism, what's the point of it?’
And so it was in this vein that I told the Irish News that I considered the ban an act of censorship, which the paper both sought and endorsed. I also expressed the view that the ban was comparable to being denied membership of the igloo builders of the Sahara. Perhaps, I reckoned, there were as many building igloos in the desert, as there are people in the Ethics Council protecting journalism from state regulation. The paper did quote me fairly enough. It didn’t carry all I said but media never does, nor can it be expected to. And as it didn’t manipulate what I said out of context I had few grounds for complaint, or none that I was prepared to bring before those upstanding ethical denizens of the Ethics Council.
I did, however, happen to find out later that despite the sweet talk from the Irish News on the phone a member of the paper’s NUJ chapel was, on the day following its reporting of my suspension, tattling to the Ethics Council. It was wrongly alleged that I was making ‘frankly libellous comments about the members of the Ethics Committee’ on this blog. I say Sarah, old girl, the rotter is scurrilous, and frankly my dear he doesn’t give a damn.
Dearie me and my oh my, heaven save us from the profanity of an independent thought. What that had to do with the chapel I am not quite sure. That it was so eager to write ‘Dear Sarah’ letters came as no surprise to me. I wasn’t even disappointed with it. As Nietzsche knew so well, those born to crawl will never fly. The kiss-up kick-down ethic seems to have considerable purchase within that particular chapel of the NUJ. In any event there is nothing that I said about the Ethics Council that I could not stand over. I have said it since its farcical hearing in Belfast and will continue to say it. The Ethics Council is a bastion of journalistic wankerdom. And what?
I neither know nor care if the ‘Dear Sarah’ letter writer’s behaviour was particularly unethical, even if I suspect it had an underhand tone to it. It did strike me that the denunciation was made in the hope of causing me even more trouble than the writer hoped I was already in. If this archer of unsteady hand and dubious aim thought they were going to send an arrow through the heart of my appeal, how disappointed they must have been when the result came through. But that’s journalistic collegiality for you.
 |
| Click Image to Enlarge & Read |
As the reader can see - which the letter writer does not want you to see - is the claim that I was not behaving towards Allison Morris as the paper thought I should. And the point is? I no more have to respect Allison Morris than she has to respect me. Unlike the supine NUJ chapel at the Irish News, I don’t happen to think that is some sort of journalistic crime for which a member of the union should be sanctioned. Then again my views on ethics and those of the people at the Irish News would seem to be radically different and now seem to clash frequently enough. While I have a consistent ‘put up with’ attitude to its views they seem to take a ‘shut up’ response to mine. Not a very rewarding experience trying to shut me up.
One of the complaints is that I published Allison Morris’s ‘confidential’ complaint to the committee (just as I am doing here with the chapel’s ‘confidential’ letter to the same committee). So, what the chapel wanted was secret evidence that the public would not have access to, old style Soviet anonymous denunciation. The concept of secret evidence is enough to send most journalists' noses twitching. Not the UDM type lot who populate the Irish News chapel!
The chapel of course praised the committee for the professional work it did in finding against me. Now, there are many things I am prepared to accuse the Ethics Council of but professionalism does not figure among them.
Not only has the Irish News chapel prostrated itself before the Ethics Council it has also exhibited bovine conformity to what it thinks the editor/bishop wants, leading me to suspect that the virus of co-option has been cause for rejoicing rather than resisting. Just as under a regime of old style corporatism, the chapel has been co-opted into the church of the management. These supposed NUJ colleagues at the paper for reasons yet to be plausibly explained wanted to see me done over at a time when I was immersed in fighting what was one of the biggest source protection cases in recent years — in order to what? Spare the feelings of the person who arguably set the whole thing in motion?
If so, it is a chapel in the wrong church.
May this fireside warmth exude from this book to extend a heartfelt and hearth welcome from my Irish fireside to your fireside, wherever your fire is aglow - Sean Mac Eachaidh
The author is a good friend who lives in Belfast, so it is not that often that we get to see him these days. When we lived up North he would call at our home, often late in the evening when there was a lull in his work schedule, armed with 2 litres of milk, a hint that a cup of tea would not go unrewarded. The reward was an hour or two of his chat as he talked and reminisced.
A natural story teller it seemed just about right that he would produce a book titled A Guide to the Silence of the Irish Other World. In the language of the hearth he refers to the influence of his 'daddy' and 'mammy' without the slightest trace of self consciousness: an innocence of style that makes his writing all the more authentic.
Being a tour guide the author is au fait with the lay of the land and would seem to know more about its less accessible parts than anyone else I am aware of, apart perhaps from IRA quartermasters and its unit the Unknowns responsible for many of the disappearances of people that occurred during its failed campaign.
Normally not the type of book I would pick up, I enjoyed this one. That would not make me a particularly objective reviewer, it invariably being difficult to be detached about the creativity of friends.
Sean writes in that homely way that is his nature. His ‘wee book’ and his 'wee part of Ireland' all endear the reader to the author. It doesn’t work for all who try to wax folksy when all they are doing in the most transparent of manners is to add oomph to a sales pitch. The style succeeds here because here is substance to it and the author has that knack of sounding believable.
When he talks about sitting at fires and the centrality of the fire to the Irish home and family life, no great effort is expended in visualising the scene. He speaks of his family with love and its toleration of him for many years visiting 'the lesser known places of Ireland to seek out another fairy ring, fairy tree, standing stone or sacred well.'
Throughout his life people have prompted him to write a book about the Ireland that he has seen. And he speaks about the support of his anam cairde (soul friends) who 'without prejudice or censorship' encouraged him. Now he has, in a combination of text and graphics, shared it with us.
While he hits out at the violence of bombs and bullets he also points an accusatory finger towards the violent suppression of self expression. 'I am not aware of anyone who has died from talking.' True. Although I would hazard a guess and say that after hearing Nelson McCausland talking people have died from listening. Censorship never writes, merely obliterates and Sean's roaming mind and sense of natural inquisitiveness would have died like the caged lark Bobby Sands wrote about, were the censors to envelop him with their blotters and erasers.
He writes that if stones could only talk 'how much more would be revealed.' In some societies stones are used to stop people from talking, raining down on their heads catapulted in molten anger from the righteous hands of the men from god. Sean seeks to find words in stones other than ‘verbotten.’
Nelson McCausland, one of those men of god, would take enormous offence at the description in this book of the Giants Causeway being around 60 million years old. The Caleb Foundation would beg to differ, insisting that its estimation of around 6 thousand years be given equal status with the scientific information. A real fairy tale.
Sean takes a 'herstory' approach to the book, fed up with the history as seen through the eyes of men. Her story or his story, Sean's story casts a cynical eye over the claims of the great and the good when he reminds his readership that we are in 'another Irish era of post conflict.'
I love his response to the question how should the people of Derry feel about their city being called Londonderry?: 'The same way that people in London would feel if their city was prefixed by the term Derry to make their city DerryLondon.'
He talks of the magical silent Irish other world. I accept the licence with which he writes even though I don't buy into religion or magic, failing to detect any appreciable difference, other than the fact that magicians know it is a con. No culture can afford to overlook its myths and legends. And in this book the legend of Oisin is repeated alongside that of King Lir's children. When the author refers to the parting pales of Ireland which are said to possess a veil like portal separating the passageway between earthly Ireland the otherworldly Ireland, the sense of legend pulsates. And when he talks about the leprechauns the smile on his face registers instantly and vividly. It is a work of sacred fairy trees which even the most sceptical would recoil from cutting down.
Nor does his dismissal of postmodern cynicism upset me. I see postmodernism as a useful deconstructive hammer rather than a trowel, something that takes apart rather puts together, but a necessary harbinger of the new. I love the challenge posed by postmodern scepticism. And in an odd sort of way postmodernism might well allow for the magical structure alluded to in this work to be on a par with other structures.
Sean hopes that the work will complement the tours he so often guides which are for the most part restricted to the North of the country which gives the book a Northern focus. It is offered to the reader through a green lens which the author to his credit makes no attempt to disguise.
And for the inhabitants of West Belfast this is something I don't think I had heard before but which caught my eye - Amcomri Street is an acronym for the American Committee for Relief in Ireland.
Branch by branch of the magical tree the author draws his readers to the top from which the view of the otherworld he writes about is majestic. Many people thinking of visiting Ireland and going on one of the many tours referred to here will discover in this book another little magical twinkling path just waiting to be treaded.
The author is a good friend who lives in Belfast, so it is not that often that we get to see him these days. When we lived up North he would call at our home, often late in the evening when there was a lull in his work schedule, armed with 2 litres of milk, a hint that a cup of tea would not go unrewarded. The reward was an hour or two of his chat as he talked and reminisced.A natural story teller it seemed just about right that he would produce a book titled A Guide to the Silence of the Irish Other World. In the language of the hearth he refers to the influence of his 'daddy' and 'mammy' without the slightest trace of self consciousness: an innocence of style that makes his writing all the more authentic.
Being a tour guide the author is au fait with the lay of the land and would seem to know more about its less accessible parts than anyone else I am aware of, apart perhaps from IRA quartermasters and its unit the Unknowns responsible for many of the disappearances of people that occurred during its failed campaign.
Normally not the type of book I would pick up, I enjoyed this one. That would not make me a particularly objective reviewer, it invariably being difficult to be detached about the creativity of friends.
Sean writes in that homely way that is his nature. His ‘wee book’ and his 'wee part of Ireland' all endear the reader to the author. It doesn’t work for all who try to wax folksy when all they are doing in the most transparent of manners is to add oomph to a sales pitch. The style succeeds here because here is substance to it and the author has that knack of sounding believable.
When he talks about sitting at fires and the centrality of the fire to the Irish home and family life, no great effort is expended in visualising the scene. He speaks of his family with love and its toleration of him for many years visiting 'the lesser known places of Ireland to seek out another fairy ring, fairy tree, standing stone or sacred well.'
Throughout his life people have prompted him to write a book about the Ireland that he has seen. And he speaks about the support of his anam cairde (soul friends) who 'without prejudice or censorship' encouraged him. Now he has, in a combination of text and graphics, shared it with us.
While he hits out at the violence of bombs and bullets he also points an accusatory finger towards the violent suppression of self expression. 'I am not aware of anyone who has died from talking.' True. Although I would hazard a guess and say that after hearing Nelson McCausland talking people have died from listening. Censorship never writes, merely obliterates and Sean's roaming mind and sense of natural inquisitiveness would have died like the caged lark Bobby Sands wrote about, were the censors to envelop him with their blotters and erasers.
He writes that if stones could only talk 'how much more would be revealed.' In some societies stones are used to stop people from talking, raining down on their heads catapulted in molten anger from the righteous hands of the men from god. Sean seeks to find words in stones other than ‘verbotten.’
Nelson McCausland, one of those men of god, would take enormous offence at the description in this book of the Giants Causeway being around 60 million years old. The Caleb Foundation would beg to differ, insisting that its estimation of around 6 thousand years be given equal status with the scientific information. A real fairy tale.
Sean takes a 'herstory' approach to the book, fed up with the history as seen through the eyes of men. Her story or his story, Sean's story casts a cynical eye over the claims of the great and the good when he reminds his readership that we are in 'another Irish era of post conflict.'
I love his response to the question how should the people of Derry feel about their city being called Londonderry?: 'The same way that people in London would feel if their city was prefixed by the term Derry to make their city DerryLondon.'
He talks of the magical silent Irish other world. I accept the licence with which he writes even though I don't buy into religion or magic, failing to detect any appreciable difference, other than the fact that magicians know it is a con. No culture can afford to overlook its myths and legends. And in this book the legend of Oisin is repeated alongside that of King Lir's children. When the author refers to the parting pales of Ireland which are said to possess a veil like portal separating the passageway between earthly Ireland the otherworldly Ireland, the sense of legend pulsates. And when he talks about the leprechauns the smile on his face registers instantly and vividly. It is a work of sacred fairy trees which even the most sceptical would recoil from cutting down.
Nor does his dismissal of postmodern cynicism upset me. I see postmodernism as a useful deconstructive hammer rather than a trowel, something that takes apart rather puts together, but a necessary harbinger of the new. I love the challenge posed by postmodern scepticism. And in an odd sort of way postmodernism might well allow for the magical structure alluded to in this work to be on a par with other structures.
Sean hopes that the work will complement the tours he so often guides which are for the most part restricted to the North of the country which gives the book a Northern focus. It is offered to the reader through a green lens which the author to his credit makes no attempt to disguise.
And for the inhabitants of West Belfast this is something I don't think I had heard before but which caught my eye - Amcomri Street is an acronym for the American Committee for Relief in Ireland.
Branch by branch of the magical tree the author draws his readers to the top from which the view of the otherworld he writes about is majestic. Many people thinking of visiting Ireland and going on one of the many tours referred to here will discover in this book another little magical twinkling path just waiting to be treaded.
Guest writer Sean Matthews, An Irish anarchist living in Melbourne, Australia gives his perspective on the 'asylum seeker' debate there leading up to the forthcoming elections. He argues Irish workers should be standing in solidarity with the most marginalised and dispossessed in this society.
This weekend is simply not the same, no matter how it ultimately turns out. The reason is quite simple: last week saw the finale of two great television series. We love nighttime television here, particularly when the viewing is Scandinavian crime fiction drama. What made these two non-Nordic series so potent was the quality of the female cast.
BBC Radio Foyle
Breakfast
Monday 19 August 2013
Programme Host Enda McClafferty (EM) interviews former IRA Volunteer Thomas “Dixie” Elliott (DE) of Doire about the controversial Peace and Reconciliation Centre that was proposed for the former Long Kesh prison site.
(begins 1:49)
Enda McClafferty (EM): The controversy over The Maze and The Peace Centre there rumbles on this morning when a former cellmate of Bobby Sands has accused Sinn Féin of using the hunger strikers to promote their own political agenda.
Dixie Elliott from Doire says the controversy over the Maze peace centre is part of a political game and not about remembering those who died.
Well he told me why he's opposed to the Peace and Reconciliation Centre at the former prison site.
Thomas “Dixie” Elliott (DE): My opinion is that Sinn Féin needs the Peace and Reconciliation Centre located at the site of the former H-Blocks because they need to continue with the claim that what is happening today in regards to the peace process is the legacy of the struggle.
And that ten men gave their lives for what is happening today - which is absurd! Like, no one would have died for peace.
In actual fact these men were imprisoned at Long Kesh because they were captured during what we seen as a war to remove the British from The North.
EM: But Sinn Féin would say of course that this was a crucial moment in history for Northern Ireland and it should be remembered and it should be there to be reflected upon by people who come to Northern Ireland and who visit that particular site.
DE: By all means remember but don't abuse it for their peace process.
By all means remember the sacrifices of the hunger strikers and other people who gave their lives but don't be abusing it for the so-called peace process - which I believe's a farce.
EM: So do you think then there should be a centre there? That there should be some sort of place that people can go and hear about what happened?
DE: See when you're talking about “go and hear what happened”...you see when I hear of “peace and reconciliation” I think of funding and jobs for the boys.
And this is what this is going to be...just another place so they can employ their own members.
EM: You're clearly opposed to Sinn Féin's project if you like, the policy that they're embarked on at the moment. Does that mean then that you're in the dissident camp?
DE: No. I'm in no camp. I'm an independent Republican who has my own opinions.
I don't believe that armed struggle will take us anywhere now. I don't believe it all. But would I condemn dissidents? No. I wouldn't be a hypocrite by condemning them.
But I would try and persuade them that the way forward is through peaceful means.
EM: You were a former cellmate of Bobby Sands as you were there whenever the hunger strikes happened. What do you think those people would have made of what's happening now...the people who died on hunger strike?
DE: See I can't speak for the dead because as I said, they're dead.
But what I can say is no one would have died for a peace process.
You don't die for peace. You die during a war. You die in order to bring about change. You don't die for peace.
But I'm sure if they had've known, which the British seem to know in 1981, that members of the Republican Movement were intent on steering the movement away from the struggle, the campaign, that they wouldn't have died.
I wouldn't have thrown stones for it if I had've known.
EM: So what's your message then to Sinn Féin who feel that this project is worth pursuing, worth pushing ahead with, because they feel it's crucial that the story of the hunger strikers has to be told on that site?
DE: I would say to Sinn Féin that the hunger strikers didn't die for a peace process.
And if they believe in a peace process well...well be it. But they shouldn't try and re-write history.
Bobby Sands and the nine other men who died died because they wanted to undo what Thatcher was doing and that was criminalising the struggle. And the struggle was all about waging war against the British.
And they can't re-write history to suit their own narrative.
EM: And what would you say to those Unionists out there who would see it as a step too far that there would be anything retained on the site of the prison site because it will become a shrine to terrorism?
DE: Well I think in terms of the Unionist politicians that everything's a step too far unless it's a step in their direction.
EM: That was Dixie Elliott there.
Well we have been in touch with Sinn Féin about what Mr. Elliott had to say but as yet we haven't heard back from the party.
(ends 1:54)
TRANSCRIPT: Radio Free Éireann interview with Richard O'Rawe, author of Blanketmen
Radio Free Éireann
WBAI 99.5 Pacifica Radio
New York City
Saturday 17 August 2013
Via telephone from Belfast: Sandy Boyer (SB) interviews Richard O'Rawe (RO), author of Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-block Hunger Strike, about the Democratic Unionist Party's unilateral decision to cancel the proposed Peace and Reconciliation Centre at the Long Kesh prison site. Thanks as always to our transcriber who rises to the occasion every time.
(begins 1:13 EST)
Sandy Boyer (SB): We are going over to Belfast to speak to Richard O'Rawe. Richard, thanks very much for being with us.
Richard O'Rawe (RO): It's a pleasure, Sandy. Thank you so much for having me.
SB: Richard, you were on the blanket. You were the PRO, Public Relations Officer, for the hunger strikers. You knew men who died on hunger strike.
RO: Yes.
SB: How does it make you feel that there can't even be a Peace and Reconciliation Centre where they died?
RO: Well it makes me feel very, very angry to be quite frank, Sandy, because it is indicative of the myopic, tunnel vision view that Unionists have of what happened during the struggle.
I mean the reality of the matter is that ten very selfless men, ten heroes gave their lives in Long Kesh for us, their fellow blanketmen, who were on protest against criminalisation.
And they gave their lives and ended up with a horrific death and we're not even allowed to visit (the site).
They're actually talking about rasing the hospital wing in which Bobby Sands and the other nine hunger strikers died. They're talking about rasing it to the ground – an attempt to wipe out all memories of the hunger strikers.
And I think it's absolutely diabolical.
SB: Richard, you would think that no one could be against peace and reconciliation. Here we have a saying that it's “like Mom and apple pie”.
But suddenly, the Democratic Unionist Party from out of nowhere – and despite the fact they agreed to it already – says you can't do it. You can't have any monument to the hunger strikers.
RO: Well, it's not even that Sandy because they're now talking about dismantling the monuments to Republican IRA Volunteers, Republican freedom fighters, throughout the North.
What's actually happening is that the Unionist/RUC-type section of this population are of the opinion that they were the only people who suffered here – that they were the only people who had legitimate dead – that everyone else who died here were gangsters or terrorists or whatever you want to call them.
They're actually now coming to a position where they're trying to deny Republicans any outlet at all – they're denying them the right even to show respect for their own dead.
SB: But this is just adding insult to injury.
There's been a sustained Unionist offensive, I would say, against Nationalism, right back – you had the flag protests – where they insisted the Union Jack has to fly over the Unionist Belfast City Council even more times than it flies over Buckingham Palace!
They're saying: we're more loyal than the Queen herself.
But then you got – last week – Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast, tried to dedicate a park – he got attacked by a mob, a Protestant mob frankly...that's all you can call it.
His Unionist colleagues on the Council stood by...did nothing.
And of course last week you had the attempt to commemorate internment without charge or trial and a Loyalist mob just blocked it from getting anywhere near the city centre. So this is not just an isolated incident.
RO: No, it's not. But at the heart of all of those incidents is a supremacist attitude.
And it's an attitude that is vibrant within the Unionist population. And that has never changed from the formation of the state of Northern Ireland which, we must remember, was a gerrymander in that the Six Counties was deliberately (and) geographically picked because it would ensure that there would always be a Unionist majority within.
And from that came this supremacist attitude. And that supremacist attitude hasn't gone away simply because there's a peace process. It is still there and they are of the view – and that's why they wouldn't let anyone march down – weren't allowed on the main street in Belfast – because in their view that's their street.
They can walk up and down it every twelfth of July and any time the notion takes them. But Nationalists are not allowed to walk down it. And if they try to there will be riots...as there was.
And it's the same with the Union Jack flying over Belfast City Hall. The Union Jack is their flag. Someone suggested: now why not put up the Tricoulor, the Irish flag, up beside it – they went absolutely nuts. Then someone else suggested well why not put all the flags of the European Union up – and again they went nuts.
The only flag that they wanted is the Union Jack because the Union Jack is a supremacist flag. And it's a flag that tells Nationalists that they're second-class citizens. And that is really the crux of the matter.
They have a supremacist attitude. It hasn't gone away and it's not going to go away. They have no interest in sharing power. They're doing so because they have to.
But they are absolutely convinced that Nationalists are second class citizens and should be treated as such.
SB: And are being treated as such.
RO: And are being...absolutely!
SB: But Richard, what happened to parity of esteem and power sharing?
Look, you've got Sinn Féin, the largest Nationalist/Catholic party, is in government with the Democratic Unionist Party, Ian Paisely's party, the ones who just canceled this Peace and Reconciliation Centre. I can't get over it. I can't help thinking no one could be against peace and reconciliation. But – How come?
You're supposed to have parity of esteem. That's what they tell you!
RO: There is no parity of esteem.
You made a point earlier I'm going to come back to: This was going to be a peace centre. This wasn't going to be a monument to the hunger strikers.
Sure the hunger strikers died in Long Kesh but there was also prison officers who died during the struggle, who were shot dead during the struggle by the IRA, who were going to be remembered as well. There was all sorts of different outlets. So in fairness, it probably would have been a legitimate peace centre. However, they scuttled it.
The fact of the matter is that they scuttled it because they can.
In actual fact what they did (was) they checkmated Sinn Féin. They just came out and they put it up to Sinn Féin...we're closing this...this is never going to happen...see, this business...it's put back until Richard Haass, the American diplomat, comes over.
It will never, ever be opened in my view.
The fact of the matter is they pulled the plug on it because they could. Because it was a step too far for them and they would not have ever been comfortable with it.
They don't want the IRA remembered in any shape or form. And Sinn Féin now have an awful, awful dilemma: they either swallow this, in other words they say: well there's nothing we can do about it and they march on and accept this second-class sort of citizenship.
Or, the alternative to that, is to pull down the institutions at Stormont. And I don't think they're going to do that.
So the reality is they're going to have to just accept it and they will. I've no doubt about that.
SB: But, Richard, Sinn Féin has been, I don't know...for months and months if not years...telling everybody there was going to be a Peace and Reconciliation Centre there. It will be in effect, if not in name, a monument to the hunger strikers. That's what they've...I haven't researched it...I don't know how many months they've been saying it...but a good long time.
RO: Yes, they have. The DUP, even prior to this being scuttled, the DUP was saying the exact opposite. The both of them can't be right.
The DUP was saying there would be no mention of hunger strikes. Jeffrey Donaldson actually said it on television. There would be no mention of hunger strikes in this Peace and Reconciliation Centre.
They were actually diluting the whole hunger strike event. Had it not been stopped they were of the view that they were going to dilute it to the point where it would not be a monument to the hunger strikers.
So no matter what Sinn Féin said the DUP would have had the upper hand in this one. They did have the upper hand. And now they've pulled the plug on it.
SB: This sounds like a microcosm for the peace process.
RO: It is.
SB: You tell Loyalists what they want to hear, Protestants what they want to hear. You tell Nationalists, Catholics what they want to hear and then eventually, reality intervenes.
RO: You're absolutely right. The peace process itself is ambiguous because nobody really know what it means.
We could have had power sharing, as we know, back in 1974 and we had it at Sunningdale and it was pulled down. But setting that aside, we now have power sharing again but it's a power sharing that is forced.
And there's no doubt that Unionism at its core does not believe in power sharing.
They believe that as they are the majority of the people in this gerrymandered state they are entitled, as they have always been, to be at the center of government – to be in control of the government.
And that power sharing, to an extent, has been forced on them. But they still have the upper hand.
You can talk about the peace process – yeah – there's nobody's being killed – this dissident campaign, which in my view, is nonsense and should be stopped immediately – but this dissident campaign is not having a major impact politically.
But nonetheless, Sinn Féin – they're like drinking ducks, they have no choice but to keep on swallowing their pride, swallowing their pride because to do something against it – the only radical thing that they could do would be to walk out of government – and they're never going to do that. In my view they're never going to do that.
They didn't do it over internment, when Marian Price was interned, or that young man Coney is interned.. or Corey, I beg your pardon, Martin Corey...he's interned. And there's other people in...
SB: Martin Corey's interned for years and there's no prospect of his getting out.
RO: And they're doing absolutely nothing for him.
The radical Sinn Féin of twenty years ago or twenty-five years ago would have been mobilising on the streets, would have been absolutely making a nuisance of themselves – these guys don't want to do nothing. They don't want to rock the boat. They're getting good wages. They're getting a good living.
Those who are with them are getting the handy jobs, etc – well paid jobs – and they don't want to rock that boat. And they don't want to confront the sectarianism of Unionism. It's there. They don't want to confront it.
So what they're going to do now is they're going to swallow it and say that's tough.
SB: Well you know, Richard, if you read The Belfast Telegraph – the mainstream Northern (Ireland) newspapers – the “respectable” press, they're all saying – Oh my God! there's a crises in the peace process. Sinn Féin has been insulted.
The DUP didn't even give them a call and say: just want you to know, boys, we're going to cancel this. They put out the press release and said: that's it!
They asked Martin McGuinness, who's the Deputy First Minister, if he was going to talk to the Unionist First Minister of Northern Ireland. He (McGuinness) said: well, first of all – he's in Florida so I can't really reach him and even when he's in Belfast I can't really reach him.
So what future can there be if they can do this to Sinn Féin and Sinn Féin says well we can't even get in touch with these people – what does that say about this coalition government?
RO: Well, it shows you how useless, not useless – useless may not be the right word, how inept Sinn Féin is and how inadequate their involvement with this process is. Stormont itself is a talking shop. Westminster does most of it – they give them the money and all they do is hand it out.
But the point of the matter is, Sandy, and it keeps coming back to the same point and Robinson demonstrated it very vividly when, as you say, he didn't even take the bother or he didn't even have the manners to tell Martin McGuinness that he was going to pull the plug on this – McGuinness heard it when all the rest of us heard it on the news.
So you have to say to yourself: What respect has Robinson for his co-counsel? For his fellow leader? There's absolutely none.
Again, it's done because he still has this supremacist attitude that Nationalists, per say, are people who are not worthy of respect and they're certainly not worthy of having equal status to the Unionists in this statelet.
SB: Richard, but what does it say about the future of this coalition?
Because it seems to me, if Sinn Féin can't get a...now it's symbolic but...a little, tiny – and I would think – uncontroversial thing like a Peace and Reconciliation Centre – I keep thinking that – a Peace and Reconciliation Centre – nobody could be against that – but they can't even get that. So what are they able to get?
RO: They're not going to be able to get anything.
Ultimately Peter Robinson knows that – and he has this well thought out – he knows that Sinn Féin aren't going to walk away from this because if they walk away they've nowhere to go and he knows they're going to have to come back – probably come back to the same situation. So he knows that there's nothing they can do about it.
The only way that the situation would change would be for Sinn Féin to walk out – that would be the drastic measure that may be needed to maybe interject some reality or shake up Unionist thinking. But they're not going to do that.
Sinn Féin will go on and they will go on taking the slaps in the face. They will go on taking the insults. They will come off with jargon that tries to allay the justifiable concerns of their constituents but they will stay in power, Sandy, because don't want to give it up under any circumstances.
And Peter Robinson knows that.
And he knows that these guys – at their core – haven't got a great sense of moral fibre – that they'll do whatever they have to do to stay in power – and if that involves swallowing pride again and again and letting things absolutely spiral out of control in terms of state security things like internment, etc they will just take it. And Robinson knows that. And that's why he can be so flippant and so bad mannered.
Sinn Féin knows there's no choice but to take it.
SB: Richard, it seems to me that having gotten away with this, having gotten away with the attack on the internment march, having gotten away with repeated attacks on Nationalist areas like Ardoyne and, as you say, with interment, it would seem to me that there's going to be more attacks on the Nationalist community. It's going to get even worse!
RO: The violent streak in Unionism in my view – and I'm almost loathe to say this – it seems to me that paramilitary Unionism isn't that far away from actually lifting up guns again and starting to kill people.
Because alot of these riots are being led by the paramilitaries, the paramilitaries that led the UVF etc, they're very much into (this)...and it wouldn't be beyond the imagination of some of these guys to say: come on, we'll go and shoot a Catholic.
There's the potential there, Sandy, for things to get worse.
I don't see it getting any better. I don't see how the issues that are so salient now are going to be removed.
For example, the Unionists want to parade and walk wherever the hell they want irrespective of whether it upsets other people or not. They don't want the Peace and Reconciliation Centre. They don't want Catholics walking in the city centre of Belfast. They actually don't want IRA monuments now throughout the country. They don't want the IRA to even honour their dead.
This is the reality. It's humiliating.
It's humiliating to be a Nationalist here because we all thought that (with) the Good Friday Agreement we had moved into a new era and the mindset of the people was changing.
And we now know that that was an illusion.
The mindset of Unionism has not changed one iota – that it's still “croppy lie down” – that's the way they think and that's the way they're actually acting. And that's what we're seeing...that's what we've seen right throughout the Summer and what we've seen for years.
And the problem is that Sinn Féin is lying down. Sinn Féin has no teeth. And they know that.
SB: Before I let you go – I was talking to Eamonn McCann, the journalist whom you know very well...
RO: Yeah, I know Eamonn well.
SB: And he was saying: You know, I was going to write that if this keeps up the next step will be assassinations. He said then I didn't do it because I thought I might be putting the idea in somebody's head.
Is that what we're coming to?
RO: I was of the same view as Eamonn and that's why I said that I'm reluctant to say this. I mean, I said it there two minutes ago but I think that is not that far away. I think that some of these eejits would think nothing of lifting a gun and shooting some Catholic and come up with some blind reason for it.
I hope, I pray with all my heart that it doesn't. But I'm saying that it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Like Eamonn, I hope I'm wrong...this is one where I really do hope I'm wrong...I mean, the situation is very fraught, very, very fraught at the minute and it's very, very dangerous.
Everyone's pinning their hopes on Richard Haass. I tell you – he would need to be a magician because only a magician could pull this off.
SB: Well, Richard, we'll get back to that and thank you very much. We really appreciate you coming on.
RO: You're welcome, Sandy. Thank you so much for having me. It was lovely to talk to you again.
(ends 1:35 EST)
Radio Free Éireann
WBAI 99.5 Pacifica Radio
New York City
Saturday 17 August 2013
Via telephone from Belfast: Sandy Boyer (SB) interviews Richard O'Rawe (RO), author of Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-block Hunger Strike, about the Democratic Unionist Party's unilateral decision to cancel the proposed Peace and Reconciliation Centre at the Long Kesh prison site. Thanks as always to our transcriber who rises to the occasion every time.
(begins 1:13 EST)
Sandy Boyer (SB): We are going over to Belfast to speak to Richard O'Rawe. Richard, thanks very much for being with us.
Richard O'Rawe (RO): It's a pleasure, Sandy. Thank you so much for having me.
SB: Richard, you were on the blanket. You were the PRO, Public Relations Officer, for the hunger strikers. You knew men who died on hunger strike.
RO: Yes.
SB: How does it make you feel that there can't even be a Peace and Reconciliation Centre where they died?
RO: Well it makes me feel very, very angry to be quite frank, Sandy, because it is indicative of the myopic, tunnel vision view that Unionists have of what happened during the struggle.
I mean the reality of the matter is that ten very selfless men, ten heroes gave their lives in Long Kesh for us, their fellow blanketmen, who were on protest against criminalisation.
And they gave their lives and ended up with a horrific death and we're not even allowed to visit (the site).
They're actually talking about rasing the hospital wing in which Bobby Sands and the other nine hunger strikers died. They're talking about rasing it to the ground – an attempt to wipe out all memories of the hunger strikers.
And I think it's absolutely diabolical.
SB: Richard, you would think that no one could be against peace and reconciliation. Here we have a saying that it's “like Mom and apple pie”.
But suddenly, the Democratic Unionist Party from out of nowhere – and despite the fact they agreed to it already – says you can't do it. You can't have any monument to the hunger strikers.
RO: Well, it's not even that Sandy because they're now talking about dismantling the monuments to Republican IRA Volunteers, Republican freedom fighters, throughout the North.
What's actually happening is that the Unionist/RUC-type section of this population are of the opinion that they were the only people who suffered here – that they were the only people who had legitimate dead – that everyone else who died here were gangsters or terrorists or whatever you want to call them.
They're actually now coming to a position where they're trying to deny Republicans any outlet at all – they're denying them the right even to show respect for their own dead.
SB: But this is just adding insult to injury.
There's been a sustained Unionist offensive, I would say, against Nationalism, right back – you had the flag protests – where they insisted the Union Jack has to fly over the Unionist Belfast City Council even more times than it flies over Buckingham Palace!
They're saying: we're more loyal than the Queen herself.
But then you got – last week – Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast, tried to dedicate a park – he got attacked by a mob, a Protestant mob frankly...that's all you can call it.
His Unionist colleagues on the Council stood by...did nothing.
And of course last week you had the attempt to commemorate internment without charge or trial and a Loyalist mob just blocked it from getting anywhere near the city centre. So this is not just an isolated incident.
RO: No, it's not. But at the heart of all of those incidents is a supremacist attitude.
And it's an attitude that is vibrant within the Unionist population. And that has never changed from the formation of the state of Northern Ireland which, we must remember, was a gerrymander in that the Six Counties was deliberately (and) geographically picked because it would ensure that there would always be a Unionist majority within.
And from that came this supremacist attitude. And that supremacist attitude hasn't gone away simply because there's a peace process. It is still there and they are of the view – and that's why they wouldn't let anyone march down – weren't allowed on the main street in Belfast – because in their view that's their street.
They can walk up and down it every twelfth of July and any time the notion takes them. But Nationalists are not allowed to walk down it. And if they try to there will be riots...as there was.
And it's the same with the Union Jack flying over Belfast City Hall. The Union Jack is their flag. Someone suggested: now why not put up the Tricoulor, the Irish flag, up beside it – they went absolutely nuts. Then someone else suggested well why not put all the flags of the European Union up – and again they went nuts.
The only flag that they wanted is the Union Jack because the Union Jack is a supremacist flag. And it's a flag that tells Nationalists that they're second-class citizens. And that is really the crux of the matter.
They have a supremacist attitude. It hasn't gone away and it's not going to go away. They have no interest in sharing power. They're doing so because they have to.
But they are absolutely convinced that Nationalists are second class citizens and should be treated as such.
SB: And are being treated as such.
RO: And are being...absolutely!
SB: But Richard, what happened to parity of esteem and power sharing?
Look, you've got Sinn Féin, the largest Nationalist/Catholic party, is in government with the Democratic Unionist Party, Ian Paisely's party, the ones who just canceled this Peace and Reconciliation Centre. I can't get over it. I can't help thinking no one could be against peace and reconciliation. But – How come?
You're supposed to have parity of esteem. That's what they tell you!
RO: There is no parity of esteem.
You made a point earlier I'm going to come back to: This was going to be a peace centre. This wasn't going to be a monument to the hunger strikers.
Sure the hunger strikers died in Long Kesh but there was also prison officers who died during the struggle, who were shot dead during the struggle by the IRA, who were going to be remembered as well. There was all sorts of different outlets. So in fairness, it probably would have been a legitimate peace centre. However, they scuttled it.
The fact of the matter is that they scuttled it because they can.
In actual fact what they did (was) they checkmated Sinn Féin. They just came out and they put it up to Sinn Féin...we're closing this...this is never going to happen...see, this business...it's put back until Richard Haass, the American diplomat, comes over.
It will never, ever be opened in my view.
The fact of the matter is they pulled the plug on it because they could. Because it was a step too far for them and they would not have ever been comfortable with it.
They don't want the IRA remembered in any shape or form. And Sinn Féin now have an awful, awful dilemma: they either swallow this, in other words they say: well there's nothing we can do about it and they march on and accept this second-class sort of citizenship.
Or, the alternative to that, is to pull down the institutions at Stormont. And I don't think they're going to do that.
So the reality is they're going to have to just accept it and they will. I've no doubt about that.
SB: But, Richard, Sinn Féin has been, I don't know...for months and months if not years...telling everybody there was going to be a Peace and Reconciliation Centre there. It will be in effect, if not in name, a monument to the hunger strikers. That's what they've...I haven't researched it...I don't know how many months they've been saying it...but a good long time.
RO: Yes, they have. The DUP, even prior to this being scuttled, the DUP was saying the exact opposite. The both of them can't be right.
The DUP was saying there would be no mention of hunger strikes. Jeffrey Donaldson actually said it on television. There would be no mention of hunger strikes in this Peace and Reconciliation Centre.
They were actually diluting the whole hunger strike event. Had it not been stopped they were of the view that they were going to dilute it to the point where it would not be a monument to the hunger strikers.
So no matter what Sinn Féin said the DUP would have had the upper hand in this one. They did have the upper hand. And now they've pulled the plug on it.
SB: This sounds like a microcosm for the peace process.
RO: It is.
SB: You tell Loyalists what they want to hear, Protestants what they want to hear. You tell Nationalists, Catholics what they want to hear and then eventually, reality intervenes.
RO: You're absolutely right. The peace process itself is ambiguous because nobody really know what it means.
We could have had power sharing, as we know, back in 1974 and we had it at Sunningdale and it was pulled down. But setting that aside, we now have power sharing again but it's a power sharing that is forced.
And there's no doubt that Unionism at its core does not believe in power sharing.
They believe that as they are the majority of the people in this gerrymandered state they are entitled, as they have always been, to be at the center of government – to be in control of the government.
And that power sharing, to an extent, has been forced on them. But they still have the upper hand.
You can talk about the peace process – yeah – there's nobody's being killed – this dissident campaign, which in my view, is nonsense and should be stopped immediately – but this dissident campaign is not having a major impact politically.
But nonetheless, Sinn Féin – they're like drinking ducks, they have no choice but to keep on swallowing their pride, swallowing their pride because to do something against it – the only radical thing that they could do would be to walk out of government – and they're never going to do that. In my view they're never going to do that.
They didn't do it over internment, when Marian Price was interned, or that young man Coney is interned.. or Corey, I beg your pardon, Martin Corey...he's interned. And there's other people in...
SB: Martin Corey's interned for years and there's no prospect of his getting out.
RO: And they're doing absolutely nothing for him.
The radical Sinn Féin of twenty years ago or twenty-five years ago would have been mobilising on the streets, would have been absolutely making a nuisance of themselves – these guys don't want to do nothing. They don't want to rock the boat. They're getting good wages. They're getting a good living.
Those who are with them are getting the handy jobs, etc – well paid jobs – and they don't want to rock that boat. And they don't want to confront the sectarianism of Unionism. It's there. They don't want to confront it.
So what they're going to do now is they're going to swallow it and say that's tough.
SB: Well you know, Richard, if you read The Belfast Telegraph – the mainstream Northern (Ireland) newspapers – the “respectable” press, they're all saying – Oh my God! there's a crises in the peace process. Sinn Féin has been insulted.
The DUP didn't even give them a call and say: just want you to know, boys, we're going to cancel this. They put out the press release and said: that's it!
They asked Martin McGuinness, who's the Deputy First Minister, if he was going to talk to the Unionist First Minister of Northern Ireland. He (McGuinness) said: well, first of all – he's in Florida so I can't really reach him and even when he's in Belfast I can't really reach him.
So what future can there be if they can do this to Sinn Féin and Sinn Féin says well we can't even get in touch with these people – what does that say about this coalition government?
RO: Well, it shows you how useless, not useless – useless may not be the right word, how inept Sinn Féin is and how inadequate their involvement with this process is. Stormont itself is a talking shop. Westminster does most of it – they give them the money and all they do is hand it out.
But the point of the matter is, Sandy, and it keeps coming back to the same point and Robinson demonstrated it very vividly when, as you say, he didn't even take the bother or he didn't even have the manners to tell Martin McGuinness that he was going to pull the plug on this – McGuinness heard it when all the rest of us heard it on the news.
So you have to say to yourself: What respect has Robinson for his co-counsel? For his fellow leader? There's absolutely none.
Again, it's done because he still has this supremacist attitude that Nationalists, per say, are people who are not worthy of respect and they're certainly not worthy of having equal status to the Unionists in this statelet.
SB: Richard, but what does it say about the future of this coalition?
Because it seems to me, if Sinn Féin can't get a...now it's symbolic but...a little, tiny – and I would think – uncontroversial thing like a Peace and Reconciliation Centre – I keep thinking that – a Peace and Reconciliation Centre – nobody could be against that – but they can't even get that. So what are they able to get?
RO: They're not going to be able to get anything.
Ultimately Peter Robinson knows that – and he has this well thought out – he knows that Sinn Féin aren't going to walk away from this because if they walk away they've nowhere to go and he knows they're going to have to come back – probably come back to the same situation. So he knows that there's nothing they can do about it.
The only way that the situation would change would be for Sinn Féin to walk out – that would be the drastic measure that may be needed to maybe interject some reality or shake up Unionist thinking. But they're not going to do that.
Sinn Féin will go on and they will go on taking the slaps in the face. They will go on taking the insults. They will come off with jargon that tries to allay the justifiable concerns of their constituents but they will stay in power, Sandy, because don't want to give it up under any circumstances.
And Peter Robinson knows that.
And he knows that these guys – at their core – haven't got a great sense of moral fibre – that they'll do whatever they have to do to stay in power – and if that involves swallowing pride again and again and letting things absolutely spiral out of control in terms of state security things like internment, etc they will just take it. And Robinson knows that. And that's why he can be so flippant and so bad mannered.
Sinn Féin knows there's no choice but to take it.
SB: Richard, it seems to me that having gotten away with this, having gotten away with the attack on the internment march, having gotten away with repeated attacks on Nationalist areas like Ardoyne and, as you say, with interment, it would seem to me that there's going to be more attacks on the Nationalist community. It's going to get even worse!
RO: The violent streak in Unionism in my view – and I'm almost loathe to say this – it seems to me that paramilitary Unionism isn't that far away from actually lifting up guns again and starting to kill people.
Because alot of these riots are being led by the paramilitaries, the paramilitaries that led the UVF etc, they're very much into (this)...and it wouldn't be beyond the imagination of some of these guys to say: come on, we'll go and shoot a Catholic.
There's the potential there, Sandy, for things to get worse.
I don't see it getting any better. I don't see how the issues that are so salient now are going to be removed.
For example, the Unionists want to parade and walk wherever the hell they want irrespective of whether it upsets other people or not. They don't want the Peace and Reconciliation Centre. They don't want Catholics walking in the city centre of Belfast. They actually don't want IRA monuments now throughout the country. They don't want the IRA to even honour their dead.
This is the reality. It's humiliating.
It's humiliating to be a Nationalist here because we all thought that (with) the Good Friday Agreement we had moved into a new era and the mindset of the people was changing.
And we now know that that was an illusion.
The mindset of Unionism has not changed one iota – that it's still “croppy lie down” – that's the way they think and that's the way they're actually acting. And that's what we're seeing...that's what we've seen right throughout the Summer and what we've seen for years.
And the problem is that Sinn Féin is lying down. Sinn Féin has no teeth. And they know that.
SB: Before I let you go – I was talking to Eamonn McCann, the journalist whom you know very well...
RO: Yeah, I know Eamonn well.
SB: And he was saying: You know, I was going to write that if this keeps up the next step will be assassinations. He said then I didn't do it because I thought I might be putting the idea in somebody's head.
Is that what we're coming to?
RO: I was of the same view as Eamonn and that's why I said that I'm reluctant to say this. I mean, I said it there two minutes ago but I think that is not that far away. I think that some of these eejits would think nothing of lifting a gun and shooting some Catholic and come up with some blind reason for it.
I hope, I pray with all my heart that it doesn't. But I'm saying that it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Like Eamonn, I hope I'm wrong...this is one where I really do hope I'm wrong...I mean, the situation is very fraught, very, very fraught at the minute and it's very, very dangerous.
Everyone's pinning their hopes on Richard Haass. I tell you – he would need to be a magician because only a magician could pull this off.
SB: Well, Richard, we'll get back to that and thank you very much. We really appreciate you coming on.
RO: You're welcome, Sandy. Thank you so much for having me. It was lovely to talk to you again.
(ends 1:35 EST)
- I want to be known for what I am doing now. At the same time I think there is obviously extra interest in the play because here is an ex-loyalist prisoner doing a bit of writing for a change. It's usually the ex-republican prisoners who go down that route – Beano Niblock, Newsletter
Clifford Peeples is not exactly the sort of person who would be high up on most peoples’ list of possible dinner guests. There doesn’t seem to have been a brand of violent Loyalism that he has not been involved with, no outer limit of wacky, ultra-Protestant evangelism that he has not crossed. And then there were those pipe bomb attacks in the late 1990’s for which he was given a ten-year jail term.
 |
| Clifford Peeples, on the right, leaves Long Kesh with Pastor Kenny McClinton |
I would not have a problem entertaining him myself but others would. I have spent much of my professional life breaking bread or ingesting stronger substances with greater and more mendacious blackguards than he, and while I have never met Mr Peeples, he strikes me from a distance as an honest type. Loopy almost surely, but probably sincere. Others I have entertained did or ordered worse than he and happily admitted so in my presence but now pretend it never happened. So, who is worse, who is worthy of more respect?
Anyway, these days Peeples wears a different hat, or rather has another hat to wear alongside the others hanging in his wardrobe. I don’t know what he does politically or whether he still preaches in a tin hut somewhere in the desolate wastes of north or east Belfast but currently he also practises as a freelance photographer.
 |
Purists in my profession would cavil at the notion of a political activist doubling as a journalist but personally I don’t have a problem with it at all. Politics and journalism go together like fish and chips and while I do try to separate my own views from my reporting, I understand it in others – as long as they are upfront and straight about it. In practice I have found the reporters most po-faced on the issue to be the most hypocritical.
What I do mind however is when journalists allow their political differences, or personal animosities fueled by political differences, to spill out in public shows of malevolence and threats of violence, especially when the effect is to stop or obstruct a journalist doing his or her job.
According to Clifford Peeples this is what happened to him in the centre of Belfast last Friday night during Loyalist demonstrations in Royal Avenue against an anti-internment rally being staged by republican dissidents. Eye-witnesses apparently support his story.
Peeples was on assignment for a website called ‘Ulster News’ which seems to be relatively new addition to the internet, given that the only story running on it is about his experience last Friday evening. He was, he says, busy taking photographs of the developing riot when he was verbally assaulted by a fellow journalist and so violent was the onslaught that a policeman on riot duty had to leave the lines to intervene. I don’t know what the source of the anger towards Peeples was, but the chances are that it has its origins in his political activity.
This is how he described the attack:
Screaming that I was a “dirty fat bastard” and continuing with threats of “I’m going to fix you, you Fucking Fat, Fucking Cunt”. This continued as I tried to report on what was taking place. Police officers were being injured and a full riot was now about to engulf Royal Avenue…….I told him to stop screaming obscenities and if he wanted he could talk to me later round the corner. He continued on his obscenity fueled diatribe, making more threats of physical violence towards me. Something that was of concern to those standing around him. One woman was telling him to, “stop behaving like some mad man on drugs”. His disgraceful barrage became too much for one riot control officer, who broke away from keeping public order and publicly reprimanded him, telling him he would be arrested if he were to continue. The officer came to me and told me that he had warned him about his behaviour and that I should stay away from him. The officer then reengaged with the riot control team.
So who was the journalist allegedly attacking Peeples? Turns out, in the account of Peeples, it was Ciaran Barnes, Sunday Life reporter and the man whose oblique reporting of Dolours Price’s IRA career touched off the Boston College subpoenas and who, using a false name on the internet, urged me to hand over the interviews so confidential sources could be burned, the worst sin in journalism’s playbook.
 |
| Ciaran Barnes |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
