Last time John Finucane unzipped he was caught by cops pissing on the street. This time his aim was more precise and not prohibited by law. He scored a direct hit straight into the eye of Nigel Dodds, while managing to piss all over territory the DUP haughtily thought its own.
It was a pleasing result and one which Finucane's predecessor candidate Gerry Kelly never seemed likely to achieve no matter how many forays he made. It would have been an even more welcome outcome had the battle in the UK not been fought so poorly and lost so badly by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. In a hung parliament, or one with a slight Tory majority, every anti-Brexit seat increases Remain's leverage value. And while Finucane would not have been attending Westminster, his possession of the seat means that Nigel Dodds had nowhere in Westminster to park his sorry ass. One less seat for the Brexiteers to claim as their own. Pretty academic now given the large Tory majority, it seemed much more substantive in the five weeks electioneering period.
Almost equally as pleasing to the discriminating palate was the SDLP gain in Foyle where Colum Eastwood trounced the sitting MP Elisha McCallion of Sinn Fein. Both candidates there were anti-Brexit but Eastwood’s opposition, because of McCallion’s abstentionist position, was always going to be the more effective.
The son of Pat Finucane taking the North Belfast seat was an event saturated in symbolism. The DUP which robustly supported the actions of British security personnel during the North’s Dirty War - no transgression bad enough to earn opprobrium - and which still seeks to have the same players evade accountability, has in a sense been confronted and impaled by a Gladiator of its own making. My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius … son to a murdered father … and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next.
Not verbatim but close enough to make the point.
The hate machine was cranked up against John Finucane, every foible magnified, the past of every uncle amplified. Despite the naked hatred, the son to a murdered father managed to galvanise enough nationalists while his presence in the gladiatorial arena failed to infuriate a sufficent number of unionists to even things out. Sinn Fein got it over the line whereas the DUP dropped the ball well short of the posts. Finucane's win was pretty comfortable, by almost two thousand and parallel with having increased his vote from 2017 by around 4000, while the vote of Dull Dodds remained stagnant. Not exactly the too close to call event many felt it to be.
The DUP probably lost the seat because of its support for Brexit. While Arleen Foster claimed pulling out of the EU was not a factor, instead trying to resurrect the spectre of the pan nationalist front, John Finucane said it was something raised on many doorsteps. He is the more believable of the two. Out of 18 MPs returned, 10 are opposed to Brexit. Has to tell us something.
The election was a self-inflicted DUP debacle. With Jo Swinson gone, Jeremy Corbyn certain to follow, Arleen Foster remains determined to insist that for all her grandstanding on the need for the North not to be treated differently from the UK, the guillotine is not to make its way across the Irish sea.
Forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't the term "pan-nationalist front" coined by loyalists around the time of the Hume/Adams talks to lump not only active republicans and Sinn Fein together to justify killing but to include the SDLP and its voters as well so as to justify killing any random Catholic "Yabba Dabba Do, any fenian will do" etc. To blame all nationalists including in the eyes of the Red Hand Commando Irish traditional musicians for IRA actions. All the loyalist groupings were killing non-involved Catholics since the year dot and this was their newest clumsy way at trying to justify it.
ReplyDeleteThis warped logic is found in the same thought processes which suggests IRA killing of police and British Army was sectarian. We knew then, without doubt that Catholics and Protestants in the security forces were not succumbing to differential treatment and we suspected but now, without doubt, know that the security forces were deep into collusion, shoot to kill, torture etc.
This isn't to justify any deaths but to show how describing the IRA as sectarian on the one hand and describing everyone who wasn't a loyalist as being in the pan-nationalist front on the other are baseless, inexcusable sides of the same bigoted, sectarian coin.
Of course, Foster isn't calling for violence but is borrowing the terminology of violence. Like "Sinn Fein/IRA" catcalling it demonstrated a need to lump the political and the military in together but "pan-nationalist front" goes even further than that. It is language unsuitable for anyone, particularly a political spokesperson and a potential public representative.
Killing non-involved catholics wasn't clumsy nor unintentional Simon. The brutality of thinking was that if ..." we hit them hard enough they'll squeal so much to get the Provos to stop".
DeleteNeither was this a direction from the Security apparatus, this was an indigenous thought at senior level internal to Loyalism.
And as has been well documented here, the Provos particularly in Belfast were well known to be just as secterian.
Steve, I said their attempt to justify sectarian killing was clumsy not the intention or the killing itself.
DeleteI agree that there was much sectarianism within the IRA. According to Sutton's Index of Deaths about 7-8% of IRA deaths were sectarian opposed to about 80% of loyalist killings which were sectarian. Other victims included other loyalists, security forces as well as active republicans. This disparity leads to brass necked loyalists trying to create a false equivalency with IRA targetting. Hence my disagreememt with the description of targeting armed combatants as sectarian. These armed combatants were of all religions.
" if we hit them hard enough they'll squeal so much to get the Provos to stop". What a load of tripe. If sectarian killimg by the IRA turned many to armed loyalism, eg. Billy Wright, David Ervine etc. why would these same loyalists believe their sectarian killing would have the opposite effect on republicans. Hogwash!
"Neither was this a direction from the Security apparatus, this was an indigenous thought at senior level internal to Loyalism." I know this. I am not naïve nor am I uninformed nor misinformed enough to believe many members of the security forces didn't enthusiastically join in. With logistical, operational, intelligence support as well as cross membership that would make any true believer in the rule of law wince with shame.
Even you, as a relatively progressive loyalist try to claim Belfast was "just as secterian." The statistics and commemtary of the IRA as opposed to the statistics and commentary of loyalists throughout the troubles paints a clear and precise but different story. Why do you, as a loyalist community claim the IRA campaign, whether in Belfast or elsewhere was "just as sectarian" when it clearly wasn't. And, more importantly why do you care to share this warped belief? Why do you care? And, where's your evidence. I will help you with the last question- there is evidence of sectarianism but no evidence of equivalency. Not a jot.
Simon - Foster is one of those leaders who at the turning point failed to turn. As much as I found Robinson waspish his political acumen far outweighs hers. In terms of making progress she had so much political capital to invest at one time but squandered the lot of it.
ReplyDeleteI take it you mean at the time of the agreement on Irish Language Act? Totally. Today such an act will be more difficult to sell to her constituents and in any case who could support an Irish Language Act negotiated by the DUP? It would be so lacking in substance it would bring to mind Groucho Marx's statement of not wamting to be in a club that would have him as a member.
ReplyDeleteeven before that - her background in the UUP allowed her to bring less of a grimace to the face of the DUP and a softer tone to its voice. But rather than the DUP becoming what she presented herself as, she became the DUP at its most strident. The RHI issue has tarnished her reputation so she seems in terms of integrity and probity in professional life more like Ian Paisley Jnr than she does, say, David Trimble.
DeleteAbsolutely. Can agree with that.
DeleteI am half intetested in the book "Burned". At this stage, however, nothing at all would surprise me so I am therefore reluctant to read it.
It was a great result and the first time I voted in many many years..very emotional to many people especially his own family who removed a vile bigot from public office and a defender of his father's murderers ..like many on the Antrim Road his manifesto was irrelevant... Removing Dodds was the motivating factor...Eamon McCann summed up Paisley Junior well when he described him as a'wee shite'.... Dodds is simply just a shit and as for Foster... An out and out cunt....as for across the water the turkeys can't wait for Christmas!
ReplyDeleteI think when people like you who find SF toxic can still separate the issues out and vote for one of its candidates having weighed up the political options and consequences, is an indication of political thinking not always a strong point amongst us of similar hue.
DeleteSimon,
ReplyDelete"" if we hit them hard enough they'll squeal so much to get the Provos to stop". What a load of tripe. If sectarian killimg by the IRA turned many to armed loyalism, eg. Billy Wright, David Ervine etc. why would these same loyalists believe their sectarian killing would have the opposite effect on republicans. Hogwash!"
Have you never watched Peter Taylor's excellent tv series 'Loyalists'? It implicitly says as much. From memory David Ervine even quoted verbatium that the Loyalists recieved a communique from the Belfast Provos wanting an end to tit-for-tat secterian killings so they could just concentrate on hitting the Security Forces.
The response was "Fuck off. But thanks for letting us know we are getting to you".
""Neither was this a direction from the Security apparatus, this was an indigenous thought at senior level internal to Loyalism." I know this. I am not naïve nor am I uninformed nor misinformed enough to believe many members of the security forces didn't enthusiastically join in. With logistical, operational, intelligence support as well as cross membership that would make any true believer in the rule of law wince with shame."
No argument from me. Notorantonio was killed to protect Scap.
"Even you, as a relatively progressive loyalist try to claim Belfast was "just as secterian." The statistics and commemtary of the IRA as opposed to the statistics and commentary of loyalists throughout the troubles paints a clear and precise but different story. Why do you, as a loyalist community claim the IRA campaign, whether in Belfast or elsewhere was "just as sectarian" when it clearly wasn't. And, more importantly why do you care to share this warped belief? Why do you care? And, where's your evidence. I will help you with the last question- there is evidence of sectarianism but no evidence of equivalency. Not a jot."
You clearly have not read the late Gerry Bradley's "Insider" book. He was heavily involved in the Belfast Brigade and it was he who pointed out the heavily secterian nature of the Provo's in Belfast. And why believe the Provo commentary but not the Loyalists?
And lastly, I believe you think I'm trying to justify the actions of Loyalists, I am not. I'm a pacificist save in the face of jihadis like ISIS. I remember the 80's well and by fuck I'd do anything to stop either one of our communities from murdering each other again.
Steve, there was no tit for tat sectarian killing. I have gone over this.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say you were trying to justify loyalist killing but you certainly parrot their claim of equivalency.
I have read Bradley's book. I know there was sectarianism. Infinitesmal compared to loyalism. Res ipsa loquitur.
Your last comment of "why believe the Provo commentary but not the Loyalists?" could easily be put to you. However, I believe it because thats where the evidence heavily points.
"Steve, there was no tit for tat sectarian killing. I have gone over this."
ReplyDeletePardon? Though I'm loathe to start whataboutry, what do you think Kingsmill was? Or Darkley?
I was only highlighting their claim of equivalency, but surely you suggesting a scorecard with "Infinitesmal compared to loyalism" is nakedly biased.
"Your last comment of "why believe the Provo commentary but not the Loyalists?" could easily be put to you. However, I believe it because thats where the evidence heavily points."
I agree, Loyalist murders were overwhelmingly sectaraian, but my point stands in my first paragraph. It's the ugly truth and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Steve, if loyalist killimg was overwhelmimgly sectarian at 80% of their dead and the IRA's is closer to 8% then why highlight the loyalist claim of equivalency?
ReplyDeleteDarkley was carried out by the INLA and it was a war crime. Dominic McGlinchey was reportedly furious when he found out. It doesn't make the INLA any less responsible. Same as the no claim on Kingsmill it doesn't make it any less of a war crime.
Everybody is biased. I have highlighted war crimes by every actor in the Troubles. Things loyalists say, I take with a pinch of salt.