I must confess, I am somewhat conflicted by the current outcry over Irish language rap band Kneecap. In my last contribution to TPQ on the subject (Kneecap) I suggested that “na buachailli” would gloriously ride on the crest of the publicity wave created for them by the DUP and the TUV until the “wheels fell off”.
Not content with letting the quality of the group’s music become the instrument of their own downfall, the British Government and the Prime Minister have interjected to create a mega tsunami of publicity around 3 guys from the north who until recently occupied a small space in an even smaller niche market.
There is a small juvenile part of me that says fair play to them for putting it up to the Brits and the “orangies” (which is not very Republican) and there is a big part of me that welcomes “the lads” using their now global platform to speak out in support of Palestine and against the latest instalment of the Israeli genocide.
There is also a more mature and reflective inner me that is entirely uncomfortable with their pronouncements on Hamas and Hezbollah and the “kill your MP” bunkum.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I fully support freedom of speech as outlined in the Universal Declaration, but I also recognise that there are situations where rights can compete and clash and where careful judgement needs to be exercised.
I do not suspect for one second that Kneecap support Hamas or Hezbollah or that they want people to kill their MPs. Also, I do not believe that anyone who listens to their music would take three drink and drug fuelled rappers at their word and follow through on what was nothing more than intoxicated bluster.
Therein lies my catch 22, I want to live in a rights-based society, I do not think that we can progress as a community unless we accept that all rights are universal and inalienable and that they apply to all members of the human family, even three guys from the north, held in affection by many in the CNR communities.
Their onstage bravado, however well-meaning in supporting an entirely legitimate cause, conflicts with multiple other articles in the Universal Declaration and allegedly with the law in the United Kingdom, which is where they made their pronouncements.
If the assertion is that Kneecap can say or do what they want on and off stage, and that somehow, they are “unequal before the law” (Article 7) then we are entering very dangerous territory. “The law is an ass” but the line of reasoning that loyalists do worse and that it is Israel who should be in the dock, ring hollow. The Met Police do not have jurisdiction in either the north or the International Criminal Court.
Contentions that the charges are politically motivated and a clumsy attempt to silence criticism of the Israeli onslaught against a defenceless population are without reservation true, but it is the duty of the police to investigate a complaint, the CPS to decide if a crime may have been committed and the duty of a jury to decide on guilt.
Those who attempted to create a false equivalence with the Birmingham Six and in one case Bloody Sunday are being disingenuous. The most contemporaneous case that warrants comparison is Gerry A vs the BBC.
The multiple sycophants who have nauseatingly heaped praise upon Adams for “putting manners” on an award-winning BBC programme that has exposed collusion, and British state violence for decades don’t seem to comprehend that freedom of speech extends to journalists also. Sinn Fein keen to portray themselves as “down with the kids”, have declared that they stand with both Kneecap and Adams. Sinn Fein, once again ostensibly ignorant to the fact that under their proposed changes to the hate crime legislation of 2024, Kneecap would have been prosecuted in the south.
To support Adams against the BBC is an inherent contradiction to the freedom of speech defence of Kneecap.
Adams, who had to prove that he had enough money in the bank to pay for the totality of the case’s legal costs (estimated to be circa £5 Million) took the BBC and Jennifer O’Leary to court to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech.
The multi-millionaire from Ballymurphy, did not strike a blow for freedom on behalf of the movement or the Irish people. Unlike many whom he led, Gerry had the considerable financial resources to hire the world’s leading defamation lawyer to challenge the BBC on his reputation.
The gist of his legal argument was that while yes, he May have had a reputation as being a senior member of the IRA (which he denied), his role in delivering the IRA ceasefire meant that he was entitled to a re-invented reputation. Gerry A, from here on in, must be referred to as Gerry the peace maker.
Just because someone has a past does not mean that they cannot have a future, was Trimble's mantra throughout the GFA negotiations and it is indeed a noble sentiment. Everyone deserves a second chance.
Unfortunately, there are many who entered the fray during the war who do not have the financial clout to purchase their reputation in Court. There are many men and women of character who would squirm at the opportunity to reinvent themselves, if it demanded a denial of their role in a just war. For people of character neither a grubby gratuity from the BBC or a eulogy that quite frankly no one will believe would be worth the shame of hearing the rooster crow. There is a considerable difference between reputation and character.
Adams took Spotlight to court for Adams’s sake, in much the same way that the Pro-Israeli lobby sought to have Kneecap silenced through spurious allegations. Both are opposed to freedom of speech, both can claim a pyrrhic victory in their own warped mentality, but neither is likely to remembered as they wish to be.
Reputation is what others think, character is what you know about yourself.
⏩Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.
I'll still stand by free speech but they showed the world a side to them when they used the moniker " Rod the Prod" as a slur against Rod Stewart and by its utterance inferring there's something inherently bad with being a "Prod".
ReplyDeleteIs there not?🤣
DeleteIn fairness, the Loyalists seem less prone to flying the 'Star of David' rag over recent times. At least that's the impression I get from my rare incursions into our occupied territory.
DeleteAM say nahin 😆
DeleteHJ I'm just back from the north coast right down through Ballymena and into north Down. Very few Israel flags as you say.
Well said Muiris. I agree with your take through and through. Let honesty, truth & justice be the hallmarks of our endeavours.
ReplyDeleteI realise this is off topic but the news has just broken about the deaths of Diego Jota and his brother in car accident in Spain. Utterly devastating and saddening. Sympathy to all his loved ones and to connected with Liverpool, Wolves and Portuguese football. RIP Diego
ReplyDeleteEternal Dreamless Sleep Diogo and brother - my son told me about half an hour ago. The two of us are gutted.
DeleteIt's just so sad. He was a lovely guy off the pitch too, well involved in getting more girls to play which I'm a believer in. Awful that he was just married and let's not forget his brother died with him. Rip to both and thoughts with those left behind.
DeleteCam comments
ReplyDeleteThe law is indeed an ass—but more importantly, it is selectively enforced to protect power, not principle.
Rod the Prod - an artist who regularly played in Israel.....and who is now Catholic but originally brought up in a Prod household and by all accounts quite a serious Catholic too.....although his practice and understanding of the Catholic Churches' view on marriage seems to be highly questionable!!!! Still a man also affectionately referred to by Celtic fans as Rod the Prod...context is everything!
I would have thought a more reflective chant that Bob Vylan could have used would have been a take on the old chant SS RUC to SS IDF....much more appropriate!
The criminal justice system has always been selectively enforced to protect power- that is not in contention, the point I was trying to make was that that the law should not be applied selectively as this would be a breech of a fundamental human right. Calling for death to anyone does not sit well with me, neither does using he term "prod" in a derogatory way, I do not need the criminal justice system to validate that- freedom of speech is just that
ReplyDelete