 |
| Oil on canvas |
🖌 Geordie Morrow is a Belfast artist 🖌
A quick google on the word itself unearthed; From debate and conjecture, the name Tusla emerged as a fitting logo for the Child and Family Agency. While the word borrows from the Irish words 'tús' + 'lá', Tusla is a completely new word reflecting a shared desire for a new beginning, forging a new identity. A new word, a new way of working.
The same search also leads you to Trustpilot, the highly regarded review site, wherein the vast majority of its contributors (circa 70) are scathing in the extreme. In cold print the acrimony expressed by individuals on their dealings with TUSLA makes for sober reading, but given the nature of the subject matter, State intervention which can remove children from families, a more studied appraisal of the totality of such an issue is warranted.
There are no perfect families, no Waltons or Simpsons as yardsticks to gauge any semblance of functionality. By and large the average family is a work in progress, trudging along with a sense of solidarity within communities who exist along similar lines.
The Irish Constitution recognises families as follows:
The Family Article 41
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
Education Article 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
Given this onerous recognition it should stand to reason that any state body charged with powers to intervene in the functionality of families, with powers to remove children if deemed necessary, must itself be subject to rigorous and transparent scrutiny as it goes about its remit. This book shines a light on that basic necessity, and without straining a metaphor, it reflects very dark shadows indeed.
There are families where grave abuses and violent dysfunctions permeate daily life and children exist with physical and psychological harm and whose only recourse is to outside intervention as an immediate and first step to protect them. Such action requires process, which must be evidenced based and open to transparent scrutiny. What is not required is a presumption of guilt founded on some anachronistic view of women and mothers.
The book is a series of interviews with mothers from various regional, ethnic and economic backgrounds who share their experiences with TULSA and the removal of children from them. Each chapter ends with a link and QR code to a podcast discussion on the issues raised which contribute informatively on their cumulative experiences.
The common threads throughout the interviews are defined by the word patterns. The authors carefully construct a narrative based around these unmistakable patterns that is quite damning of almost every strata of the TULSA process. The inherent bias demonstrated towards these mothers is all the more frightening because it appears inherent in other State bodies, Gardai, the Courts and legal system when it comes to dealing with these cases.
And, what is reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s reaction to their sexual abuse scandals, TUSLA’s apparent primary concern was its own self-preservation and deflection from culpability of the many grievous errors its actions permitted.
The book competently outlines the legacy effects which TULSA’s actions have had on families even when error is eventually conceded and children are returned. Both the nature and the longevity of the separation inflicts indelible damage on family relationships. In a lot of cases male partners can become very vindictive, exploiting to the fullest the unwarranted bias against the mothers wherein children themselves are used as pawns resulting in inevitable psychological harm.
Another damning obstacle is the legal system, a bleak house indeed for affected mothers. TULSA and other relevant agencies have solicitors and barristers appointed to them by the state; for mothers seeking urgent redress this invariably proves cost prohibitive. The book cites the opinion of Justice Frank Clarke who recognised ‘the very real problems with access to justice in Ireland’. But like most public institutions in Ireland, reform comes dropping slowly even when it concerns the reality that whether a mother retains custody of their child comes with an actual price tag.
As an addendum to the failings of the legal system is a truly bizarre and frightening insight into the use of ‘psychologists’ in such cases; findings of ‘unfit mothers’ made by individuals unfit to reach such damning conclusions in the first place. Citing a Prime Time undercover investigation one of their reporters obtained an online doctorate from America for the ‘price of a take away’. Armed with a dubious certificate and a brass plaque such individuals are free to offer ‘professional’ opinions on sometimes complex family situations. An unhealthy weight is afforded to these psychological reports in family cases which is astounding when one considers the book's expose of the absence of any regulation for psychologists in Ireland.
The same search also leads you to Trustpilot, the highly regarded review site, wherein the vast majority of its contributors (circa 70) are scathing in the extreme. In cold print the acrimony expressed by individuals on their dealings with TUSLA makes for sober reading, but given the nature of the subject matter, State intervention which can remove children from families, a more studied appraisal of the totality of such an issue is warranted.
There are no perfect families, no Waltons or Simpsons as yardsticks to gauge any semblance of functionality. By and large the average family is a work in progress, trudging along with a sense of solidarity within communities who exist along similar lines.
The Irish Constitution recognises families as follows:
The Family Article 41
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
Education Article 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
Given this onerous recognition it should stand to reason that any state body charged with powers to intervene in the functionality of families, with powers to remove children if deemed necessary, must itself be subject to rigorous and transparent scrutiny as it goes about its remit. This book shines a light on that basic necessity, and without straining a metaphor, it reflects very dark shadows indeed.
There are families where grave abuses and violent dysfunctions permeate daily life and children exist with physical and psychological harm and whose only recourse is to outside intervention as an immediate and first step to protect them. Such action requires process, which must be evidenced based and open to transparent scrutiny. What is not required is a presumption of guilt founded on some anachronistic view of women and mothers.
The book is a series of interviews with mothers from various regional, ethnic and economic backgrounds who share their experiences with TULSA and the removal of children from them. Each chapter ends with a link and QR code to a podcast discussion on the issues raised which contribute informatively on their cumulative experiences.
The common threads throughout the interviews are defined by the word patterns. The authors carefully construct a narrative based around these unmistakable patterns that is quite damning of almost every strata of the TULSA process. The inherent bias demonstrated towards these mothers is all the more frightening because it appears inherent in other State bodies, Gardai, the Courts and legal system when it comes to dealing with these cases.
And, what is reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s reaction to their sexual abuse scandals, TUSLA’s apparent primary concern was its own self-preservation and deflection from culpability of the many grievous errors its actions permitted.
The book competently outlines the legacy effects which TULSA’s actions have had on families even when error is eventually conceded and children are returned. Both the nature and the longevity of the separation inflicts indelible damage on family relationships. In a lot of cases male partners can become very vindictive, exploiting to the fullest the unwarranted bias against the mothers wherein children themselves are used as pawns resulting in inevitable psychological harm.
Another damning obstacle is the legal system, a bleak house indeed for affected mothers. TULSA and other relevant agencies have solicitors and barristers appointed to them by the state; for mothers seeking urgent redress this invariably proves cost prohibitive. The book cites the opinion of Justice Frank Clarke who recognised ‘the very real problems with access to justice in Ireland’. But like most public institutions in Ireland, reform comes dropping slowly even when it concerns the reality that whether a mother retains custody of their child comes with an actual price tag.
As an addendum to the failings of the legal system is a truly bizarre and frightening insight into the use of ‘psychologists’ in such cases; findings of ‘unfit mothers’ made by individuals unfit to reach such damning conclusions in the first place. Citing a Prime Time undercover investigation one of their reporters obtained an online doctorate from America for the ‘price of a take away’. Armed with a dubious certificate and a brass plaque such individuals are free to offer ‘professional’ opinions on sometimes complex family situations. An unhealthy weight is afforded to these psychological reports in family cases which is astounding when one considers the book's expose of the absence of any regulation for psychologists in Ireland.
The in-camera rule is one of the most powerful forces shaping the lives of mothers who find themselves trapped in the family law system. It determines what can be said, who can speak, what can be challenged, what can be exposed and what must remain hidden from the public.
This opening paragraph of one of the concluding chapters, for me, cuts to the chase; this is Catholic Ireland and its legacy. The complete absence of accountability and transparency being a natural recipe for corruption and abuse.
But worse than the abuses committed are the denials and deflections that any such abuses and dangerous shortcomings actually occurred. It is a vicious self-preserving circle that bequeaths a mindset institutionalised and furtive thinking. It has infested various institutions including the courts, the gardai, state institutions like TULSA and aspects of the medical profession charged with responsibilities in this area of family law.
But worse than the abuses committed are the denials and deflections that any such abuses and dangerous shortcomings actually occurred. It is a vicious self-preserving circle that bequeaths a mindset institutionalised and furtive thinking. It has infested various institutions including the courts, the gardai, state institutions like TULSA and aspects of the medical profession charged with responsibilities in this area of family law.
For this reviewer the core value of the book is demonstrating the immense chasm between the laudable constitutional recognitions and protections alluded to earlier and those institutions and bodies charged with their implementation and defence. The book’s strength are the testimonies of individual mothers who were so egregiously victimised by a State obliged to protect them. A highly recommended read!
Dr Finbar Markey & Anna Kavanagh MA, 2026. Justice For Birth Mothers: The Fight Against Forced Separation In Modern Ireland. Butterfly Books Publishers Ireland. ISBN-13: 978-9699896217
Dr Finbar Markey & Anna Kavanagh MA, 2026. Justice For Birth Mothers: The Fight Against Forced Separation In Modern Ireland. Butterfly Books Publishers Ireland. ISBN-13: 978-9699896217
⏩ The Fenian Way was a full time activist during the IRA's war against the British.
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
Carrie Twomey ✍ Why Sinn Fein, and the government parties, need to ignore the siren song of the far right if they want to win elections.
Historically - even since inception - the Provisional version of Sinn Fein has always had tensions between its rosary brigade and Marxist leaning revolutionary wing. This was not a major problem while the conflict was hot. As the peace process continued, SF was able to manage those political tensions with casting the process as another form of struggle, utilising the differences between northern and southern political experiences as a sort of fudge for how it pitched itself in the south in the first decades of the new century.
Now that the peace process is as old as the conflict, and the IRA retired north and south, the rise of the far right has brought these tensions to the surface for the party. While Sinn Fein plays a deft hand in the sectarian fishbowl of northern politics - where bread and butter issues are rarely, if ever, campaigned on - it has not found firm footing in the southern milieu, despite its popularity in opinion polls.
This inability to translate poll popularity into consistent electoral gains has allowed the party leadership to become spooked by far right noise, deciding that pandering to its rosary brigade was a winning strategy. This has proven to be anything but, and government parties would do well to learn this lesson if they too do not want fractured by MAGA minions.
Had SF decided instead to lead with a genuine commitment to left wing principles (genuine and principles being two words not often associated with the party, though many of its members and supporters may be), along with keeping a focus on its pursuit of a united Ireland, the majority of its rosary brigade, being committed nationalists, would have done what they have always done: held their noses and continued to support the party as the only vehicle they see heading towards the promised land. Most of those voters are pragmatic in the sense that a United Ireland must always come first, the details can be fought over later.
Instead, as Sinn Fein has moved away from its committed pursuit of a United Ireland - even talk of politics as part of the struggle has been jettisoned as the active phase of the peace process recedes further into the past - it has split its personality between burnishing its left wing halo and playing footsie with farmy council hard men.
This has left the rosary brigade, who stuck with them through hard times because they were the ticket to a United Ireland, to not trust them on social issues and seeing the abandonment of the national question as a betrayal. That view has been easily exploited by the far right who are seeking to claim the mantle of Irish nationalism, and no longer have an IRA stopping them from doing so successfully.
The left wing of the party feels betrayed too, when it sees Sinn Fein consistently fail to follow through on basic tenets such as abortion rights, as was illustrated recently. Combine this with the dog whistling being done by senior figures on immigration and a general lack of leadership when it is needed to stand firmly against the worst kind of craven politicking, and dissatisfaction grows. Holly Cairns did not miss the mark in her quip about Sinn Fein needing to iron out its policies. People can feel, and see, the disingenuous nature of their inconsistency.
SF has fundamentally misunderstood its own base. Like many people the world over, it has let social media propagandists pull the wool over its eyes.
Thinking from what has been visible online in Ireland for the last few years that the far right was going to become the dominant destination for voters is a fatal, and dangerous, mistake. Many centrist and centre-left parties across Europe have discovered this to their detriment - as Labour in the UK is finding out.
The embrace of "Blue Labour" politics by the Labour Party is a good example of how moving right in response to populism is utter madness in this age of chimera. Setting aside the insanity of thinking millionaire advisers have their finger on the pulse of any average voter, in times of instability and crisis, the longer the crisis goes on, the more voters want competence and stability. The far right, by its nature, does not represent nor present as stable or confident. It rides on waves of discontent and thrives on whipping the waves higher. They are expert problem spotters, never problem solvers.
Tacking left in time of crisis - because the left is primarily concerned with equitable economic issues - while it may seem counterintuitive is the smarter move. The Greens in the UK understand this and are now mopping up support from the larger bulk of Labour's traditional working class base, the people who found themselves politically homeless when Labour steered right.
This is now Sinn Féin's problem, and potentially the problem of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael if they too follow the siren song of the far right fringe.
The lesson is in the fact that left voters voted Fine Gael to keep the far right out in Galway, and this led to victory for Fine Gael. Had Fine Gael attempted to compete with Independent Ireland as a peer, Independent Ireland would likely have taken the seat, with Fine Gael, like Sinn Fein did, losing its own voters to Independent Ireland as well as crucially failing to gain the necessary support of left transfers.
The majority of people in Ireland do not, and will not, support the far right. They do not, and will not, vote for the far right. They do, and will, vote for political parties that are not far right, and who will keep the far right from gaining power.
This is the consistent trend line in elections. Even with the small gains of the far right, the majority of voters are voting against them, not for them. Their gains are strongest when there is not a viable, competent left leaning alternative. When that is the case, their loss is greater. To win elections, parties must concentrate on being that alternative.
As much as Irish people love to give off about how terrible this, that, and the other are, the majority of the country wants stability and competence in charge of their government. They want fairness, and lean more to the left than they do right on social and financial issues.
Fringe parties are a safe outlet voters use to give off with, but not to install as the nation's stewards. The parties that recognise this and resist the urge to pander to inflated populist outrage - and who tack away from that outrage back into sanity - will always come home the winner. The ones who don't will end up wrecks on the shoals.
Sinn Fein, once seen as a bright promise because of its seemingly winning combination of left wing politics and a United Ireland vision, in abandoning both, is now turning into the biggest loser and a busted flush politically.
Historically - even since inception - the Provisional version of Sinn Fein has always had tensions between its rosary brigade and Marxist leaning revolutionary wing. This was not a major problem while the conflict was hot. As the peace process continued, SF was able to manage those political tensions with casting the process as another form of struggle, utilising the differences between northern and southern political experiences as a sort of fudge for how it pitched itself in the south in the first decades of the new century.
Now that the peace process is as old as the conflict, and the IRA retired north and south, the rise of the far right has brought these tensions to the surface for the party. While Sinn Fein plays a deft hand in the sectarian fishbowl of northern politics - where bread and butter issues are rarely, if ever, campaigned on - it has not found firm footing in the southern milieu, despite its popularity in opinion polls.
This inability to translate poll popularity into consistent electoral gains has allowed the party leadership to become spooked by far right noise, deciding that pandering to its rosary brigade was a winning strategy. This has proven to be anything but, and government parties would do well to learn this lesson if they too do not want fractured by MAGA minions.
Had SF decided instead to lead with a genuine commitment to left wing principles (genuine and principles being two words not often associated with the party, though many of its members and supporters may be), along with keeping a focus on its pursuit of a united Ireland, the majority of its rosary brigade, being committed nationalists, would have done what they have always done: held their noses and continued to support the party as the only vehicle they see heading towards the promised land. Most of those voters are pragmatic in the sense that a United Ireland must always come first, the details can be fought over later.
Instead, as Sinn Fein has moved away from its committed pursuit of a United Ireland - even talk of politics as part of the struggle has been jettisoned as the active phase of the peace process recedes further into the past - it has split its personality between burnishing its left wing halo and playing footsie with farmy council hard men.
This has left the rosary brigade, who stuck with them through hard times because they were the ticket to a United Ireland, to not trust them on social issues and seeing the abandonment of the national question as a betrayal. That view has been easily exploited by the far right who are seeking to claim the mantle of Irish nationalism, and no longer have an IRA stopping them from doing so successfully.
The left wing of the party feels betrayed too, when it sees Sinn Fein consistently fail to follow through on basic tenets such as abortion rights, as was illustrated recently. Combine this with the dog whistling being done by senior figures on immigration and a general lack of leadership when it is needed to stand firmly against the worst kind of craven politicking, and dissatisfaction grows. Holly Cairns did not miss the mark in her quip about Sinn Fein needing to iron out its policies. People can feel, and see, the disingenuous nature of their inconsistency.
SF has fundamentally misunderstood its own base. Like many people the world over, it has let social media propagandists pull the wool over its eyes.
Thinking from what has been visible online in Ireland for the last few years that the far right was going to become the dominant destination for voters is a fatal, and dangerous, mistake. Many centrist and centre-left parties across Europe have discovered this to their detriment - as Labour in the UK is finding out.
The embrace of "Blue Labour" politics by the Labour Party is a good example of how moving right in response to populism is utter madness in this age of chimera. Setting aside the insanity of thinking millionaire advisers have their finger on the pulse of any average voter, in times of instability and crisis, the longer the crisis goes on, the more voters want competence and stability. The far right, by its nature, does not represent nor present as stable or confident. It rides on waves of discontent and thrives on whipping the waves higher. They are expert problem spotters, never problem solvers.
Tacking left in time of crisis - because the left is primarily concerned with equitable economic issues - while it may seem counterintuitive is the smarter move. The Greens in the UK understand this and are now mopping up support from the larger bulk of Labour's traditional working class base, the people who found themselves politically homeless when Labour steered right.
This is now Sinn Féin's problem, and potentially the problem of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael if they too follow the siren song of the far right fringe.
The lesson is in the fact that left voters voted Fine Gael to keep the far right out in Galway, and this led to victory for Fine Gael. Had Fine Gael attempted to compete with Independent Ireland as a peer, Independent Ireland would likely have taken the seat, with Fine Gael, like Sinn Fein did, losing its own voters to Independent Ireland as well as crucially failing to gain the necessary support of left transfers.
The majority of people in Ireland do not, and will not, support the far right. They do not, and will not, vote for the far right. They do, and will, vote for political parties that are not far right, and who will keep the far right from gaining power.
This is the consistent trend line in elections. Even with the small gains of the far right, the majority of voters are voting against them, not for them. Their gains are strongest when there is not a viable, competent left leaning alternative. When that is the case, their loss is greater. To win elections, parties must concentrate on being that alternative.
As much as Irish people love to give off about how terrible this, that, and the other are, the majority of the country wants stability and competence in charge of their government. They want fairness, and lean more to the left than they do right on social and financial issues.
Fringe parties are a safe outlet voters use to give off with, but not to install as the nation's stewards. The parties that recognise this and resist the urge to pander to inflated populist outrage - and who tack away from that outrage back into sanity - will always come home the winner. The ones who don't will end up wrecks on the shoals.
Sinn Fein, once seen as a bright promise because of its seemingly winning combination of left wing politics and a United Ireland vision, in abandoning both, is now turning into the biggest loser and a busted flush politically.
⏩Carrie Twomey hates Illinois Nazis (just like the Blues Brothers)
Anthony McIntyre ⚽ There was more than just local bragging rights involved in this derby.
The Drogs widening the gap between themselves and Sligo would give rise to a corresponding surge in confidence amongst fans. On paper it looked as if a draw would suffice. Sligo playing away to league champions and current leaders Shamrock were in the foothills of Mount Improbable, and it seemed they were destined for defeat. Had Sligo lost then a Drogheda draw against Dundalk at Sullivan and Lambe would have increased the gap to four points. A win would have made it six. At the very least it seemed that the Claret and Blue could come out no worse than they went in regardless of how they fared on the night.
But as often happens in football, the side that believes that success is defeat turned on its head and that the flip is possible, come away with the spoils. Sligo against the odds flipped their fortunes, emerging as winners at Tallaght Stadium through a 97th minute strike. With Drogheda only managing a draw the gap between third from bottom and second is now a slim solitary point, when in the most optimum of circumstances it could have been six. So, success tonight against Waterford is crucial for the Drogs. They go into the game knowing that they are the only side Waterford has manged to beat this season in all of eighteen outings.
But as often happens in football, the side that believes that success is defeat turned on its head and that the flip is possible, come away with the spoils. Sligo against the odds flipped their fortunes, emerging as winners at Tallaght Stadium through a 97th minute strike. With Drogheda only managing a draw the gap between third from bottom and second is now a slim solitary point, when in the most optimum of circumstances it could have been six. So, success tonight against Waterford is crucial for the Drogs. They go into the game knowing that they are the only side Waterford has manged to beat this season in all of eighteen outings.
On the way over Jay made a prediction of 2-0 to Drogheda. Both Paddy and I felt that a bit over confident. This season has been a hit and miss one for Drogheda whereas Dundalk have navigated a more steady journey to a fourth place spot, a safe distance from the tide of relegation lapping at their feet. They were coming into this game on the back of a victory over Shamrock Rovers, whereas for the Drogs they had two straight defeats at their back, hardly the type of wind needed to get them across the line. Paddy didn't commit but I went for my usual draw.
For a local Derby with a lot at stake, it was frustrating to see Drogheda sleep walk their way through the first half, trailing to Gbemi Arubi's goal behind at the break. It could have been more. Kevin Doherty, banned over a misdemeanour at Waterford, was absent from the touchline. While he might seem excessive and excitable at times with the verbal whip, something was needed to lash the Drogs into action. As it turned out, a bit more than tea was handed out at half time in the dressing room. The Drogs came out for the second half awake and feisty. Around the 60 minute mark, a well placed corner met by the head of Leo Burney saw the sides level. It remained that way right up to the final whistle.
For Dundalk, the outcome means they now sit on the number of points that saw them relegated two seasons ago. Wherever they are headed this season it is not down to the lower division. The Drogs unfortunately have no reason for the same confidence. Too many poor performances have pushed them perilously close to the danger zone.
A dull game that relied on the long ball rather than playing out from the back, where the fans were kept on their toes throughout as a result of the derby atmosphere. It is great to see Dundalk back in the Premier Division after a season in the nether regions. The Louth derby arguably packs more punch and gives bangs for bucks unmatched by anything that goes on in the Dublin circuit. A disappointing end to a disappointing game was matched by an equal dismay that the flares had returned to the game after the trouble they had landed the club in the last time both sides met at Oriel Park.
Flares are not toys. They are offensive weapons capable of causing injury much like they did at Oriel Park. For most fans they add noting to the quality of the game, detracting from the general enjoyment. At this point there can no longer be a fool's pardon for those who bring them to the matches and set them off. As security seems unable to stop them, and the Public Order Unit - out in force for this clash - having no more luck, it must fall on the Ultras to evict those culpable from their midst before another child is harmed.
The conflict in Cauca between the Nasa and Misak indigenous peoples for land has left a toll of seven dead. All of the dead are indigenous, not one bourgeois, not one landlord, and neither are there any high ranking government officials, police or military i.e. nobody who influences or decides upon land policy. I am not asking for them to kill anyone, just pointing out that in the land war they killed each other, whilst others sipped coffee at home. However, the indigenous are not the only dead. Various governmental and non-governmental discourses on agrarian reform also died, discourses on indigenous organisations, in particular the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) and the perspective on who are the agents for change in Colombia.
The dispute is centred around an 800 hectare plot of land and a resolution on its fate acknowledging a colonial deed in favour of the Nasa. They are not fighting to take over a 2000 hectare farm belonging to one of the racist oligarchs in Cauca. No, not that. That would require a fight against the state and the rich. The Department of Cauca is one of the most unequal in terms of land distribution. The majority of peasant farms are no more than 1.5 hectares.
Since the founding of the INCORA (Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform in the 1960s the state’s policy on agrarian reform has been one of market led agrarian reform. The peace accord signed by the FARC does not used the term, agrarian reform but rather rural reform (which are far from being the same thing), but what it proposes is for the state to buy lands and share them out amongst some, though not all peasants. This model does not break with the power structure in the countryside, in fact it strengthens it. State policy is to promote a type of agrarian reform where the peasant is obliged to grow cash crops, industries which are dominated by the large landlords and oligarchs in Colombia.
This model places peasants, indigenous and blacks in a fight amongst themselves for crumbs. This is not the first episode of this nature though the death toll is noteworthy. Once upon a time the Colombian left used to denounce a market led agrarian reform. They stated bluntly that there will a land market or there will be an agrarian reform but both of these proposals cannot coexist.
The land dispute between the Misak and Nasa will not be resolved in a piecemeal fashion. That much is clear. What is required is the regularisation and expansion of the indigenous reserves along with an agrarian reform for the peasants. To do it bit by bit is to invite the indigenous, peasant and black communities to fight amongst themselves for each portion.
Another discourse that died is in relation to indigenous organisations. There are sectors of the left, particularly those close to the now demobilised FARC who denigrate the indigenous peoples and their organisations whilst other sectors idealise them and concede a protagonism to them and their organisations that they often do not deserve. Sometimes they came to Bogotá to protest the situation in Cauca and put forward their demands. Other times they came to support national mobilisations. But in reality they arrived to usurp the moment and try to impose their agenda, as if the future of the country was settled in Cauca. In the large social explosion of 2021 the CRIC joined the strike a few days later and said they were going to Cali. They saw in the strike another opportunity to present themselves as the salvation of the country and in passing lambasted the urban youth fighting in the streets of Cali and Bogotá, vilifying them as vandals:
They tried to reduce the national strike to just another episode in their Minga and the strike as an ancillary activity, and claim the strike began in earnest because they joined it a few days later. In fact in their communiques they always talked about the Minga and the national strike, and in that order. It was a brazen attempt to impose their agenda on a national agenda. But they did not last long in Cali and by May 11th they withdrew, not just because it went badly for them, as it is not the same to fight in the territory that they know than an urban city, but also due to political questions.[2]
Nonetheless, the CRIC is accepted as a permanent reference point, unlike other indigenous organisations, when it doesn’t always deserve to be so. The indigenous peoples are like any other community. There are left wingers and there are also right-wing sectors, amongst them the ex-governor of Cauca Floro Tunubala, who following his term of office went to work with the Coca-Cola Foundation, which is not exactly renowned for its defence of Mother Earth. There are others still that aim to do deals with mining companies in exchange for money.
The dispute is centred around an 800 hectare plot of land and a resolution on its fate acknowledging a colonial deed in favour of the Nasa. They are not fighting to take over a 2000 hectare farm belonging to one of the racist oligarchs in Cauca. No, not that. That would require a fight against the state and the rich. The Department of Cauca is one of the most unequal in terms of land distribution. The majority of peasant farms are no more than 1.5 hectares.
Since the founding of the INCORA (Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform in the 1960s the state’s policy on agrarian reform has been one of market led agrarian reform. The peace accord signed by the FARC does not used the term, agrarian reform but rather rural reform (which are far from being the same thing), but what it proposes is for the state to buy lands and share them out amongst some, though not all peasants. This model does not break with the power structure in the countryside, in fact it strengthens it. State policy is to promote a type of agrarian reform where the peasant is obliged to grow cash crops, industries which are dominated by the large landlords and oligarchs in Colombia.
This model places peasants, indigenous and blacks in a fight amongst themselves for crumbs. This is not the first episode of this nature though the death toll is noteworthy. Once upon a time the Colombian left used to denounce a market led agrarian reform. They stated bluntly that there will a land market or there will be an agrarian reform but both of these proposals cannot coexist.
The land dispute between the Misak and Nasa will not be resolved in a piecemeal fashion. That much is clear. What is required is the regularisation and expansion of the indigenous reserves along with an agrarian reform for the peasants. To do it bit by bit is to invite the indigenous, peasant and black communities to fight amongst themselves for each portion.
Another discourse that died is in relation to indigenous organisations. There are sectors of the left, particularly those close to the now demobilised FARC who denigrate the indigenous peoples and their organisations whilst other sectors idealise them and concede a protagonism to them and their organisations that they often do not deserve. Sometimes they came to Bogotá to protest the situation in Cauca and put forward their demands. Other times they came to support national mobilisations. But in reality they arrived to usurp the moment and try to impose their agenda, as if the future of the country was settled in Cauca. In the large social explosion of 2021 the CRIC joined the strike a few days later and said they were going to Cali. They saw in the strike another opportunity to present themselves as the salvation of the country and in passing lambasted the urban youth fighting in the streets of Cali and Bogotá, vilifying them as vandals:
We are really going to begin the strike. Because now we see how the city of Cali and the department of Valle de Cauca are being militarised in order to continue repressing the Colombian citizens demands for their rights. We also call upon the vandals to not tarnish the process of the Minga and the national strike.[1]
They tried to reduce the national strike to just another episode in their Minga and the strike as an ancillary activity, and claim the strike began in earnest because they joined it a few days later. In fact in their communiques they always talked about the Minga and the national strike, and in that order. It was a brazen attempt to impose their agenda on a national agenda. But they did not last long in Cali and by May 11th they withdrew, not just because it went badly for them, as it is not the same to fight in the territory that they know than an urban city, but also due to political questions.[2]
Nonetheless, the CRIC is accepted as a permanent reference point, unlike other indigenous organisations, when it doesn’t always deserve to be so. The indigenous peoples are like any other community. There are left wingers and there are also right-wing sectors, amongst them the ex-governor of Cauca Floro Tunubala, who following his term of office went to work with the Coca-Cola Foundation, which is not exactly renowned for its defence of Mother Earth. There are others still that aim to do deals with mining companies in exchange for money.
I took part in an event in the UAIIN (The Indigenous Autonomous Intercultural University where I explained the social, ecological and cultural damage that gold mining would bring and following my presentations a leader warned those in attendance that whilst my interventions were interesting, Colombia needed the gold i.e. to allow the entry of mining companies. Other leaders, however, invited me to hike through their reserves carrying out a series of workshops with the indigenous communities. The indigenous peoples and their organisations are like those of the peasants and urban sectors. There are all sorts. But some sectors of the Left treat them as icons that cannot be criticised. They have even gone as far as the ridiculous point of trying to replicate indigenous rites and ceremonies in events. The Colombian Left has a problem with religious mysticism and superstition and not just in the case of the indigenous. More than once I have had to momentarily withdraw from a secular event, where I was a speaker, whilst a priest or religious person (generally Catholic) blessed the event. It is shameful but common amongst an incoherent Left.
According to some sectors of the Left, the indigenous have an ancestral millennial knowledge. All cultures in the world come from times past. In some cases we can talk of centuries and even millennia, but all those cultures have changed. The idea of a static millennial culture is just as racist as the colonial vision of indigenous cultures. But now that those peoples with their ancestral knowledge and unique wisdom have murdered each other in a fight for land and against an administrative decision of the National Land Agency, where is that unique wisdom? It doesn’t exist because it has never existed.
According to some sectors of the Left, the indigenous have an ancestral millennial knowledge. All cultures in the world come from times past. In some cases we can talk of centuries and even millennia, but all those cultures have changed. The idea of a static millennial culture is just as racist as the colonial vision of indigenous cultures. But now that those peoples with their ancestral knowledge and unique wisdom have murdered each other in a fight for land and against an administrative decision of the National Land Agency, where is that unique wisdom? It doesn’t exist because it has never existed.
Their organisations are like the rest of Colombia, with a particular vision that competes with the rest. In the case of the CRIC it is worth highlighting that it is an indigenous organisation, an NGO and a company that tenders for state contracts and manages a significant chunk of the state budget. So far, under the current government it has signed contracts for 405 billion pesos (roughly 100 million US dollars).[3] Some of them are health related matters and ethno-education, legitimate and necessary things. Though when they hire indigenous teachers for ethno-education they don’t always get good contracts but rather short term contracts etc.. There is a worsening in working conditions compared to the whites they replaced. This is called capitalism and job insecurity a la CRIC. It is worth pointing out that this is not something new under Petro’s government but rather also a reality under the governments of Duque and Santos.
So let the idea of indigenous organisations as the vanguard of social struggles die! There is nothing special about them. They represent a variety of positions, some progressive others openly reactionary. They are simply one political current more in the country and deserve the same respect as other organisations. They are social organisations with wide support base and have played an important role in various struggles at various times. But no more than that. We should no idealise them just like we don’t idealise trade unions that nowadays are a source of corruption and sometimes act as brake on the struggles of their members. We should also remember that the CRIC is just one indigenous organisation. There are many more.
The response to the massacre of indigenous in Cauca has been very poor. And it was a massacre, a massacre being the murder of four or more people in the same space and time. For example, the Congress of the Peoples asked both groups to engage in dialogue and harmony.[4] It was very soft. I cannot conceive of a situation where workers in two different unions in a company murdered each other and all is asked of them is dialogue and harmony.
The market led agrarian reform is buried in the tombs of the dead whose blood spilled on the fields of Cauca in a fight between the poor and not against landlords or the state. The market led agrarian reform is individual, not collective, and always puts some poor in a fight against others, though in the majority of cases the fight is bureaucratic and administrative and does not result in violence, though it is always ideological. It is never against the state and the oligarchy. And all the ancestral wisdom did not give the Nasa or the Misak greater knowledge about their real enemy.
So let the idea of indigenous organisations as the vanguard of social struggles die! There is nothing special about them. They represent a variety of positions, some progressive others openly reactionary. They are simply one political current more in the country and deserve the same respect as other organisations. They are social organisations with wide support base and have played an important role in various struggles at various times. But no more than that. We should no idealise them just like we don’t idealise trade unions that nowadays are a source of corruption and sometimes act as brake on the struggles of their members. We should also remember that the CRIC is just one indigenous organisation. There are many more.
The response to the massacre of indigenous in Cauca has been very poor. And it was a massacre, a massacre being the murder of four or more people in the same space and time. For example, the Congress of the Peoples asked both groups to engage in dialogue and harmony.[4] It was very soft. I cannot conceive of a situation where workers in two different unions in a company murdered each other and all is asked of them is dialogue and harmony.
The market led agrarian reform is buried in the tombs of the dead whose blood spilled on the fields of Cauca in a fight between the poor and not against landlords or the state. The market led agrarian reform is individual, not collective, and always puts some poor in a fight against others, though in the majority of cases the fight is bureaucratic and administrative and does not result in violence, though it is always ideological. It is never against the state and the oligarchy. And all the ancestral wisdom did not give the Nasa or the Misak greater knowledge about their real enemy.
References
[1] RNC (30/04/2021) Para Nacional: el CRIC anuncia que se unirá a las manifestaciones.
[2] CRIC (13/05/2021) El Paro Nacional y el CRIC: La lucha continua. https://www.cric-
[3] El Tiempo (03/07/2025) Los detalles del nuevo millonario contrato entre el Cric y el gobierno: sería el quinto en lo que va del 2025.
[4] See Communiqué (22/05/2026) Mensaje de armonización y lucha.
[1] RNC (30/04/2021) Para Nacional: el CRIC anuncia que se unirá a las manifestaciones.
[2] CRIC (13/05/2021) El Paro Nacional y el CRIC: La lucha continua. https://www.cric-
[3] El Tiempo (03/07/2025) Los detalles del nuevo millonario contrato entre el Cric y el gobierno: sería el quinto en lo que va del 2025.
[4] See Communiqué (22/05/2026) Mensaje de armonización y lucha.
⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.
|
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
Frankie Quinn with a poem from his expansive body of work.
Hunger
Hunger Small precious gift beneath rubble’s volume
Hidden within crusty darkness longing for light
It grows with intense penetrating pureness
Curled protected small foot dissolved with security
Of solid foundation anchored forever wanting home.
♞♜♝
Hunger burns within Sands’ crystallised fusion
Creates wondrous stone viewed by none who
Dare open wounds entwined in the belly of
An ocean of pain swallowed saltwater lives fall on
A May Day hovering above still-living Gaza strip.
♞♜♝
Ever so patiently open to reveal the precious
Poet who died to free the immortal soul
Sought after by all who proclaim righteousness
Inside the Zionist tomb where sleep becomes
An oystercatcher’s nightmare locked in a H Block hell.
⏩ Frankie Quinn is a former republican prisoner who is now a community activist. He is the author of Open Gates, a book of poetry.
Meet the finalists for this £15,000 fiction prize for writers from refugee and migrant backgrounds who shine a light on today’s most pertinent topics.
More details forPurcell Room
Tickets from £5 + £4 booking feeView more time and price information
Run time 1 hour and 15 minutes (approx)
Dates & tickets
This event brings together some of the shortlisted authors of the prize, ahead of the announcement of the overall prize winner in June. During the event, chaired by author Colin Grant, the writers reflect on themes of displacement, belonging, courage and creativity, both in the selected works and beyond.
The winner is selected by a judging panel composed of acclaimed writer Dina Nayeri; Waterstones’ Head of Books, Bea Carvalho; Waterstones Debut Fiction Prize-shortlisted and Observer Best New Novelist, Gurnaik Johal; Footnote Press Commissioning Editor, Serena Arthur; and director and co-founder of Counterpoints Arts, Almir Koldzic.
The shortlisted works include:
Eleanor Chan’s When I Bleed It Is Like a Squashed Raspberry, a meditation on amnesia, re-remembering and the healing power of storytelling.
Jose Hall’s What The Trees Remember, which follows a neurodivergent woman of Jamaican and Cornish heritage uncovering fractured histories of migration, otherness and silence.
Erica Li’s A Thousand Rivers of Time, a family saga chronicling the lives of three generations of women from a Hakka-Chinese family from 1945 to the present.
Joel Mordi’s Backward Into the Future: ‘Her Past Was His Future’ an Afro-folkloric novel in which a trans griot who guards ancestral memory and a gay Nigerian asylum seeker become bound across time.
Ahmed Najar’s The Weight of Staying which follows a Palestinian-British narrator reckoning with exile, where surviving the loss of place draws him into ghosthood.
Maryam Namazie’s Bird of Dawn which charts an encounter between a pregnant Iranian refugee cast into the Aegean Sea and an ancient folkloric witness.
Presented in association with Counterpoints Arts and Footnote.
Colin Grant is an author whose books include Bageye at the Wheel, shortlisted for the Pen Ackerley Prize; Homecoming: Voices of the Windrush Generation; I’m Black So You Don’t Have to Be; and his forthcoming book What We Leave We Carry.
 |
| Maryam Namazie is a is a British-Iranian secularist, communist and human rights activist, commentator, and broadcaster. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
