Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Marisa McGlinchey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marisa McGlinchey. Show all posts
Irish Politics Forum  Brendan Flynn Interviews 
Dr. Marisa McGlinchey, winner of the 2020 Brian Farrell PSAI “Best Book” Prize for 2020.
 
Dr. Marisa McGlinchey, is the author of Unfinished Business: The ‘Politics’ Of ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism, Manchester: MUP. (2019) ISBN 978 0 7190 9698 3. She is based at the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University. 

Her research interest lies in Irish politics with a focus on ‘dissident’ Irish republicanism and constitutional nationalism, with her most recent work published by Manchester University Press and the Swiss Political Science Review. Since publication of Unfinished Business she has provided expert commentary in various broadcast and print media outlets including the BBC, UTV, RTE, Al Jazeera and Spotlight. 

 

BF: Hello Marisa, congrats on winning the Brian Farrell Book Prize, I hope it was some nice news for you and your family amidst all of this Covid doom and gloom?

MM: Thanks Brendan. I’m absolutely delighted! It was wonderful news to get and it has been really nice celebrating something so positive amidst all the doom and gloom. A big thank you to the judges! 

BF:  Marisa, tell us about the origins of the book-why did you write it, what was the academic background to the book as it were?

MM: I did my PhD at Queen’s University Belfast on the electoral decline of the SDLP in the post Good Friday period and I’m currently working on turning that into a book for Manchester University Press. I’m enjoying updating that and conducting more interviews for it. But I had always intended my first book to be on the topic of so-called ‘dissident’ Irish republicanism. I grew up in West Belfast, a political hotbed of republican activity and as I got older I became more and more aware of republicans who were critical of Sinn Féin or the wider Provisional Movement and my intellectual curiosity grew about what I saw developing around me and these former comrades who became so bitterly divided. I wanted to conduct an academically rigorous piece of research on radical / traditional republicanism; an in-depth study of who so-called ‘dissidents’ are and what motivates them. For me it was important to go out and interview republicans throughout Ireland to really delve into the psyche of ‘dissident’ republicanism and understand it and so I began travelling around Ireland and meeting with people and identifying interviewees and it grew from there.

BF: I wonder could you tell us about how you wrote the book, the research design, because it seems to me a real strong point of the design was the focus on interviews-you got extensive access to a lot of diverse Republican views and you did 90 interviews-how on earth did you manage that?

MM: Yes I think a key strength of this work is the interviews contained throughout. The research took several years as so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism is a diverse base comprising of different organisations and independents and so it took some time to accurately capture that. I conducted 90 interviews and in-fact I had to stop at 90 to get the book written. More potential interviewees continued to come forward. After the Boston College project there was a lot of speculation that a project like this couldn’t be done but I found republicans very willing to talk and to put their position forward. I also followed some valuable advice to never allow any interviewee to disclose anything illegal about themselves or anyone else. I started every interview asking interviewees not to disclose anything of that nature and I think that helped establish trust. It was really important to me to gather those voices and present their views in their own words throughout the book which really brings the work to life. I approached various republican organisations and individuals and I attended various Easter commemorations and events throughout Ireland. In fact the book cover is a photo which I took at a Republican Sinn Féin commemoration outside the GPO in Dublin in 2016.

The more I travelled around and attended various events the more potential interviewees I met and it snowballed from there. There is a tendency to talk about ‘dissident’ republicanism as simply a Northern phenomenon which of course is inaccurate and so it was important to get a good geographical spread of interviewees as well as gender, age and individuals at different levels within organisations from leadership to grass roots. I interviewed individuals from different generations with the youngest being a 19 year old Na Fianna member in Dublin and the eldest was 93 year old Billy McKee in Belfast who had been imprisoned in every decade between the 1930s and 1970s. Other interviewees include Phil O’ Donoghue who was on the Brookeborough raid with Seán South in 1957. I also interviewed a significant base of independent republicans as well as those involved in armed groups, which naturally were the most difficult and sensitive to arrange. I asked spokespersons for armed groups what they hoped to achieve, as well as where they take legitimacy from. Further, I asked (given altered structural conditions within the North) do they feel any present campaign is morally sound. Their views on those issues are presented in their own words.

I also interviewed some republican prisoners in Maghaberry prison regarding their ideology and motivations which was also an important part of the work. Their families kindly gave up their visits to me so that I could go into the prison and conduct my interviews. I wanted to move beyond simple stereotypes to really understand ‘dissident’ republicanism and I believe the best way to gain insight and understanding is to speak to the people involved. The interviews revealed ideologically held positions fused with very personal testimonies. This work has effectively created a valuable oral history of a particular point in time and some of those interviewed had never given an interview to anyone else, some of whom have since died. The book presents those voices throughout whilst also drawing on the historical tradition of republicanism; and locates so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism within that longer trajectory.
 
BF:. You write in the conclusion: 

Presently, radical republicanism can be characterised by a high level of individual movement between organisations, which is not conducive to the establishment and sustainable development of radical groups.

Do you think ‘radical republicanism is doomed to remain factionalized and on the political margins, or what future trajectory do you see?

Radical (or traditional) republicanism has witnessed a high level of movement between the groups with some individuals having been a member of several groups, sometimes fuelling suspicion in a world that is ever guarded about potential infiltration by the security services. Over the years there have been some calls for the base to come together so that some collective strength can be drawn from that. But it is unlikely that will happen as the organisations have distinct identities with clear tactical water between them, often arising from the different conditions in which the organisations emerged. As well as the organisations there is also a significant base of independent republicans such as Tommy McKearney, Gerard Hodgins, Richard O’ Rawe, Anthony McIntyre and others. And so, when people talk about so-called ‘dissident’ republicans they tend to focus on the groups or more specifically the armed groups. But there is a much wider base there including a spectrum of views within, ranging from those who profess complete support for current armed actions through to those who are very vocal and vociferous in their condemnation. It is highly likely to continue in that manner rather than any coming together of the base, beyond loosely working together around prisoners’ issues. While united in traditional republican objectives groups remain tactically diverse.

Radical republicans fundamentally reject both the Northern and Southern states created out of partition, as well as their associated structures and so by their very nature they will remain on the margins. In fact radical/traditional republicanism continuously cautions against any actions which would draw them into the system and in their view put them on the ‘slippery slope to constitutional nationalism’.

MM: Finally, you mention how Brexit has created opportunities for radical republicanism as regards their political and ideological mobilization, but has Covid-19 have had any similar impacts?

MM: I don’t see any impact of Covid-19 on radical republicanism. Any politically or economically destabilizing event will always be assessed for possible opportunities but to date I haven’t seen any impact of Covid-19 on the trajectory of republicanism. Technically Brexit does not alter anything for traditional republicanism. But what it has done is put the issue of the border in Ireland back into the mainstream in a way in which it hasn’t been in recent years. Spokespersons for republican groups have called it a much needed shot in the arm for Irish republicanism and have stated that it serves as a reminder to those who may need it that Ireland is still partitioned. One republican is quoted as describing Brexit as the biggest chance republicans have had since 1916. Brexit resulted in renewed international attention on the border, focusing on republican groups, and drew news crews and documentary makers from around the world. When asked about the impact of Brexit a member of one of the groups in Derry said to a news crew ‘well that’s why you’re here interviewing me and listening to our position’.

Republicans will always seize an opportunity that presents itself and Brexit was one such opportunity. Republicans will be aware that some within the North may now be asking whether they would be better off in a united Ireland within the EU rather than remaining in the UK on the outside. Republicans are also keenly watching developments in Scotland and the possibility of a second independence referendum in future. For some, Brexit has raised the old mantra - ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’.

⏭ Irish Politics Forum is the blog of the Irish Political Studies / The PSAI. 

Brian Farrell Book Prize Awarded To Marisa McGlinchey

From The Belfast Telegraph as Sinn Fein members say they are under death threats from dissidents for attending a police recruitment event Marisa McGlinchey argues that was a normal step for a party hoping to be in government on both sides of the border. 

The declining number of Catholic police officers in the PSNI has led to a recent recruitment drive by the organisation in a bid to encourage new recruits, particularly from a Catholic background.

It was the attendance of senior Sinn Fein members at this event that provoked a strong reaction from within the so-called 'dissident' republican base; and Sinn Fein has stated that the party has been informed of 'dissident' threats against party members.

Threats against Sinn Fein have been met with widespread scepticism from 'dissident' republicans with many believing that no such threat exists; however it is clear that Sinn Fein members are taking these threats seriously and believe them to be real.

So-called 'dissident' republicans, or traditional republicans, are wedded to the traditional republican campaign for a 32 county Ireland and are therefore fundamentally opposed to the state of Northern Ireland and its associated institutions - including those of law and order such as the courts and the PSNI. While traditional republicans may view Catholic recruits with particular disdain, the religious composition of the police service is not a significant factor in their opposition to it. The fact that a police officer is Catholic is seen as secondary to their role in defending the state.

On January 21, 1919 two Catholic RIC officers were killed by the IRA in Tipperary at the Soloheadbeg ambush which marked the start of the war of independence.

Much was made of the fact that they were Catholic and one was a native Irish speaker from Mayo, thus provoking a response from republicans at the time who stated that the killings were irrespective of religion or language but that they took place because they were 'members of a British police force in Ireland'.

Hard-line republicans today echo this traditional republican position that opposition to the PSNI is based on the fact that they are seen as maintaining the British presence in Ireland.

When in 1998 Sinn Fein accepted the consent principle, the concept of which had been advocated by John Hume and the SDLP since the 1970s, the party was overturning the traditional republican position which referred to consent as a unionist veto over Irish unity. In a series of documents exchanged during the Hume-Adams talks the SDLP advocated that the British presence in Ireland was in fact the unionist people; therefore advocating uniting the people of Ireland in the spirit of Wolfe Tone's call to unite Catholic, Protestant and dissenter.

Sinn Fein's eventual acceptance of the principle of consent and of the need to persuade unionists of the merits of Irish unity was a historic step. When Sinn Fein accepted consent and entered the power sharing institutions of Northern Ireland they were inevitably set on a path of accepting its institutions including the police.

Acceptance of consent and working the institutions of Northern Ireland were major points at which so-called 'dissident' republicans broke away from Sinn Fein or the wider Provisional Movement.

Traditional republicans continue to assert that consent is simply a unionist veto and they fundamentally reject any reform of the state of Northern Ireland, instead seeking revolutionary change and part of that revolutionary change would be a completely new police force, not a reformed one.

Reform of the PSNI is viewed as simply another step in the normalisation of the state of Northern Ireland. A key aim of 'dissident' republicans is to highlight the abnormal nature of the state of Northern Ireland and of the PSNI.

Traditional republicans reject that the PSNI is something new or different or that it is rooted in the community. In fact republicans draw a direct line from the RIC to the RUC to the PSNI, demonstrating this by deliberately and pointedly referring to the PSNI as the RUC.

The message put forward by 'dissident' republican groups such as Saoradh predominantly features anti-PSNI campaigns and highlights current republican prisoners in Maghaberry and Portlaoise prisons.

Saoradh regularly highlight house raids and stop and searches on its members; and Republican Sinn Fein and Saoradh have violently clashed with police at Easter commemorations, particularly in Derry and North Armagh.  

Whilst symbolically significant, Sinn Fein's attendance at the PSNI recruitment drive shouldn't have warranted the reaction it has provoked given that this is a logical step since the party's acceptance of the PSNI in 2007. The decision to accept legitimacy of the PSNI at a special ard fheis was the historic moment regarding the party's attitude to the police. Sinn Fein's appearance at an event which seeks to encourage more Catholics to join the PSNI lends itself to the party's ambition regarding reform of the police, seeking a force which is more representative of the community.

With Sinn Fein's massive electoral success in the recent Dail elections in the South, many see their long term strategy of being in power in the North and South as coming to fruition. The party continues with its strategy to push for a border poll and criticises the lack of a strategy put forward by 'dissident' republicans. Traditional republicans are fundamentally opposed to a border poll on the basis that it would take place exclusively in the six counties of Northern Ireland, that it has to be called by a (British) Secretary of State and that the sovereignty of the Irish nation is a right.

Further, they have argued that the goal posts will inevitably be changed regarding the threshold.

Whilst it looks unlikely that a border poll will actually take place, traditional republicans have stated that they will not partake in a border poll if one is called and they have called on others to not partake. This poses the question for traditional republicans - what if a border poll is lost by a small majority and they could have made the difference?

Regarding an armed campaign, the so-called dissident republican base is a spectrum of opinion including independents who have justified the Provisional IRA's campaign but are highly critical of groups who continue with a campaign at present; and interestingly a senior member of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement has stated: "I would go so far as to say that there should be no action in the North against any police."

But armed actions by the Continuity and New IRAs, which have almost exclusively targeted the PSNI, continue on as the organisations remain steadfast in their belief that the PSNI represent the first line of defence of the British occupation of the North of Ireland.

➽Marisa McGlinchey is an Assistant Professor in Political Science in the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University

Dissident Republicans See The PSNI As Upholding The British Presence In Ireland

Anthony McIntyre muses on the stifled world of republicanism and former republicanism.

A couple of recent events have helped to open a lid on the often-closed world of both current republicanism and its predecessor in the days when it could plausibly claim to have a republican pedigree.  

When John O’Dowd announced his challenge to Michelle O’Neill for the deputy leader spot within Sinn Fein it was followed by a period of silence, despite his optimism about the upcoming party and island wide debate. Most thought he was having a laugh as he certainly was not for real. Debate in Sinn Fein is like a Catholic in the Orange Order. Those on the outside looking in were told brusquely to move along, nothing to see here. O’Dowd was effectively muzzled. In any event, the debate: 

never happened. There were no hustings, no TV studio head-to-heads, and the initial social media discussion between Sinn Fein members after O’Dowd’s declaration was shut down swiftly. 

If O'Dowd was going to win the contest he first had to be able to make his pitch, but the party seemed intent on not allowing that to happen. The appointed one was to remain in place. O’Neill, conversely, merely had to sit silent and the status quo would remain undisturbed, the feathers of the peacock unruffled by the audacious posturing from the pretender to her throne.

The event itself was like a papal conclave. While professing little interest, neither I nor the keen observers were offered a glimpse. Anyone interested enough - I was not included in their number - had to wait on the white smoke which first announced the winner but held back on displaying the score card. The day prior to the vote some wit posted on twitter congratulating O’Neill on her victory the following day. As for O'Dowd he ended up "banished to political Siberia"

A seasoned journalist later rang me to suggest the result was close otherwise they would have announced it. I didn’t concur. Tight or not, the party wears a mask in order to prevent peering from without.  And it seems Saoradh -  perhaps more honest about wearing masks  - having picked up the republican baton dropped by Sinn Fein, is as opposed to scrutiny as its erstwhile comrades

The authoritarian need to dictate and impose its writ appears to be part of the republican DNA. Saoradh showed that it means to carry on in the republican tradition of authoritarian imposition when it refused an invite to the author Marisa McGlinchey to its ard fheis. McGlinchey was angry whereas I would have seen it as a cause to celebrate. The reason given was a pretty lame one: she had written a piece for the Sunday World.

The late journalist Marty O’Hagan, almost certainly killed by protected agents within the LVF, worked for the paper but never refrained from calling it the Sunday Worst. The paper has never been kind to Saoradh and it doesn't take a genius to work out that truth will never be allowed to stand in the way of a sleazy story where the rule of thumb seems to be fuck news, fake news will do. 

Still, that is no reason for depriving McGlinchey of a presence at the type of event where she seeks to ply her academic trade. Dictating to people for whom they will or will not write is the match that eventually burns books.  McGlinchey has arguably done more than any other writer in recent years to allow what passes for republicanism today to explain itself in its own words. Her engaging book Unfinished Business was considered so subversive of demonisation and marginalisation of those republicans regarded as dissidents it was banned for a while from Maghaberry Jail, which in these somewhat more enlightened times is on a par with a bread and water diet. Saoradh's attitude towards McGlinchey is indistinguishable from that of prison management at Maghaberry. 

First they came for the book, then they came for the writer. 

White Smoke

Marisa McGlinchey answers thirteen questions in a Booker's Dozen.



TPQ: What are you currently reading?

MM: I’ve just finished Patrick Radden Keefe’s Say Nothing and I’m now reading Séamus Mallon’s recently released memoir A Shared Home Place as part of the research I’m doing for my next book on the SDLP. About ten years ago I interviewed Séamus who was a very colourful and witty interviewee and so I’ve been keen to get stuck into this. I’m also curious about the controversy around his proposed changes to 50% plus one for Irish unity, which he deals with towards the end of the book. Also sitting on my bedside table is The Big Wind by Beatrice Coogan which appealed to me because it combines politics, Irish republicanism and a bit of romance. I’m not far into it but I’m at the bit where Daniel O’Connell, ‘The Liberator’, has just arrived in town. 

TPQ: Best book you have ever read?

MM: There have been so many great ones but there are some that stand out including Walter Macken’s The Scorching Wind which is set during the Easter Rising in 1916 and its aftermath. The book tells the tragic story of two brothers who politically diverge on the treaty and take opposing sides in the civil war. The film The Wind That Shakes The Barley is partly based on it. I also like James Joyce’s Dubliners and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby for a bit of escapism. One of my favourites is Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’ Urbervilles as I love a dark tragic romance!

TPQ: A must-read before you die?

MM: Until a few years ago the answer to this was Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence, simply because it had been banned and I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. But I picked that up in the famous Shakespeare shop in Paris. When I arrived home and my granny spotted it she blessed herself. Then I really had to read it! So that’s ticked off the list. Other than that James Joyce’s Ulysses. I keep meaning to pick this up and it has been on my list for years. Again, the fact that it was banned appeals to me. It has a notorious reputation and seems to strongly divide opinion and so I’m curious.

TPQ: A preference for fact or fiction?

MM: Fact! Naturally I love anything political. I also have a particular passion for true crime. My book cases are filled with true crime books. I think they tell us a lot about society and human nature, delving into the psychology of individuals. In another life I might have been a criminal psychologist. But I do love fiction too, especially the classics.

TPQ: Favourite female author?

MM: This question reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. I love the classics and especially ones that deal with the position of women in society at particular periods in time. I once said to a male friend of mine that I love the writing of George Elliott as he really gets into the female psyche and understands women. I was promptly told ‘erm George Elliott is a woman’. Doh! So I’d probably say George Elliott.

TPQ: Favourite male author?

MM: For fiction probably Thomas Hardy. For fact probably J. Bowyer Bell. I love his style of writing and a particular favourite of mine is The Secret Army: The IRA. For True Crime I like books by Barry Cummins as he concentrates on Irish cases. In fact I’m at the stage where I can’t find any of his books that I haven’t read. And of course Martin Dillon, particularly his trilogy which includes The Shankill Butchers. 

TPQ: First book you ever read?

MM: Probably a Roald Dahl book. Possibly The BFG or The Witches.

TPQ: Favourite childhood author?

MM: I absolutely loved Roald Dahl. I loved being transported into his world of whizz poppers and human beans. I think I read every book he wrote. I have vivid memories of reading The BFG which was a particular favourite of mine and so I really enjoyed going to see it in the cinema a few years ago when it was turned into a film. I also liked Enid Blyton and I was obsessed with the Goosebumps books. It got to the stage where my mum couldn’t find any that I hadn’t read. Even as a child I loved a good scary book.

TPQ: Any book you point blank refuse to read?

MM: I don’t think there’s any book I’d refuse to read but I wouldn’t be keen on science fiction. I’ve never liked it at all!

TPQ: Any author you point blank refuse to read?

MM: No I don’t think so. I’d probably give anything a try.

TPQ: Pick a book to give to somebody so that they would more fully understand you.

MM: Probably my own book Unfinished Business; The Politics Of ‘Dissident’ Irish Republicanism as it gives an insight into what occupies my mind a lot of the time. My former editor at Manchester University Press has publicly asked me to write a book on the background story of doing the republican book. He actually said it would be a thriller! It would probably provide a lot of insight into me, my experiences and what motivates me. But I strongly doubt I’ll ever write that book.

TPQ: Last book you gave as a present?

MM: I actually went into Waterstones in Belfast last week and bought my own book to post to an uncle of mine who lives in Province in France. I remember as a child when I was supposed to be in bed I’d creep back down the stairs and listen to the political discussions between him and my granny which partly inspired my early passion for the subject and so I wanted to send him a signed copy of my book.

TPQ: Book you would most like to see turned into a movie?

MM: The Brendan Hughes part of Voices From The Grave. I live in West Belfast and sometimes when I’m passing the streets of the Lower Falls I think about Hughes and others swiftly moving around that tapestry of back streets amidst British army patrols, gun battles and chaos. As shown in this book he led an extraordinary life and I would like to see that on screen.


⏭ Marisa McGlinchey is a West Belfast researcher at Coventry University.
.

Booker's Dozen @ Marisa McGlinchey

Marisa McGlinchey discusses her book Unfinished Business with Anthony McIntyre.

AM: The book – it made quite a stir when it came out and people still mention it to me. I found it a tremendous read, a pulling together of so many diverse strands of thinking. I have still to complete a review of it. I started one and then got waylaid but hopefully it will feature on TPQ shortly. It was less a strange topic to write about than it was a necessary one because the gap in understanding that needed filling was considerable. You did a great job in enhancing pubic understanding. And no attempt to rest on your laurels and shy away from critical questioning. You went to the crease and batted for your perspective: always the real mark of an authentic public thinker.

MM: Thanks. I look forward to the review as it’s always good to hear how the book is being received and I’m interested to know your take on what it has achieved. As you say there was a considerable gap in understanding, and I wanted to produce a piece of work that moved beyond the simple stereotypes around “dissident” republicanism that seem to dominate the mainstream. I wanted to delve into the psyche of so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism and really get to the heart of what it means. I felt that the best (and only) way to do that was to speak to republicans on the ground and present their actual voices throughout the book. I travelled around Ireland interviewing 90 so-called ‘dissident’ republicans, including some prisoners in Maghaberry prison and spokespersons for armed groups. I wanted to show the wide spectrum of opinion that exists across organisations and independents. 

AM: For you, did it achieve what you wanted in terms of it serving up what it said on the tin? It did for me but I wonder what you feel as quite often we tend to reflect, revisit and over analyse, wondering if we could have done something differently. 

MM: I hope that the book achieves my original aims but when you have a restricted amount of words that you can write you’ll always think of other things you’d like to have included. Maybe that’s for another book. I think this book has compiled a significant oral history of republican views at a particular period in time. Some people interviewed for this work had never given an interview to anyone and some of those people are now deceased. Some may see the main contribution of this book as putting on the record a number of voices which may have been lost over time. 

AM: I am wondering about the motivation for writing it - it is a subject that is all too often given a wide berth but you sailed right into the wind. 

MM: Personally, I was in part motivated by my background. I was born and raised in the republican hotbed of West Belfast and so I saw this developing around me as former comrades became bitterly divided. My family fled Clonard during the burning of Bombay Street in ’69 and my granny was very friendly with Tom Williams. In fact members of my family actually started the petition outside St Paul’s chapel to gather signatures for Tom’s reprieve; and some of my family were involved in the SDLP from 1970 and so there was always politics talk in my home.

AM: I notice you employ inverts when using the term dissident. I often wonder why republicans don’t like being described as dissident. I was dissenting before many of the people in the book were and have never been unhappy to self-define as a dissident republican. A republican in a monarchy has to be a dissident: there would be something wrong were they not.

MM: Yes that’s true about the word dissident. Many of the republicans I have spoken to or interviewed have said exactly the same as you - that they’ve always been a dissident and they are proud of that. Several republicans spoke to me about their solidarity with dissidents around the world. In fact many have said to me that if they weren’t a dissident then there would be something fundamentally wrong with their republicanism. You’ve reminded me of a conference I was at last August in Coventry where Alastair Campbell and I were both speakers and when someone introduced us he smiled and said ‘will you include me as a dissident in your book?’ Clearly, like yourself, Alastair likes the label!

AM: It is not so much that I like it but am not uncomfortable with it. I understand that since the Omagh bomb in particular, it has acquired the inflection of deviant. It is the inflection I would have a problem with, not the term. Is that the problem?

MM: For many the problem stems from the way in which the word is used, particularly here in the North. I remember being in a taxi here in West Belfast and the driver asked me the topic of the book I was writing. I simply told him what it was on and he replied ‘oh you’re one of them dissidents’ and a nice uncomfortable silence befell the taxi for the rest of the journey. It conjures negative connotations and is mainly used in a derogatory sense. I personally don’t like using the word and I tend to put it in inverted commas or put so-called before it. As a term I think it’s simply inaccurate, given that it has been used to imply something new. Many of the people I interviewed were active in the Republican Movement prior to the formation of the Provisional IRA in 1969 - people such as Billy McKee, Lita Campbell or Richard Behal. Phil O’Donoghue was on the Brookeborough raid with Seán South in 1957. Republicans are espousing the same message and ideology that they always have. And so I have to ask, dissenting from what?

AM: You had a wide range of people to draw upon, but also a view from a person strongly associated with Sinn Fein and who has been excoriating of the type of republican your book focuses on.

MM: I also wanted to include interviews from Sinn Féin but that didn’t materialise and so I extensively interviewed Danny Morrison to provide that perspective throughout the book. I felt it was important to include that counterweight position and Danny gave a lot of time, over a number of interviews to answering my questions; which is probably why he joked with me when leaving his home that it had been an interrogation rather than an interview.

AM: It was useful for you that Danny Morrison agreed to participate, although I am not sure of the need for his input into an oral history on dissident republicanism. A better approach, I think, is rather than include Morrison in the way you did, would have been to put his perspective to the people you interviewed. I am not criticising either you or him on this matter, merely wondering if it could have been employed differently. I am have drafted a review of The Wrong Man at the minute, which needs completing. It is quite a good piece of work.

MM: Yes that could have been another approach but I wanted to ask interviewees about their ideology, activism and strategy and I didn’t want to do that through the lens of the Sinn Féin position. I was conscious that I wanted the questions to be open and not leading and I was very interested to see how interviewees would interpret the questions and what immediately came to mind for them and what points they wanted to make. For example one of the questions which I put to all interviewees was about acceptance or rejection of the PSNI. I feel that the research was more rigorous by asking questions like this, rather than putting the Sinn Féin perspective (or Danny’s) to interviewees and then getting their response to that. I found it more valuable to see how the interviewees responded and then undertake a comparison of their views with Danny’s (and vice-versa). But you’ve raised an interesting point and I actually think that the approach you’ve suggested was partly being employed, albeit unconsciously. Inevitably, interviewees were asked to engage with Sinn Féin’s position and vice-versa with Danny’s interview. Regarding Danny’s participation, I think it greatly strengthened the work to juxtapose the two positions throughout the book.

AM: Obviously you did not find republicans monsters. There are some people on Twitter I interact with and they seem perfectly rational until republicanism comes up and then a gasket blows. They are suddenly consumed by this hatred. Not against me personally but against anything republican. I have seen the vitriol poured on John Finucane – the very surname seems to drive them apoplectic and the current mayor of Belfast is suddenly almost an IRA devourer of Protestant babies, a Roland Freisler type. While there are always religious wackos that scream biblical obscenities, the people I am thinking of don’t seem in the slightest religious, but they hate with the bible’s perfect hate. Do you think your work which humanises armed republicans without in the slightest excusing their actions, can ever penetrate that seething cauldron of hatred? I am not speaking about all loyalists – many of them are very engaging and nuanced in their thinking. They differ for sure, but they don’t pulsate with that intense animosity which I always find disquieting.

MM: I launched this book in Belfast, Dublin and London and some people have said to me that they’ve never seen such a mix of people come together - those in attendance included academics, print and broadcast journalists, a well-known local comedian, SDLP, former IRA prisoners, a member of the House of Lords and our parish priest. Some journalist friends who were at the Belfast launch have told me that there were loyalists there, including former UVF prisoners. I wasn’t aware of that at the time and in fact I wasn’t aware that some of them queued to get their book signed. I was surprised and interested to hear this. I think it’s a really positive thing that the launch attracted such a diverse mixture of people and I’m delighted that there were also loyalists there who were interested enough to give up their time to come along.

In terms of conflict and understanding I think the starting point is always to humanise people and actually understand their views and motivation. That doesn’t mean you have to accept them or agree with them. I don’t know if this work can help penetrate the ‘cauldron of hatred’ that you’ve referred to but I hope in the very least that it presents an understanding of republicans and their position and views. After publishing the book I received some anonymous Facebook messages stating ‘up the UDR’, ‘Ulster is British’ and ‘No surrender!’ from people who I assume don’t want to leave that cauldron and probably haven’t read the book. But I have also been contacted by loyalists who have read the book with a lot of interest and curiosity, some of whom have asked me to meet them and sign their copy of the book.

AM: The Know-Nothing club remains vibrant, but many of the Loyalists I have engaged with over the years have been highly astute. From time to time we carry their stuff on the blog. I have long been an admirer of the writing of Clifford Peeples from when I first read him in Fortnight, which might surprise some but hardly yourself. His ideas and my own hardly gel, but the man simply has a talent for getting his thoughts across via the written word. Gareth Mulvenna has got into the psyche well but there has to be room there for the type of work you have done with republicans.

MM: I actually saw Clifford Peeples speaking at an event in Conway Mill in Belfast in February. Republican Sinn Féin had organised the forum on the Éire Nua policy and had invited all parties. I was surprised that it wasn’t picked up by the media as this was one of the first times that such public debate has taken place between RSF and loyalism. Given that Éire Nua is a federal policy for all the people of Ireland, including unionists, it was fascinating to watch the exchanges between Clifford and members of RSF around the policy.

I do think there is room for a similar study of loyalism; one that would compile an extensive oral history across the various strands. Maybe one is already in the making?! I hope one is produced as I think it would be a great contribution to the literature. To whomever is undertaking it, I would pass on the wise advice that you once gave me - just don’t let anyone disclose anything of an illegal nature, ever.

AM: Have you got any feel from the many conferences and launches you have attended as to how those with the security services have viewed Unfinished Business? I know it is instinctive to them to try and use it for intelligence gathering purposes or for something they can prosecute someone for and you were assiduous in your efforts to ensure that your work was free from the errors that so weakened the Boston College project. But was there anything that indicated to you that they might see things differently? I have spoken to and debated with many PSNI at conferences over the years in Oxford and Cambridge and noticed how some of them at least had recalibrated their view on the IRA campaign. While certainly not lending any justification to it they had acquired a better more nuanced understanding of why it was fought.

MM: I don’t know if there were any members of the security services at the conferences I spoke at as none ever identified themselves or asked a question that would indicate a security background. I honestly don’t know how the security services view this work or if it has changed their understanding. I had anticipated that after the book’s publication I may be contacted by them, especially as a few years ago the Sunday World carried a quote from a DUP MP stating that my tapes should be seized by the PSNI, but I haven’t had any contact from the security services.

However, I recently had a meeting with the prison service over the banning of my book in Maghaberry. At the end of the meeting the conversation turned a bit more informal and interestingly the individuals there were curious about my motivation for writing the book and they expressed surprise that so many republicans agreed to be interviewed and that they all agreed to be named. This is a point that people often mention to me. I think people see so-called ‘dissident’ republicans as operating in the shadows and when they read this book they are struck by the fact that all are named, apart from the spokespersons for armed groups; and far from operating in the shadows many are prominent members of their community. Interviewees include solicitors, elected councillors, a taxi driver, students, a retired psychiatric nurse, etc. So my general impression is that the book has challenged mainstream stereotypes regarding who so-called “dissidents” are and people are also surprised to learn that the “dissident” republican spectrum is quite nuanced and includes many individuals who do not support the current use of armed actions by republican groups.

AM: Unionists, how did they react? I have spoken to DUP people at conferences about the IRA campaign and not all of them have the same view in private as they do in public. One senior figure told me had he been a young nationalist growing up in West Belfast in the 1970s he would have fought as well.

MM: So far it’s difficult to gauge unionist reaction to this book but it was launched in Belfast and Dublin by Paul Bew who is a member of the House of Lords in Westminster. At the time some journalists said that they were surprised that a unionist and Lord would be launching this book on republicanism. While Paul had no connection to this book he was my PhD supervisor at Queen’s University Belfast - my thesis was on the SDLP and I graduated in 2010. During the launches, Paul spoke of the ‘scholarly contribution’ which this book makes and has written: ‘anyone who has ever asked the question about “dissident” republicans - who are they and what do they think? - will find the answer here’, which appears on the back of the book. There were academics at the launches who are unionist and some of them talked about the insight into ‘dissident’ republicanism which the book has brought. They were struck by the fact that 90 republicans were interviewed and seemed curious to read what they had to say. They made comments similar to Paul about the book giving them an insight into who ‘dissidents’ are.

During the launches Paul revealed that he was particularly struck by a quote from interviewee Kevin Hannaway - which I open the introduction with. After apologising in advance for the language Paul read the quote verbatim from the book:


The present leadership of Sinn Féin – if they were out for an Irish Republic they failed. If they were out for civil rights they got it in 1973. So what the fucking hell was the other thirty years of war for?


AM: This takes me to a related topic. Incredibly the book ended up being banned from Maghaberry.  Prison management like some dinosaur that still believes it is in the 1970s H-Blocks continues to think in terms of Unfinished Business. It was like a throwback to less enlightened times when it prohibited a considerable band of material. Always on spurious grounds. I invariably found the NIO lie machine to be competing with the Thiepval lie machine for poll position. Yet the ban was overturned and you actually met with Ronnie Armour, which in the old days would never have happened. Then it was unfailingly a terse irrational answer from some faceless NIO pen pusher. Was it pure pettiness, sectarian bigotry, faux security concerns – all the traits that characterised the Prison service back in the day? Did Mr Armour offer any explanation? I am glad he actually read it and I hope he asks his colleagues to take a leaf out of the same book.

MM: When the book was banned in Maghaberry prison the story was carried by The Guardian, the Irish News and the BBC which is how it ended up on Ronnie Armour’s desk. I then received an email from the prison service requesting a meeting with me. That meeting took place recently and in attendance was the head of the prison service, Ronnie Armour, his PA and me. This was a constructive meeting. Going in I fully expected to be politely told that the ban would not be overturned but it was actually the opposite. Straight away Ronnie Armour said that when the book landed on his desk, and he read it, he realised that there were no grounds on which the book should be banned. He said that it was regretful that this had caused me personal annoyance but that something positive had come out of this case. He said he felt it was important to meet with me himself and he explained that there had been a blanket ban on anything relating to ‘paramilitarism’ entering the prison. Therefore the very topic of my book was enough to ban it. He said that when he read my book he immediately commissioned a review. The review resulted in a historic change, in that it got rid of the blanket ban and established guidelines on what constitutes banned material. He said that my book was used as the test case. The new process means that books will not be banned unless they breach the specific guidelines which include hate speech, extreme pornography, are racist or homophobic or encourage the commission of a crime. Ronnie Armour was keen to explain the context in which this ban was in place. He stated that the prison service are still living with the killing of colleagues and that the last two people killed by republicans were members of the prison service. But he stated that when he looked at my book he felt that the ban was ‘not appropriate’. At the end of the meeting it was also acknowledged that the ban can’t have hurt sales to which I asked if they would consider banning my next book on the SDLP, to which I was jokingly told ‘no. Thanks to you we can’t now’.

AM: Do you know what other books are banned from the jails? During the Blanket the only thing we ended up being allowed was the bible. A funny choice given that the prison service was claiming to be locking up people responsible for mass murder and here they were giving us a book where massacres were divinely approved and inspired. I refused to read the thing from about the autumn of 78 after some Board Of Visitors snob told me I should.

MM: I heard from some academic colleagues that various Irish politics books were banned including work on loyalism. I hadn’t been aware of this until this happened with my book. A Belfast based solicitor told me that a pamphlet relating to a current republican prisoner was also banned and that no reasons had been given. From what Ronnie Armour told me, it looks like any books relating to ‘paramilitarism’ at all were banned. I did laugh when a well-known republican said to me ‘don’t worry we’ll get it in’. The fact that someone would care enough to try to smuggle this academic book into a prison sounded like a dream scenario!

AM: Some of the ideas expressed in the book seemed weird and almost theological in their detachment from any sense of reality. I wonder how you found the patience to work on it.

MM: I loved doing the research and I loved travelling around Ireland and delving into people’s psyche regarding their background, motivations and tactics. Sometimes people expressed surprise that as many as 90 republicans would agree to be interviewed. In fact I had to stop at 90 to get the book written! More and more potential interviewees were coming forward and it was hard to stop. The fact that so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism contains such a wide spectrum of views meant that the research took several years as it involved approaching multiple organisations and individuals. I was fascinated in why individuals chose to join a particular organisation, given the numerous republican organisations which exit. As you say, some of the views expressed may be viewed by some as theological or doctrinal, which to me made it all the most interesting to try and understand why individuals are so driven in adhering to those positions. The human mind is fascinating and throughout the interviews I was hearing a combination of ideologically driven positions and people’s personal testimony based on their life experience, particularly within the Provisional Movement. A very interesting interviewee is the late Tony Catney of the 1916 societies. When I interviewed him in his home in Belfast I was surprised to hear that his exit from the Provisional Movement was mainly as a consequence of his belief that he was not permitted to express dissenting views, rather than any ideological criticism.

AM: What were the challenges you faced during the researching and writing? Were there times you ever felt like giving up? Your original co-author didn’t complete the journey and in some ways that leaves all the blame or credit to you for the finished item. In this case it is very much praise. Was it a sense of accomplishment or relief?

MM: From the outset this project was a really bumpy ride! The hits just kept coming. During the research I was stopped and searched by the PSNI as I was travelling to some of the interviews. I was also facing prosecution for allegedly partaking in an illegal parade in Lurgan in May 2016. I was simply taking photographs of the event, some of which appear in the book. It was only a few days ago that I received a letter saying that the prosecution service had decided not to prosecute. I was very lucky to have an understanding boss at Coventry who stood by me throughout this whole project and the difficulties that came. As I said at my book launches, I still laugh when I think about an event in the Ulster Museum which my boss had invited me to as he was one of the speakers. Other speakers included community organisations and elected representatives. As I walked in the door he quite loudly said “have they dropped the charges against you yet?” I got some very strange and curious looks from some MLAs sitting there and I went quite red.

I never once thought about giving up. I always knew I would produce this book. One of the biggest challenges was when my co-author didn’t deliver. But, like many other things that happened throughout this process, I view it as serendipitous that he didn’t! I began this research on my own at home in West Belfast and it grew into a project from there. But it was ‘my baby’ and my interviews with republicans; therefore the fact that I wrote this book on my own is the right outcome. A friend in Liverpool recently asked me how I coped with going from having a co-author to doing it completely alone. As I explained to him, all the research was my own anyway and so I just tore up the original book structure, took a deep breath and wrote a new structure which reflected what I wanted to cover. Given the various bumps on the road, some academic friends and colleagues have recently admitted to me that they never thought this book would see the light of day. I actually like hearing that as it’s a great sense of accomplishment and I always knew I’d get it out there.

AM: You got there and in style. Have you any Unfinished Business to complete now that you wish to share with our readers?

MM: I’m actually working on my second book with Manchester University Press. For me it is definitely unfinished business as it is based on my PhD thesis on the decline of the SDLP which I completed in 2010. I had always planned to bring it out as a book as it contains interviews which I conducted with John Hume, Gerry Adams, Bertie Ahern, Séamus Mallon, David Trimble, Gerry Kelly, Mark Durkan and many others. But I wanted to do the republican book first and then return to this. Séamus Mallon was in fine form and was particularly witty during his interview, at one stage referring to Gerry Kelly as acting like John the Baptist on the street at Drumcree; and soured by the SDLP’s exclusion, he sarcastically said that Adams and McGuinness were in Downing street so often during the peace negotiations that it was rumoured that they were on the electoral register in London as 10 Downing Street. Séamus’s wit needs to be shared…

I love true crime and so I’ve a few new books sitting on the bedside table waiting to be read, along with Anna Burn’s Milkman as I seem to be the only person in Ireland who hasn’t read it!

⏭Marisa McGlinchey is a West Belfast researcher at Coventry University.



In Quillversation ⬌ Unfinished Business

Author of Unfinished Business, historian Marisa McGlinchey writing in the Irish Times on the death of Lyra McKee.

Father Martin McGill’s words to the politicians gathered in front of him, including Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald and the Democratic Unionist Party’s Arlene Foster, in St Anne’s Cathedral in Belfast have gone around the world.

They were a clarion call in the wake of the brutal killing of 29-year-old journalist, Lyra McKee, provoking spontaneous applause and a standing ovation from the congregation including, awkwardly, the politicians.

The absence of a functioning Stormont government in Northern Ireland has contributed to polarisation and diminished community relations, but the actions of the New IRA are not a consequence of the political vacuum.

Nor is the escalation of activity by the New IRA a consequence of Brexit, as it made clear after a bombing attack in Derry in January, which could have killed and maimed.

Continue Reading @ Irish Times

‘The New IRA’s Actions Are Not A Consequence Of The North’s Political Vacuum’

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)