Irish Northern Aid
News
 |
||||
By Jim Dee
Friday, 24 July 2009
More than two months after he was scheduled to be deported from the US, Maze escapee Pol Brennan is still waiting to hear whether US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will allow him to remain in America or give the green light for his deportation to Ireland.
In May Brennan’s San Francisco-based lawyer formally petitioned Napolitano to waive a November 2008 deportation ruling by a Texas immigration judge.
Shortly after a Virginia appeals court upheld that decision in April, Brennan was told that he was to be deported on May 18.
Days before the deadline, three US Congressman — Democrats Richard Neal of Massachusetts and Joseph Crowley of New York, and New York Republican Peter King — penned a letter to Napolitano urging her to reconsider Brennan’s case.
The trio also asked Napolitano to ultimately override the deportation order and let the Ballymurphy native stay in the United States with his American wife of 20 years, who is the primary carer for her ailing 87-year-old mother.
Via a support website set up shortly after his detention, Brennan’s supporters have been urged to write and phone Barack Obama at the White House to urge the President to intervene on his behalf.
Brennan’s supporters have also recently raised thousands of dollars to cover his legal expenses.
Brennan has been in the custody of US immigration authorities since being detained at an immigration checkpoint in Texas in late January 2008 because his US-issued work permit had expired.
He had been living openly with US permission in Oakland, California, since 2000, when Britain dropped its efforts to have him extradited back to Northern Ireland for his role in the mass jailbreak of IRA prisoners from the Maze prison in September 1983.
After escaping the Maze he slipped into the US using an alias in 1984, where he lived undetected until 1993 when the FBI arrested him for applying for a US passport with a false name.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0727/1224251382233.html
Mon, Jul 27, 2009
WHEN CHARLES Haughey became taoiseach for the first time in 1979, a strong expectation existed among some of his supporters that he would adopt a strongly nationalist approach to Northern Ireland. They hoped this would be reflected in his dealings with the British government and with Irish-American supporters of the nationalist cause in Northern Ireland.
In the US, that cause was articulated vocally by allies of Sinn Féin and the IRA and their proxy organisations there, Noraid and the Irish National Caucus.
This greatly irritated Jack Lynch, Haughey’s predecessor as taoiseach and Fianna Fáil leader, as well as Garret FitzGerald, foreign minister in Liam Cosgrave’s 1973 to 1977 Fine Gael-Labour coalition government and successor to Cosgrave as leader of Fine Gael. Lynch and FitzGerald sought to counter the influence of Noraid and the INC whose politics and version of events in Northern Ireland they saw as undermining official Irish government policy on the North.
Not long after Haughey took office, the more pro-Sinn Féin/IRA activists in the US looked to him for a change of policy, in their favour. Haughey’s response brought him into conflict with Seán Donlon, Ireland’s ambassador in Washington.
The ensuing struggle between Haughey and Donlon was the subject of speculation at the time and has long been known in political and diplomatic circles, as well as to chroniclers of Haughey’s first two governments, 1979-1981 and 1982.
Now, 30 years later and for the first time, Donlon tells the story himself.
- Peter Murtagh
© 2009 The Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0727/1224251382225.html
SEÁN DONLON
Mon, Jul 27, 2009
MEMOIR: Within days of Charles Haughey becoming Taoiseach, there was uncertainty among Ireland’s friends in Washington as to what the change meant for policy. The fact that Neil Blaney and the Irish National Caucus welcomed the change added to their doubts
IN JULY, 1978, I was appointed Irish ambassador to the US. I had spent the previous seven years in the Anglo-Irish division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, much of it in Northern Ireland monitoring and assessing the situation there for the government.
When telling me of my appointment, the then taoiseach Jack Lynch said that the priorities in my mission were, firstly, to do everything possible to reduce US financial, political and logistical support for the Provisional IRA and, secondly, to work closely with the IDA to secure US investment in Ireland. The Ford Motor Company had recently, much to his disappointment, announced a major European investment in Wales rather than in Cork. Lynch felt that the British embassy in Washington, led by then British prime minister Ian Callaghan’s son-in-law, Peter Jay had played a significant role in the Ford decision.
From the early 1970s, the main political parties in Dublin were in substantial agreement on Northern Ireland policy. In particular, there was agreement that there was no role for organisations supporting violence, whether those organisations were based in Ireland or abroad. The Cosgrave government’s decision to name two US based organisations, The Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid) and the Irish National Caucus (INC) as supporters of the Provisional IRA’s campaign of violence was reiterated by the Lynch Government when it was returned to office in 1977.
I presented my credentials to president Jimmy Carter in October, 1978. A year earlier, Carter had become the first US president to indicate a positive interest in contributing to a resolution of the Northern Irish situation. Prompted by four prominent and powerfully placed politicians, speaker Tip ONeill, Senators Ted Kennedy and Pat Moynihan and governor Hugh Carey of New York (together to become known as the Four Horsemen), he issued a statement offering to help and holding out the carrot of financial assistance if the parties in the North and the British and Irish governments could reach agreement.
In line with Lynchs instructions, my US-based colleagues and I used every appropriate opportunity to make clear the Irish government’s position on the Provisional IRA and its US-support organisations. We briefed the major newspapers, usually at editorial board level. We went on radio talk shows. We briefed members of Congress, individually and in groups. We spoke at meetings of Irish-American organisations of which there were 12 organised nationally and about 220 at local level in the late 1970s.
The message we were giving was that violence was not justified and that we needed Irish-Americans to back the Irish government and support and encourage the Four Horsemen.
It was not an easy message to convey. The huge goodwill in the Irish-American community was not always matched by an appreciation of the realities of the situation back in Ireland. Not everyone accepted that it was not possible simultaneously to support the Irish government and the Provisional IRA. Aspects of British policy such as tolerance of unionist discrimination and excesses for 50 years, the introduction of one-sided internment in 1971, Bloody Sunday in 1972 and the failure to deal with the Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974 fed the view that the only thing that would move the British was violence.
Noraid was the US fundraising arm of the Provisional IRA and the INC was initially a related political front. Under pressure from the Irish and US authorities, the INC began to distance itself from the Provisional IRA in the mid-seventies and to focus on alleged violations of human rights in both parts of Ireland. Significant overlap of leadership between both organisations continued and the INC did not find it possible to condemn the violence of the Provisional IRA.
In congressman Mario Biaggi of New York they had found a supporter and through him had created in the US Congress an informal ad hoc committee on Irish Affairs. Because of his failure to condemn the use of violence in Ireland and because of dubious activities unconnected with Ireland which eventually led to his being convicted and jailed, the Four Horsemen were not prepared to have anything to do with Biaggi. Eventually, they drowned him out by creating the Friends of Ireland in Congress which grew to have more than 200 members in the 1980s. It was initially chaired by congressman Tom Foley who went on to become Speaker of the House in succession to Tip O’Neill.
On December 7th, 1979, Lynch was succeeded as leader of Fianna Fáil by Charles Haughey and four days later he was elected Taoiseach. The independent Fianna Fáil TD Neil Blaney happened to be visiting the US at the time as a guest of the INC. He immediately issued a statement saying that with the formation of a new government under Haughey “it is the wish of all the friends of Ireland that the government will work with the INC in the important task it has undertaken . . . it is doing the job that our embassy in Washington should be doing but is not doing”.
At the same time, head of the INC Seán McManus asked for my removal and the appointment of an ambassador who would reflect Haughey’s view. In his post-retirement intervention in Irish politics, Lynch responded that “Irish diplomats in the US were acting directly under my instructions and those of my government. The reason is that leading members of that organisation in the US have had close contact with and openly expressed support for the Provisional IRA and its activities”.
Within days of Haughey becoming leader of Fianna Fáil, there was uncertainty among the Four Horsemen as to what the change meant for policy. They were, of course, aware of his involvement in the arms trial 10 years earlier and of the divisions within Fianna Fáil. The fact that Blaney and the INC had warmly welcomed the change added to their doubts.
O’Neill had sought me out – at his birthday party – as early as December 11th. There were, he said, two Irish positions in the US, that of the Four Horsemen and that of Biaggi and the INC. The positions were in conflict. The basis for the horsemen’s position was the Irish government and John Hume. If that basis was removed, they were no longer interested in being involved. If they were to continue to influence US policy, and indirectly British policy, they would have to be seen to have no association, however remote, with violence. They wished to know, and quickly, if there was going to be a change in the Irish government’s position. Then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was due to visit Washington on December 17th and O’Neill wanted to know what he and Carter should say to her about Northern Ireland. I reported all of this to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In Haughey’s early days as taoiseach, there was media speculation in Ireland as to what his approach to the North would be and, in party terms, whether or not he would move quickly to reconcile Blaney with Fianna Fáil. The role of Irish diplomats in the US would not normally have been of such interest but we had unwittingly become touchstones by which changes, if any, in policy could measured.
There was an initial hesitation to clarify the situation and specifically to defend me. During a supplementary estimate debate in the Dáil on December 13th, the new minister for finance, Michael O’Kennedy, who had under Lynch been minister for foreign affairs, refused to come to my defence, even when pressed by Fine Gael deputies Austin Deasy and Paddy Harte.
In private, Haughey’s response to the concerns of the Four Horsemen was quick and decisive. He telephoned me on December 14th and instructed the following points to be conveyed to them:
- He did not know the INC, had never met them and had nothing to do with them;
- The horsemen could lift the phone to him at anytime if they wished clarification on any point or have a general chat;
- The basis of his approach to the North was as set out in his speech to the Dáil the previous day;
- He hoped to continue the good working relationship with the British prime minister which Lynch had enjoyed;
- There was no possibility of a settlement in an exclusively UK context;
- Northern Ireland was a drain on UK finances;
- The festering situation in the North was a poisonous element in Anglo-Irish relations and possibly also in Anglo-US relations;
- The longer the situation was allowed to fester, the more poisonous an element it would become;
- As far as the Carter statement of 1977 was concerned, we should not press for any official US commitment to invest in Northern Ireland in advance of the creation there of acceptable political institutions;
- - We should not do anything to discourage private US investment in Northern Ireland.
I conveyed the message and in a report to the department on December 18th noted that, while the horsemen appreciated the private assurances, they suggested that if there was any indication of the INC or Biaggi exploiting recent changes in Dublin to their disadvantage in local US terms, they might request public clarification.
The Irish media continued to seek clarification and on December 20th Haughey gave The Irish Times written answers to questions put by Joe Joyce. He said that “the government’s view on Northern policy would continue to be put forward in the US by their officially accredited representative in that country. Any claim by anyone else to speak for the government should not be taken seriously”.
At the same time Brian Lenihan issued a statement in which he “made it clear that he and the government had full confidence in the ambassador in Washington and his staff . . .” and added that “the government will continue to advocate that no support or encouragement should be given to any organisation in the US which sends to Ireland funds to be used in the promotion of a violent campaign in this country”.
No organisation was, however, named and this was noted at the time by the Four Horsemen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: Haughey tries to remove Donlon from Washington but John Hume intervenes; Brian Lenihan subsequently denies any such move was planned
© 2009 The Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0727/1224251382252.html
Anti-Treaty IRA burn Protestant orphanages to the ground in Galway
JOE JOYCE
Mon, Jul 27, 2009
BACK PAGES July 27th, 1922: IN JULY 1922 the Civil War had begun and violent incidents were reported from all parts of the Free State as its army took control of Dublin and set about taking numerous towns in the west and south from anti-Treaty forces.
Newspapers were censored (by the Provisional Government in Dublin and the anti-Treaty IRA in Cork) and promised meetings of the Dáil postponed. Most accounts of the fighting and other incidents came from official sources: in the House of Lords in London, Unionist leader Edward Carson gave this account of the burning by the anti-Treaty IRA of a Protestant orphanage in Clifden.
In the House of Lords last night Lord Carson asked the Government whether two orphanages in the county of Galway had recently been looted and burned to the ground by Sinn Féiners, and whether the Admiralty sent ships, which brought to England the staff and 33 boys and 25 girls; what had become of these children, and how they were to be provided for in the future.
He said that this particular outrage was one of the very worst of the many hundreds that had been sent to him within the past two months. His information was that last month some Sinn Féiners called at the orphanage, and demanded deliverance of six boys, who were, in the language of Sinn Féin, to be “done in”. By a subterfuge they were got out of the country by the matron.
A few days later the Sinn Féiners went again to the orphanage, and asked for a particular boy, that he might be brought out and shot. They then went to the master, and told him to clear out. They then went to the diningroom, and asked for the boy in charge. The eldest boy stood up. The boys were paraded, and some who were working in the fields were rounded up. The master and the boys were taken away to different parts of the premises.
The matron showed great courage. She pleaded to the men to spare the lives of the boys, and asked for a guarantee for their safety. Surrounded by these fully armed barbarians she asked why this was being done, and the answer was – because the boys were being taught loyalty to England, and the orphanage had sent many of the boys into the great war. The whole place was then burnt to the ground, and 33 boys and 25 girls were left absolutely stranded. Fortunately the founder’s daughter was in England at the time, and through her interposition the Admiralty send a destroyer round to Galway to take away the staff and children.
He wanted to know what was to be the future of these children. Did the Government who had abandoned them hold themselves responsible for their future, or would they be treated like all the loyalists and Protestants in the south and west of Ireland – as outcasts. This was only one of many instances. Further, he wanted to know how long was this to go on. (Hear, hear.) Was there to be any limit to it at all? Did the Government really mean to stand by until the loyalists of Ireland had been blotted out – because that was what it was coming to . . .
The Earl of Crawford, for the Government, regretted that the statement contained in the question was correct. These orphanages contained 33 boys and 25 girls, with a staff, all Protestants. At the beginning of July the orphanage was attacked by the IRA and burned to the ground, and the house in which the girls were accommodated was similarly destroyed. The refugees were brought to London, and accommodation was found for them. The Irish Distress Committee was in constant communication with the treasurer of the orphanages, and it was hoped that arrangements would be made for the future accommodation and welfare of these children at an early date.
© 2009 The Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0727/1224251385191.html
Mon, Jul 27, 2009
Dissidents say Sinn Féin has lost its way and Gerry Adams is losing his republican soul, writes DAN KEENAN
THEY DO not like the term “dissident”, but members of an emerging and distinctive grouping fully admit they dissent from Sinn Féin and what they see as status-quo republicanism.
Perhaps the most distinctive “dissident” organisation, Éirígí disputes Sinn Féin claims that it has a strategy for Irish unity and questions its commitment to radical politics.
Éirígí sees itself as a genuine republican revolutionary organisation, steering itself away from endorsement of violence and denying links with any armed group. It shuns also what it sees as the trap of representative politics Stormont-style. It further denies the oft-repeated claim that it is little more than a split from Sinn Féin over the issue of endorsing the PSNI.
Founded in 2006, the organisation, whose name translates as “Arise”, claims to have followed the organisational precedents set by the Fenians and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. For them there is little point in a broad-based membership if activism is limited to selling ballots and circulating An Phoblacht. Better to have small and committed “circles” of activists committed to clear political themes. “There are no inactive revolutionaries,” says one.
That’s why recruits to the movement must serve out a probationary period, to prove revolutionary credentials, before being fully accepted.
Brian Leeson, Éirígí national chairman, claims that since the Belfast Agreement there has been “a massive realignment within Irish republicanism”.
“In real terms this means that thousands of republican activists have transferred their allegiance from Sinn Féin to other republican organisations, such as Éirígí. A proven track record of political campaigning, combined with an unambiguous socialist republican platform, has enabled Éirígí to attract large numbers of existing left-wing republicans.
“In addition a new generation of activists, who are attracted by Éirígí’s message of revolutionary national and socio-economic change, is now emerging. Éirígí’s decision to directly challenge the establishment parties within the electoral arena has further boosted our credibility as a coming political force.” The organisation believes Sinn Féin’s rush towards the nationalist centre ground may have drawn in former SDLP voters, but the shift is costing Gerry Adams his republican soul.
Éirígí sources, speaking to The Irish Times in the wake of the Ardoyne riots, claim there is a new furrow to be ploughed in the territory between violence and Stormont constitutional politics.
The Ardoyne riots flowed from Sinn Féin failures, they say. There was a failure to halt unwanted Orange parades in the nationalist enclave and an equally flawed failure to condemn the police handling of a legitimate counter-protest by residents.
The resulting violence has shone a harsh light on Sinn Féin, they say. Éirígí cite Gerry Kelly’s blaming of “outsiders” for street violence, support for the police and failure to halt Orange Order marches in nationalist areas.
“A small number of Éirígí activists were in Ardoyne on July 13th to support a peaceful community protest against unwanted sectarian marches,” says Leeson. “When the PSNI forcibly prevented that protest from taking place some young people reacted in a predictable and undesirable manner. No Éirígí activists were involved in the rioting that followed. The blame for the riots in Ardoyne lies squarely with the Orange Order, for marching without the consent of the local community, and the PSNI for suppressing the right of the people of Ardoyne to peacefully oppose that march.”
He adds that “the indiscriminate use of lethal plastic bullets by the PSNI was a particularly vicious and deplorable action which only exacerbated the situation”.
Éirígí is scathing of Sinn Féin claims that it was involved in the Ardoyne trouble. “These accusations are designed to divert attention away from Sinn Féin’s support for the PSNI and their use of plastic bullets,” says Leeson.
He goes further: “When the policing board cleared the PSNI to theoretically use plastic bullets in June 2005, Gerry Kelly attacked the ‘ineffectiveness’ of the SDLP. Four years later, with Sinn Féin now on the policing boards, plastic bullets are actually being fired.
“Instead of challenging the PSNI’s use of plastic bullets, Gerry Kelly has instead chosen to sling mud at republicans. Both Sinn Féin and the SDLP should recognise their combined ineffectiveness and withdraw from the Policing Board immediately.”
Éirígí members know, of course, that opposition from the sideline is easy and that theirs is not the first attempt at a radical, left-wing republican movement.
They are not yet registered in the North as a political party and their first tilt at an election may yet be some way off. They say it is better to get it right than get it soon.
© 2009 The Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0727/1224251385138.html
DAN KEENAN, Northern News Editor
Mon, Jul 27, 2009
NATIONALIST UNHAPPINESS with the status quo at Stormont, recession and the threat of dissident republican violence have been cited as dangers to the stability of the peace process, a commission has heard in Belfast.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Britain and Ireland, meeting at the weekend, heard submissions from a range of people representing diverse standpoints on the peace process.
Vijay Mehta, from the Wales-based International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy, told the commission he believed nationalists were harbouring “an increasing degree of dissatisfaction with the current status quo”.
He added: “There is a perception among nationalist supporters that Sinn Féin and its leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have become too wedded to the peace process and have become too embedded in the powersharing structures with the unionists at Stormont.
“To the nationalist punter in the street, Irish unity has not come closer since the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998.”
He further suggested that the peace process remains particularly vulnerable to dissident violence and that what he called “the uneasy live and let live attitude which has developed among Northern Irish people over the last 10 years” could be endangered by serious dissident violence.
Although noting the loyalist response to the murders of two British soldiers and a PSNI officer last March, Mr Mehta suggested that sudden violent acts with perhaps a number of victims “would prove to be a substantial test for the continuation of the peace process”.
The recession and its impact could also create the conditions for what he called “increasing dissatisfaction among young men in particular and a drift back into the use of violence”.
He noted that the early years of the peace process was accompanied by a rising economic prosperity and near full employment.
The “lessons of Ulster”, he added, were now being applied “by prime ministers, presidents, diplomats and intelligence agencies to numerous area of violent conflict” across the globe.
But he also suggested that the emerging peace needed to be underscored by new realisations and concerted work at peace building.
Calling for the training and appointment of “a large number of peacekeepers” he urged a grassroots campaign to stabilise communities.
“We should have a large number of peacekeepers who can help build trust in communities, weed out the seeds of terrorism and give hope to vulnerable minorities,” he said.
“The fact is that a substantial majority of people wish to live in peace and a small minority should not be allowed to perpetrate violence which brings disastrous results.”
The commission discussions were chaired by Dr Thomas Daffern, a governor of the Saor Ollscoil na hÉireann in Dublin and Director of the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy.
© 2009 The Irish Times
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/38561
A MEMBER of the North’s Policing Board, Foyle Sinn Féin MLA Martina Anderson, is calling on the PSNI to investigate under incitement legislation a Derry UDA magazine which she branded “a blatant and sinister incitement to hatred”.
“I have been given a copy of the UDA magazine, Warrior, by a concerned constituent after it was distributed in mixed areas of the Waterside this week,” Martina Anderson said.
“This is a magazine which is produced to promote the UDA in Derry and north Antrim and it gives a worrying insight into the mindset of that organisation.
“As well as the racist and sectarian rants that we have unfortunately come to expect from the UDA – including what can only be described as a party political broadcast for the BNP - it also makes a number of implied threats against named individuals.
“It contains a sickening defence of the murder of Kevin McDaid in Coleraine and makes a number of wild and unsubstantiated allegations against the McDaid family and the wider Catholic Community in Coleraine. Of great concern to me is the fact that it also printed a photograph of Kevin McDaid’s son with an arrow identifying him. That is clearly sinister and should be investigated by the police.”
The Foyle Sinn Féin MLA said that the UDA magazine also glorifies the intimidation which forced Romanian families out of south Belfast as well as launching into a vitriolic attack on south Belfast MLA Anna Lo.
“While I will not repeat the vile statements contained in this publication, Anna has already been told of a death threat against her and I believe they represent a clear incitement and should be treated seriously.
“The magazine even laments the fact that former Beirut hostage Brian Keenan was not murdered by his captors. Again, the language used is too offensive for me to repeat.
“We are well aware of tensions within the UDA and this magazine seems to confirm that by attacking their Belfast counterparts over the recent decision to put some weapons beyond use.
“This publication is a blatant incitement to hatred and even murder. It should not be distributed anywhere, particularly as it is coming from a criminal gang like the UDA, who continue to engage in drug dealing as well as racist and sectarian attacks.
“I have submitted a copy of this magazine to the PSNI who are now investigating it and I will be insisting that all possible steps are taken to put it out of circulation and to take action against anyone selling or distributing it.”
Articles may not be reproduced without the consent of An Phoblacht. For further information, please contact
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/38584
BY LAURA FRIEL
ORANGE ORDER Grand Secretary Drew Nelson stood in front of the camera and demanded an apology, but what he was really offering was little more than a lame excuse. Nelson was responding to an offer by Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams of dialogue as a means to resolve the outstanding matter of contentious Orange parades.
Republicans would have to apologise for “the IRA murder of the 275 Orangemen murdered during the Troubles” before he could even contemplate any dialogue with Sinn Féin, Nelson told the media.
For nationalists, it was a curious statement; for republicans disingenuous in its implication. No one would dispute that members of the Orange Order died as a result of the conflict but it wasn’t because they were Orangemen – it was because they were combatants, either as members of the RUC or unionist paramilitaries like the UDA and UVF.
Indeed, one of the reasons Orange Order parades remain unwelcome in nationalist areas is because of their long and well-documented association with sectarian, anti-Catholic violence, either in the form of Orange mobs attacking Catholic areas (usually but not exclusively during the marching season) as well as their blatant association with unionist paramilitaries. Why else are Orange parades often accompanied by paramilitary bands and banners?
Of course, we’ve mostly moved away from the most blatant displays of sectarian hatred formerly indulged by Orange Order marchers, such as the notorious five-fingered salute given by Orangemen parading past the Ormeau Road bookies just weeks after loyalist paramilitaries had murdered five Catholics in a sectarian machine gun attack.
Or the time those accompanying an Orange march in Portadown re-enacted the sectarian murder of Robert Hamill by miming jumping up and down on someone’s head as they passed the nationalist Garvaghy Road estate.
Or after the appalling murder of the Quinn children in Ballymoney in the early hours of the Twelfth in 1998, the reaction to a suggestion by one of their own Orange Order chaplains that “no road is worth a life let alone three lives of three little boys” – Reverend William Bingham was unceremoniously thrown into a ditch.
And attempts by the loyal orders to reinvent the Twelfth as a community festival, an ‘Orangefest’, has also been seen by some as an attempt at reform, a move away from ‘Kick-the-Pope’ bands and alcohol-fuelled sectarian hostility, the usual corollary of Orange parades.
Of course, the more cynical cite the fact that many of the changes undertaken by the Order have been in response to the imposition of parading restrictions and the opportunity of acquiring funding.
In a study of the recent meltdown within financial institutions, Gillian Tett, a former anthropologist and Financial Times journalist, describes “social silences” which often underpin acceptance of half-truths as truth or fantasy as fact. Tett is only concerned with the myths that underpinned the money market crisis but social silences are ideological constructs which apply to so much more.
NOT WANTED
The Orange Order has a few “social silences” upon which it perpetuates its image and justifies its position. The most blatant is that it is not a sectarian organisation. To maintain this, the Order must deny its roots, silence its history and obscure the role it has played during the last 30 years of conflict.
Another “silence” is the fact that, out of over 3,000 Orange parades, only half a dozen are contentious and subject to re routing.
Another myth, uncontested by “silence” and often used as a justification by Orangemen to march where and when they please with no reference to the local residents, is the notion that Orange parades “uphold civil and religious liberty”.
But the Orange Order has never been about protecting universal rights of religious freedom. It has not been a story of accepting difference and promoting toleration. Equality and human rights legislation “upholds civil and religious liberty”, not a determination by Orangemen to parade where they’re not wanted.
But organisations can evolve and change and if the Orange Order is willing to evolve into what it is already claiming to be, a mechanism to promote and celebrate Protestantism and a particular cultural history, not as oppositional but as complementary additions to the rich tapestry of our shared history, then it would be a welcome development.
LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES
Responding to Orange Order Grand Secretary Drew Nelson’s rejection of Sinn Féin’s offer of dialogue, Gerry Adams suggested Nelson was putting his personal feelings before his leadership responsibilities.
“I listened to Drew Nelson’s interview and it is clear he is allowing his personal feelings to undermine his leadership responsibilities and obligations. Republicans could put up exactly the same preconditions but we very consciously refrain from doing so,” said Adams.
“All the deaths and the bereavement of families from all sides should be a matter of regret for everyone, republican and Orangemen alike. A commitment to prevent such deaths should also be the responsibility of republicans and Orangemen.
“Upholding the primacy of dialogue and engaging with each other in the public interest and the common good is part of this. Dialogue is a necessary part of any human discourse. It is especially so in a conflict resolution process. It is also in the interests of the Orange Order.
“The Orange Order leadership’s refusal to talk makes a nonsense of their other initiatives like Orangefest,” Adams concluded.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/psni-cleared-of-wrongdoing-over-use-of-taser-gun-14428970.html
Friday, 24 July 2009
The Police Ombudsman in the North has cleared officers of any wrongdoing in connection with the use of a Taser gun on a man in Derry last year.
The incident last August was the first time that PSNI officers used the controversial weapon.
In a report into the matter, the ombudsman says officers received a phone call claiming a man was drunk, armed with a knife and posed a serious risk to himself and his two young children.
When he came to his back door, the police fired the Taser at him, causing him to fall down and injure his head and elbow.
The ombudsman says the use of the weapon was justified and proportionate, but is recommending the establishment of regional teams of negotiators to deal with such incidents in the future.
The man involved in the incident was later cleared of all charges against him.
Sinn Fein and the SDLP say they believe the use of the Taser gun was not justified.
http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/PUP-voice-concerns-on-loyalist.5488552.jp
Published Date:
23 July 2009
By Eamon Sweeney
THE Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) in Londonderry have voiced their concerns about the treatment of loyalism in Londonderry.
Traditionally linked the to the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the PUP is regarded as the left-wing voice within loyalism.
Chairman of the Foyle branch of the PUP, Leslie Mitchell, says his party are experiencing similar frustrations as those recently highlighted by the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG)-the party which provides political analysis to the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).
Mr Leslie told the Sentinel: "The Londonderry branch of the PUP wish to air their concerns around recent attempts to vilify and criminalise loyalism in the local media.
"There is a widespread feeling of anger with the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist (PUL) community that anytime loyalism wishes to express its sense of frustration at issues affecting its community, the loyalist position is attacked and our members are branded as criminals by political representatives from the republican community."
The PUP man said his party are questioning the timing of 'attacks' on loyalism. He said it was the PUP's belief that "the current republican onslaught on loyalism is aimed at detracting from difficulties within republicanism and the rise of non mainstream groupings within the city."
Leslie Mitchell said: "We also find it somewhat confusing that republicans are so outraged at peaceful protests by loyalists. Sinn Fein and others have held thousands of protests in this city, many of which have been deemed illegal by police. However due to mainstream republicanisms new found support for the police service they now seem to have airbrushed this from their minds."
Speaking to the Sentinel, Leslie Mitchell said: "There is a genuine sense of anger within deep grass roots loyalist communities. Are we not allowed to show our frustrations through protest? Sinn Fein have short memories. We simply want our communities to be listened to. I feel the community will do what it feels necessary to highlight these issues."
Mr Mitchell said that the PUP at the moment are stopping short of echoing the UPRg and their stated policy of non co-opeartion with the PSNI and the withdrwal of support for the political institutions in Northern Ireland.
The PUP also reiterated support for comments made by the Orange Order in which the organisation questioned the style of policing surrounding the July 12 parade
"Loyalism in general is left in no doubt at this time that there are issues that need addressing concerning policing within the PUL community. We therefore are calling in the PSNI to restart the engagement process with loyalist representatives across the province that began in April 2008 but later broke down.
"We are of the opinion that these mechanisms are extremely valuable in addressing matters of concern within our community."
Updated: 10/4/2009
Use the Guest Book to Comment on the web site or individual stories.
To get Irish News updates emailed to you
