Posted by Jim on December 16, 2018
By Donal Fallon (Come Here to Me)
The afterlife of the Nelson Pillar on O’Connell Street is every bit as
interesting as its lifespan, and from the late 1960s onwards various
committees and campaign groups lobbied with the aim of placing a
monument in the location where Nelson had stood. One reoccuring proposal
was to replace Nelson with a monument to Patrick Pearse. Indeed, the
idea of putting Pearse on top of the monument was even floating around
before the destruction of the Pillar, with a motion calling for Nelson
to be removed and replaced by the revolutionary leader brought before
Dublin Corporation in August 1948.
In 1979, architect Yann Goulet brought forward a controversial model for
a proposed Pearse monument to the City Council.
Higher than the GPO, and containing over #150,000 worth of bronze, the
proposal was ridiculed when brought towards the City Council, with
Councillor Frank Sherwin stating “it should be thrown in the Liffey”,
while Councillor Hanna Barlow described it as “the yoke”. The proposed
100-foot-high abstract monument did not enjoy significant support from
any quarters, but it is was just one proposed monument in honour of
Pearse for the site. An earlier proposal in the same year came from the
Pearse Commemoration Committee, who proposed a much more traditional
style monument, to be carried out by sculptor Gary Trimble. The Irish
Independent newspaper totally opposed any monument to Pearse in an
editorial which noted:
If anything is to replace the Pillar, it should be something which will
bring people together, and not something which will caused divisiveness
and bitterness, as the proposed Pearse statue is clearly destined to do.
There were wild scenes at one meeting to discuss a proposed Pearse
monument, when Lord Mayor Paddy Belton condemned the Pearse
Commemoration Committee as “a bunch of Provos”, insisting that members
of Sinn Fein were to the fore of the campaign to honour Pearse on
O’Connell Street. This was a hugely controversial remark, as the Pearse
committee had come from a very broad spectrum of Irish society,
including Gael Linn and other Irish language groups. Bord Failte also
objected to any planned memorial to Pearse, a surprise blow to the
campaign, on the grounds that “it may interfere with the view of the GPO
which is the vocal point of O’Connell Street.”
Trimble’s proposed monument was comparable in size to the monument to
Parnell, and would show Pearse reading from a book, surrounded by
children:
Various points of view on any proposed monument to Pearse were reported
in the media, ranging from over-the-top praise (“The messiah of the
nation’s revival” in the words of Frank Sherwin) to calls for a monument
that would be inclusive of the other 1916 leaders. Tomas Mac Giolla for
example noted that James Connolly should not be forgotten in any
monument at the site. The Pearse pressure group continued to campaign
for the placing of a monument to Pearse on O’Connell Street, even if the
Pillar site itself was off-limits. Councillor Pat Carroll reportedly
pondered if it would be possible “to take down one of the monuments in
O’Connell Street, such as that of John Gray, which did not seem to be
too important.” However with Gray’s leading role in establishing a clean
water supply for much of Dublin, I’d argue today he is far from
unimportant!
Today, James Connolly remains the only one of the seven signatories of
the proclamation with a statue in Dublin city centre.
Posted by Jim on
Ballymurphy inquest continues amid disclosure concerns
The Ballymurphy massacre inquest has heard details of the murder of John
McKerr, a 49-year-old joiner from nearby Andersonstown who had been
working at Corpus Christi Church in west Belfast on August 11 1971 when
he was shot.
Ten people were shot dead over 36 hours following the introduction of
interment, in what has become known as the Ballymurphy massacre.
In testimony this week, a witness told the inquest she saw a British
soldier crouched in a garden with smoke coming out of his gun as she ran
with her young son from the scene of Mr McKerr’s shooting.
Members of the father-of-eight’s family travelled from England to be at
Laganside courthouse last week for the first day of evidence into his
death.
Sheila McAlliskey told the court she had seen Mr McKerr “standing at the
railings” as she attended a Requiem Mass at the church with her mother
and son during a break in what had been a day of shooting.
Ms McAlliskey said that Fr Francis Harper had run out shouting that
someone had been hit and she turned to see him giving the last rites to
Mr McKerr by the railings.
She told the coroner that she fled with her mother and son back to their
home on nearby Ballymurphy Road.
“I saw a soldier kneeling at the corner… of Westrock Drive and
Ballymurphy Road. (He was) in the back garden of the girl’s house.”
Ms McAlliskey showed the court how he was pointing his gun, which she
said had smoke coming from the end, and that he refused to look at her
as she “called him a murdering b*****”.
Another witness told the inquest how he cradled the head of the dying
father-of-eight after he “fell at his feet”.
Francis Corr told the hearing that he and his wife had been on their way
from their home in Ballymurphy to his mother’s house.
As they were walking from Ballymurphy Road onto Westrock Drive, a man
came up alongside them close to the chapel railing.
Mr Corr said: “I heard a sudden, single shot and the man fell at my
feet. I grabbed my wife by the arm and ran her to an alleyway and told
her to stay there.”
Mr Corr said that when he ran back to help Mr McKerr he “was still
breathing and making noises”.
“I lifted the injured man’s head. Blood was streaming out of him onto
the road. There was grey matter coming out of the left hand side of his
head.
“I shouted for someone to get a blanket or a pillow.”
Mr Corr said immediately after the shot was fired he looked around and
saw a black soldier with a red beret standing in a garden at the corner
of Ballymurphy Road “with his gun raised, pointing at us”.
The inquest continues next week.
US CONCERN
However, concerns are growing over issues at the inquest, including the
withholding of key British Army records, as well as continuing British
calls for a statute of limitations amnesty or special laws for their
soldiers.
In the US, Congressman Eliot Engel has sent a formal letter to British
Ambassador Kim Darroch.
Congressman Engel, who is under consideration to chair the powerful
House Foreign Affairs Committee in the next Congress, said he considered
the Ballymurphy inquest to be a “fundamental test of justice in cases
where British state forces are involved.”
Engel acted after meeting Carmel Quinn of the Ballymurphy Campaign and
Relatives for Justice. He said he wanted justice to be done at the
Ballymurphy Inquest.
“The inquest into these deaths has been described to us as a fundamental
test of justice in cases where British state forces were involved. I
have heard concerns that the inquest may fail to ensure that justice
will be done, leaving open wounds from a conflict that all want to
relegate firmly into the history books,” Engel wrote, in his letter to
Darroch last week.
“I understand that there is growing apprehension among the Ballymurphy
families that the Ministry of Defense may be deliberately withholding
documents and disclosure items crucial to the investigation.
“Additionally, I am aware that some Britons have recently called for
changes to the statute of limitations laws. Such changes could result in
the absolution of anyone judged guilty and could fundamentally taint the
inquest.
“As a Member of Congress who has a continuing interest in Northern
Ireland, I am compelled to relay these concerns to you and would welcome
any response you may have.”
Posted by Jim on December 14, 2018
Anthony McIntyre reflects on Gerry Kelly’s support for British state prosecution strategies against former IRA activists.
On occasion I relay the story of having received George Orwell’s Animal Farm from Gerry Kelly in the cages of Long Kesh in 1978. For Kelly there was something of the self-fulfilling prophecy to the book, which I had first been put through in primary school but then thought it was about animals. The politics of it all had not yet been imparted to us. By ‘78 I knew the story was about political animals who were much worse than the normal ones.
As nine-year olds we still believed in Santa although by the age of nineteen we had grown up and replaced one make-believe being with another who delivered as little as the first – revolutionaries. Kelly, alert to those who would abandon radicalism for a jaunt on the parliamentary gravy train, was keen to forewarn people to the shallowness and opportunism of those who set out on their activist odyssey full of revolutionary bombast just to end up standing on their hind legs, squealing like pigs and more closely resembling those they fought against than those they fought alongside.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Gerry Kelly was widely regarded by many – although not by Brian Keenan – as a capable and effective IRA commander. While not of the school of thought which prefers a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in somebody else’s, as a senior leader he would have overseen activity conducted by IRA volunteers on the ground, Even Keenan could hardly dispute his personal courage.
It might be difficult for the same former volunteers to listen to one of their erstwhile leaders now endorsing their arrest by the British police, their prosecution by British authorities and their subsequent trial in a British juryless Diplock court, followed by a spell in prison. If they are perplexed by Kelly’s willingness to see them jailed, it is only because they have not yet come to accept the distance that Kelly has covered in the course of his political career. From Provo to Pigo, an upright citizen in so far as he has learned to stand on his hind legs.
In a contribution to a radio documentary, Drawing A Line Under the Troubles, produced by Peter Taylor, the first of many Provos to bomb London expressed his opposition to an amnesty for former combatants. He disputed claims by ex-British service personnel that the British government’s comfort letters to OTRs were tantamount to an amnesty, insisting that if new evidence emerges the British should be able to charge former IRA volunteers.
This comes at a time when his party is waxing angry about British police attempts to extradite John Downey to the North so that he might go through the process Kelly endorses. The basis for Sinn Fein’s opposition is therefore difficult to comprehend. Gerry Kelly believes former IRA members should be prosecuted by the British if new evidence emerges. If in the case of Downey there is new evidence, there is little for Sinn Fein to gripe about, having got what they wished for. Stand by to be shafted John Downey.
Party members will be instructed to believe that while the British have every right to arrest, prosecute and jail people for past IRA activity, the real manners are being put on the PSNI. If they continue to fall for that Benjamin Franklin’s response is appropriate: “we are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
The corner British state strategies of legitimation have painted Sinn Fein into is one where if the PSNI or MI5 find new evidence about the IRA activities of the republican generation of Bobby Sands, Kelly et al have no position to take other than argue that they should be pursued and prosecuted by the British, including those MLAs who were on hunger strike in the H Blocks. Having died protesting this deferential strain of logic, Sands has been spared the agony of being witness to the wholescale upending of everything he strived to assert. In the politics of the Pigos, his death permanent, his ideals a temporary expediency for themselves.
Given Kelly’s conversion to British justice standards, his media interlocuters may consider probing him on what his advice is for people who have information about past IRA operations that might constitute new evidence or at least open lines of investigation that could lead to new evidence. Should they give that information to British police or on what grounds should it be withheld? Kelly has previously expressed his enthusiasm for informing to the British police, but that seems to have been in respect of the current crop of republicans. Now that he is signalling the green light to the British pursuit of the men and women volunteers of the Sands generation, some clarity around his position on assisting the PSNI via informing is needed.
Moreover, he could also be invited to explain his stance on Operation Kenova, being managed by the British police officer John Boutcher. The investigation into Scappaticci prompted Britain’s then chief prosecutor for the North, Barra McGroryto say that it is not the state but IRA volunteers who carried out the associated killings “who have most to fear from the Stakeknife investigation.” This could lead to some of Kelly’s fellow Sinn Fein leaders being prosecuted, those who as army council figures perhaps signed off on the execution warrant. Might we witness the very strange spectacle of Bobby Storey, in deference to party policy, thundering how dare they not arrest his leader?
Kelly’s delegitimization of the Provisional IRA armed struggle is significant. Hypothetically placing him in the 1960s and 1970s, it is not counterintuitive to imagine him calling for volunteers who fought in the War of Independence or the Easter Rising some four or five decades earlier to be prosecuted by the British based on new evidence. As hopelessly pro-British as Liam Cosgrove, Paddy Donegan, Conor Cruise O’Brien or Paddy Cooney were, there appears to be nothing that would show them having called for the British to prosecute and imprison survivors from the Rising.
Gerry Kelly is too fluent in the language of flip-flop, failure and fiasco to begin learning a new tongue or to a acquire a politics of his own. He is left only with the politics of what Gerry Adams thinks. He can never comprehend that it is immeasurably more radical to be the prosecuted than the prosecutor. Being able to stand on hind legs is no guarantee of farsightedness.
Posted by Jim on
These two articles give dramatic indication of how messed up the whole Brexit issue is when it appears that Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the British Labor Party, is rejecting the “Backstop” (the means for stopping a hard Border). Not only that, but Mr. Corbyn —a famed United Irelander—appears to be embracing the DUP, which has always expressed contempt for Corbyn! God save poor Ireland.”
—Fr. Sean McManus
A Corbyn-DUP alliance is unlikely but in this uncertain political era anything is possible
John Manley. Irish News. Belfast. Friday, December 14, 2018
IN recent years old certainties have evaporated. In the United Sates, in the Republic, in Britain, and across much of the developed world, traditional class and ideological allegiances no longer apply and have been replaced by a mismatch, à la carte approach to politics.
In keeping with this trend, the EU referendum provided some common ground on which left and right could unite; strange bedfellows advocating a Leave vote but for entirely different reasons.
In 2016, Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to remain in the EU, despite a history of strong euro-scepticism. Unlike his counterparts in the Tory ranks, the Labour leader’s aversion to Brussels had been based largely on its free market philosophy. Historically, Sinn Féin held a similar view, only quietly converting to supporting the EU over the past decade.
Mr Corbyn has enjoyed a long and close relationship with Irish republicans, one that has been cemented further since he became Labour leader.
But in recent weeks, the relationship has been strained, as Mr Corbyn appeared to woo the DUP and criticize the Backstop element of the Withdrawal Agreement, a guarantee for a frictionless Border that has unanimous support among Irish nationalists north and south.
The Labour leadership has faced criticism from within its own ranks for its rejection of the backstop and what south Armagh-born MP Conor McGinn called Mr Corbyn’s “invocation of The Union”.
Sinn Féin has been restrained in its criticism of its long-held Labour ally, who many believe is prioritizing political opportunism over securing an open Border.
Responding to reports of the Labor leader’s overtures to the DUP, Mary Lou McDonald said Mr. Corbyn was doing what British politicians do by “pursuing what they understand and believe to be British national interest”. That’s what Westminster does.
That’s what British politicians do.
“I have said to Jeremy before – we disagree and we differ dramatically on the issue of Brexit,” she said.
An alliance between the DUP and Jeremy Corbyn would be uncomfortable for both and in all likelihood short-lived. Watching the current arms length courtship, creates a sense that it’s more about putting pressure on Theresa May than forging a long-term partnership. But in an era where old certainties have evaporated, anything is possible.
****
Fianna Fáil tells Sinn Féin to convince Corbyn on merits of May border deal
Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn has rejected the backstop
John Manley. Irish News. Belfast. Friday, December 14, 2018
Micheál Martin has urged Sinn Féin to use its “special relationship” with Jeremy Corbyn to convince the Labor leader about the merits of the Backstop.
The Fianna Fáil leader was commenting amid growing nationalist concern over Mr Corbyn’s rejection of the EU’s guarantee to maintain a soft Border.
The Labor leader has said the Backstop would not feature in any withdrawal deal negotiated by a Labor government.
Mr. Corbyn has also faced criticism from south Armagh-born Labour MP Conor McGinn for his “invocation of the union” when opposing the withdrawal agreement.
Strains in relations between the DUP and Theresa May over the Backstop have led to speculation that Labor may align itself with Arlene Foster’s party in an effort to oust the Tories.
But DUP MP Sammy Wilson said yesterday that the party was not in talks with Labor over a potential no-confidence vote.
“We don’t need to be in talks with Labor,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live.
“We have made it quite clear that if the prime minister continues to pursue the policy and gets the ability to implement that policy, then we will vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. However she has got to get over the first hurdle, and that is to get this agreement accepted by parliament – I don’t believe she is ever going to get over that hurdle.”
Mr Corbyn’s rejection of the Backstop and his recent overtures to the DUP have dismayed many nationalists.
Mr McGinn, the MP for St. Helens North, told The Irish News earlier this week that the Labor leader risked alienating nationalists and was jeopardizing his party’s reputation as “protectors of the Good Friday Agreement”.
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said he was “bewildered” by Mr Corbyn’s remarks on the backstop, while the Labour Party Irish Society has written to the party’s 257 MPs voicing concern about its leadership’s stance.
Last night— following a request from The Irish News for Sinn Féin’s response to the Labour leader’s remarks— a party spokesman echoed sentiments aired by Mary Lou McDonald earlier this week.
“Regardless of who leads the British government, they will always prioritize British interests first,” the spokesman said.
“The catastrophe facing Ireland is a result of a Brexit which originated in Westminster.”
The spokesman said Sinn Féin was focused on working with the Dublin government and the EU27.
“We cannot allow Ireland or Irish interests to become collateral damage of infighting in a British parliament that cares nothing for our economy or our citizens,” the spokesman said.
“We must protect the Good Friday Agreement and protect the Backstop as our only insurance policy against a hard Border in Ireland and the economic catastrophe that would bring.”
But the Fianna Fáil leader called on Sinn Féin to use its influence with Mr Corbyn to change his mind.
“One disappointing aspect of the Brexit debate in Britain has been the failure of the main opposition party to recognize the role and value of the Backstop, particularly in regard to the protection and potential it offers to Northern Ireland,” Mr. Martin told The Irish News.
“Sinn Féin has made much of its special relationship with Mr. Corbyn since he was elected – I think it’s fair to ask why they are not using that influence in defense of the backstop and the effort to protect the north from a hard Brexit.”
Posted by Jim on December 12, 2018
“Intrepid foe of Brexit-nonsense columnist Brian Feeney dishes out home truths to Little Englanders and others. Important reading for Members of Congress concerned about justice, solidarity and peace on the island of Ireland:’Peace is the fruit of solidarity’ (Saint Pope John Paul II).”—Fr. Sean Mc Jean Mc Manus
Customs union and single market are real issues, not Brexit backstop
Theresa May is going back to Brussels in the hope of squeezing a concession on the backstop – but any new assurances she returns with will be meaningless
Brian Feeney. Irish News. Belfast. Wednesday, December 12, 2018
ALMOST no political arguments revolve around the nub of the matter.
Instead, political leaders find an emotional or ideological peg to hang the argument on and keep hammering away at the peg, pretending that hitting it is the most important objective.
Political leaders adopt this stratagem because the nub of the matter that is exercising them is usually impossible to defend completely successfully. Compromise is necessary.
Brexit, as we’ve seen, is the worst example of this intellectual dishonesty in living memory.
The peg that Conservative MPs, the DUP, and recently, most disgracefully, Jeremy Corbyn have been hammering at is the backstop.
They all agree it has to go or be given an end date, ignoring the simple truth that, by definition, a backstop isn’t a backstop if it has an end date, or if Britain can walk away from it.
None of that matters in the chorus of cries to abolish it or modify it. The people demanding its abolition or alteration have long ago ceased to discuss what the reason for the backstop is.
The truth is they never even bothered to try to understand why it’s there. Being politicians they avoid the nub of the matter. Instead, they invented pegs to hit.
The main peg is that it has constitutional implications. Rubbish.
Sadly no TV or radio interviewers in Britain have bothered to read the Withdrawal Agreement where it states explicitly that The North’s constitutional position is guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement which the Withdrawal Agreement supports “in all its parts”.
Another peg is breaching British sovereignty. Nonsense.
It’s a pity there’s no truth about any of the pegs, and that the backstop did lead to the long overdue collapse of the UK, but unfortunately not yet.
Anyway, those are all bogus arguments, typical of ignorant, unscrupulous politicians who prefer to major on emotional matters like nationalism, sovereignty or territorial integrity rather than face the nub of the matter.
The real issue is this: the Customs Union and Single Market.
English MPs have suddenly woken up to the fact that Theresa May brought home a deal which keeps the UK in the customs union and by 2020 might even develop as near as dammit to frictionless trade.
That means that the chances of making separate deals with the US or China are zero.
That’s the last outcome the Brexiteers want. For them, that’s not Brexit.
Too late, they realize that if there has to be a backstop there’s no way out of the Customs Union.
The only route to their shimmering Shangri-La fantasy of global free trading Britain is to get rid of the backstop.
Every technical, economic, and financial delusion having failed, the Brexiteer charlatans and Little Englanders turned to Dr Johnson’s last refuge of the scoundrel—patriotism.
The nasty EU is forcing the UK to accept the break up of the UK – shock, horror.
Dominic Raab, short-lived Brexit secretary, the man who resigned, bizarrely because he opposed the deal he negotiated, falsely claimed the EU said losing The North is the UK’s price for Brexit.
No. In fact it was the exact opposite. It was Theresa May who went to Michel Barnier last summer and wheedled and pleaded for the whole UK to be in a temporary customs arrangement until she could think of some way out of it; an arrangement the EU was very reluctant to contemplate.
It was a request designed to keep the DUP and vociferous, newly-zealous patriots in her own party onside.
She got what she wanted, but the irony is her own stupid, inherently contradictory red line of leaving the customs union has come back to bite her. It’s evident she’s not leaving.
Even the incoherent, obviously bewildered Jeremy Corbyn has now jumped on the patriotic bandwagon offering the DUP and Rees-Mogg’s fantasy football team, the misbegotten European Research Group, a deal to get rid of the backstop if they will support him in a no confidence vote.
Naked opportunism; anything to get into government. It’s unlikely he’ll be a guest at this year’s Féile an Phobail, or indeed any year in future.
Too late, the majority in Westminster will only begin to face reality when May returns from Brussels empty handed with a meaningless ‘assurance’.