Posted by Jim on July 26, 2017
News Letter
Belfast.
Monday, July 24, 2017
Dear Editor,
Your Editorial, “Unionism will need to counter SF propaganda in US” ( July 24) claims that U.S. Senator Mitch Mc Connell (R-KY) is partial to England’s control of The North/Northern Ireland.
For the record, your readers should know this: In one of the early Congressional Hearings on the International Fund for Ireland, I sat in front of Senator Mc Connell as he expressed certain reservations about the Fund, among them this memorable one: that it would only further subsidize British occupation of Northern Ireland!
Needless to say —although I supported the Fund given certain conditions, which we had attached to the legislation— Senator McConnell’s comments warmed my Fermanagh heart.
Your Editorial labors under an extraordinary “unionist” assumption, despite abundant evidence to the contrary
: that the Scots-Irish (to use your term) would not be in favor of the republican form of government. Had that been the case, they would have supported King George III in 1776. Instead, of course, they proudly joined George Washington’s army and kicked England out of America.God bless their noble souls.
Their descendants always join me in my signature prayer :“God bless America and God save Ireland.”
Fr. Sean Mc Manus
Posted by Jim on
A homage to ‘The Beloved Community’
Fr. Sean Mc Manus. Irish Echo. New York City.
In the words of the motto of the Irish National Caucus, I believe “Ireland, too, has the right to be one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
In the meantime, I also believe the Good Friday Agreement is the proper way forward. And that, in effect, means seeing Northern Ireland as “The Beloved Community.” (Not too difficult for this Fermanagh-native to do).
The term, “The Beloved Community” was first devised at the beginning of the 20TH Century by the important American philosopher-theologian Josiah Royce (1855–1916). But it was Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr. who made the term famous, investing it with a deeper and wider meaning. The King Center explains:
“For Dr. King, The Beloved Community was not a lofty utopian goal to be confused with the rapturous image of the Peaceable Kingdom, in which lions and lambs coexist in idyllic harmony. Rather, The Beloved Community was for him a realistic, achievable goal that could be attained by a critical mass of people committed to and trained in the philosophy and methods of nonviolence.
Dr. King’s Beloved Community is a global vision, in which all people can share in the wealth of the earth. In the Beloved Community, poverty, hunger, and homelessness will not be tolerated because international standards of human decency will not allow it. Racism and all forms of discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice will be replaced by an all-inclusive spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood.”
This— for the time being, pending the common-sense and inevitable reunification of Ireland— is the Northern Ireland that the Irish National Caucus has worked for since its inception on February 6, 1974, and for which it opened the very first Irish office on Capitol Hill on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 1978.
Now, only the utterly naïve and those totally lacking in a knowledge of Irish history, not to mention British history, would think that this means one does not expose on-going injustice, human rights violations and anti-Catholic discrimination and bigotry in Northern Ireland. (Or perhaps the applicable phrase here is “useful idiots”—useful, that is, to the British Government).
Certainly, Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe such nonsense. Even in one of his most famous speeches—and the most conciliatory— “I Have a Dream” (1963), he pulls no punches, but speaks truth to power: “I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. … I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”
Yet, a misguided few in the United States have begun to criticize me for continuing to point out that —in the words of our Animated Internet Video (http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org)
— “There is still deep-rooted Anti-Catholic bigotry in Northern Ireland. A significant section of the Unionist/Protestant community resents sharing power with Catholics (Nationalists and Republicans) because they have never accepted Catholics as equals.”
One person charged I was “too Catholic”; and at the same time, another person accused me of not being Catholic enough because I issued a statement supporting Michele Gildernew in her successful campaign to become MP again for Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
The first person opined my emphasizing that Anti-Catholicism was enshrined in the British constitution—and, consequently, not ultimately the fault of the Protestants of The North— was “counterproductive to progress.”
No wonder the 1972 lyrics of “Stuck in the Middle With You” came to my Fermanagh mind, “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.”
Wouldn’t you think those two Irish-Americans would think twice before they would try to lecture me about Fermanagh and about the history of anti-Catholicism in The North? That, as we say in Fermanagh, takes some chutzpah. Both should have remembered the Fermanagh adage: “Don’t try to tell your Granny how to try the ducks.”
Furthermore, the strange, inexplicable attempt to denyinvalidate the entire basis for our Mac Bride Principles campaign, and its operating
motto: “American dollars must not subsidize anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland.” … So now we are being told the Mac Bride Principles — the most successful Irish-American campaign for Irish justice since 1921— was “counterproductive to progress.” God help us all!
Now back to The Beloved Community.
I want to give The King Center the last word:
“In a July 13, 1966, article in Christian Century Magazine, Dr. King affirmed the ultimate goal inherent in the quest for The Beloved Community: ‘I do not think of political power as an end. Neither do I think of economic power as an end. They are ingredients in the objective that we seek in life. And I think that end of that objective is a truly brotherly society, the creation of The Beloved Community.’”
That is what I want to see in all of Ireland, north, south, east and west.
Posted by Jim on July 22, 2017
By Fionnuala Perry
When Saoradh stepped onto the political stage for the first time on the
24th of September last year, few party members were dissuaded by
the political and media reaction, which appeared in most instances to
come from a script in keeping with the new dispensation.
At the time of the Saoradh launch, one journalist penned that the choice
of venue, which was the Canal Court in Newry, appeared to say, ‘We won’t
be restricting ourselves to the margins anymore.’
Other political narratives were based on the notion, albeit varied, that
‘dissidents’ had abandoned the cold and now sought the warmth and
democratic feel good factor that can only be found in constitutional
politics.
Spontaneous attributes is a psychological term. A term which usually
describes those who have difficulty accessing a situation; basically
they lack the cognitive skills that prevent them making random summaries
and despite evidence to the contrary, they ‘jump in’.
The idea that the voice of Republican dissent could move from the
margins and bring with it an ideology capable of challenging ‘the only
show in town’ narrative; appeared so implausible, that those initial
reactions couldn’t help but score quite low on any cognitive scale for
failing to grasp the very basics of Saoradh’s core message.
Saoradh and the ideals central to its formation had been in the
formalising process for quite some time.
Consultation both within and outside the confines of those prisons which
housed Republican prisoners had provided a remit for dialogue; this
dialogue would subsequently take place between various independents and
those from other Republican groupings.
Individuals with like-minded ideals would provide a platform on which
Republicanism could step away from the confines of sackcloth and
perpetual apologies that are seemingly being weaved into the overall
political tapestry.
Central to the party’s formation was the knowledge that British misrule
and its offshoots in the North of Ireland have not been nullified or
even diluted. The contentious hand that pulls the strings in relation to
clandestine policing, secret deals on Orange marches, the ever growing
monopoly on privatisation and legacy issues, hasn’t withered; it has in
fact been strengthened.
The theory that Republicanism taking centre stage in a ‘lavish’ hotel
might be interpreted as political dissent on the move is a very
perceptive one.
However, the reality of radical Republican politics re-emerging within
the confines of the Northern Irish statelet and advancing without
serious levels of state resistance is highly questionable.
‘Northern Ireland’s’ response to radical politics and those of dissent
has always come in the form of emergency legislation. This legislation
had been described by International agencies as ‘exceptional’,
‘draconian’ and ‘alien.’
The territory known as ‘Northern Ireland’ was the subject of emergency
powers even before the state came into existence in 1921.
The ‘Defence of the Realm’ Act authorised the UK government to issue
regulations to secure public safety.
These regulations supplemented ordinary criminal law with exceptional
wartime powers. These regulations granted massive stop and seizure
appendages to the police and armed forces, and they had the capability
to alter the criminal trial process by authorising internment without
trial and trial by court martial.
While the ‘Defence of the Realm’ Act ended, allegedly after the First
World War, the Emergency Powers visited on the North did not.
A series of legislative re-enactments including the capital offence
‘Treachery Act’ 1940 would pave the road to exceptional policing powers
that remain in existence to this very day.
Normalisation, which is the new black, now appears to present Sinn Fein
and other facets of constitutional Nationalism with a political
quagmire.
Sinn Fein’s response to Saoradh’s launch didn’t differ entirely from
that of the SDLP. The former claimed its party welcome genuine political
debate amongst Republicans, whilst the latter claimed Saoradh had taken
the first step on a well-trodden path and should partake of debate
within the existing ‘democratic’ framework.
The theory that Sinn Fein welcomes genuine political debate amongst
Republicans remains dubious and seriously debatable given that facts
point to the contrary.
Recent remarks by the Sinn Fein leadership highlight that the party now
use the same British terminology of criminality that the Gardiner Report
used in relation to Republicans.
The process of criminalisation was and is to go hand and hand with the
policies of Ulsterisation and Normalisation.
The success of Ulsterisation and Normalisation depend on the wider
society being conditioned into the acceptance of criminalisation. In
order to do this, Nationalist agitation must be viewed through a devious
lens and dealt with as such.
Those former political insurgents that have now signed up as fully
fledged guardians of the ‘New Strategy’, have in many cases become so
absorbed into the state’s apparatus, that it remains practically
impossible to separate them from the bona fide state militia.
Evidence shows, that rather than putting manners on the police, many of
the former Provos have been complicit in aiding and abetting the
multifaceted state forces in subduing anyone at odds with new political
dispensation.
The system of democracy which the SDLP encouraged Saoradh to embrace now
appears to have come loose from its political bedrock.
The Detail website recorded that our ‘democratic’ institutions have cost #74
million in the last five years.
In return for that, an apathetic and detached electorate (except when it
comes to a sectarian headcount) have witnessed the Red Sky scandal; the
unsolved NAMA; 2 million into the coffers of Charter NI; endless
enquires into MLA’s expenses; #70,000 for Sinn Fein’s consultancy
services; #60 million for Casement Park, another venture dogged with
controversy; and last but not least the one that eventually brought the
house down, the RHI.
Recently an article in the New Statesman proclaimed, ‘Northern Ireland’s
Peace Process wasn’t too big to fall.’
The article which was written in relation to latest Stormont scandal,
the RHI, cites that while the ongoing political fallout will bring on
new elections, something a lot deeper might be looming on the political
landscape.
The something ‘deeper’ the author predicts might come from the changing
of the guard in Sinn Fein.
At the root, it is argued, is an old age political truism. ‘As with each
political generation, there is a temptation to revisit the certainties
of the past by those who see themselves as remaining true to the faith
their predecessors drifted away from.’
The old age truism is offered as an explanation to describe what has
taken place within the ranks of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn; this
scenario which has seen the old radical principles of Labour overshadow
the ‘New Labour’ advocated by Blair, is a pattern that the paper argues
could be replicated within the ranks of the Sinn Fein movement.
The departure of Adams after 34 years at the helm of Sinn Fein may be
perceived by some within the party as an opportunity to drop all former
baggage and seize the opportunity for a fully constitutional party.
Mary Lou McDonald, who is believed to be the President’s favoured
successor, has apparently the potential to ‘cauterize’ the more
troubling aspects of the party’s past.
However, would such a cauterising process rest easily with the party
doubters who will allegedly look back at armed struggle with a degree of
certainty?
While this does pose a serious question for mainstream Republicans, the
article goes on to claim that whilst the constitutional option starts to
fray around its haggard edges; it gives credence to the belief that all
this political uncertainty opens the doors for the militant and radical
group such as Saoradh.
There is little dispute that the constitutional process did bring a
quasi-peace and a changing to the overall political landscape.
However, if you were poor and on the margins of society pre the Belfast
Agreement, then in all likelihood that’s where you remain; because in
spite of all the prosperity rhetoric of ‘peace dividends’ (provided the
British exchequer didn’t have to squander money on security), neoliberal
ethics appear to be turned on their head with all monies trickling up
into the coffers of the rich instead of down.
For those engaging in the ‘democratic’ process, the recognition that the
North of Ireland remains one of the most unequal societies was a step
too far.
Rather than depart from the bastion of colonial rule in protest, the two
main parties dressed the post-conflict economic disaster as a ‘Fresh
Start’ and posted a joint statement hailing it to be ‘a sea of change.’
Bankrupt politics in an equally bankrupt artificial state looks set to
continue, the architects of the conflict transformation model in London
and Washington want a return on their deal.
These days, however, it is groups such as Saoradh that emulate the kind
of Marxist anti-imperialist slogans that Sinn Fein abandoned a
generation ago. Saoradh’s stance mirrors the same anti-imperialist
stance that we are witnessing spreading across Europe.
The ‘democratic’ system which is a relatively modern construct is now
perceived to be in deep crisis in established representative
democracies; the trust in political elites is crumbling.
Participation in elections is shrinking, and political parties are
losing their members. In the old fashioned ‘well developed’ democracies
in Europe millions have taken to the streets to protest against
anti-austerity.
More and more people are realising that their elected representatives do
not represent them.
Rather, governments that are made up of the right and sometimes left are
more likely to bow to the dictates of big banks, the financial
institutions, the multinationals and other powerful lobbies.
Closer to home we have seen Tory cuts repackaged under a ‘Fresh Start’
Agreement. The Fresh Start Agreement did not provide the catalyst for
austerity, but rather, provided another piece designed to complete the
neoliberal jigsaw.
In the wake of the so-called ‘economic crisis’, the British prosperity
that was to come with ‘Peace’ promise has been put on hold. The stark
inequalities that fuelled the ‘Troubles’ are as pronounced as ever; the
very same districts that bore the brunt of the war since 1969 remain at
the bottom in poverty, employment, and serious social deprivation
statistics.
Public funding is cut to the bone, hospitals and schools face mass cuts
and mass closures, low paid public sector workers whose wages make up a
large portion of the incomes in working class communities across the
North are threatened with redundancies by the thousands.
All this is being carried out by an Assembly at Stormont that seemingly
can’t agree on issues in relation to culture and identity but which is
‘ecumenical enough in its worship of the free market.’
Just this week, it has been claimed that the main parties in the stalled
Executive, ‘don’t have a Plan B, the smaller parties have not been
allowed to put forward a Plan A, and the British and Irish governments
seem happy to have no plan at all; therefore, it wouldn’t be entirely
wrong to assume they are making it up as it goes along.’
The ‘Only Show in Town’ now seems seriously devoid of anything other
than the same old script being delivered by the same hapless cast.
With the ‘New Phase’ now seemingly being phased out, is the stage now
set for the politics that once informed an entire movement in the North
to re-emerge?
The dynamics that propel anti-imperialism, anti-globalisation and
post-conflict structured austerity are visibly on the move. What will
this move mean, could it be translated that the radical Republican
politics of dissent that underpin Saoradh are now back in vogue?
* Fionnuala Perry is Vice Chairperson of Saoradh and a former Republican
PoW based in West Belfast.
Posted by Jim on
O’Neill’s Rebellion took place in Ireland from 1590 until 1598. It was
fought between the Gaelic O’Neill family with their Spanish allies
against the Kingdom of England. The war was fought to end English rule
in Ireland and took place in all parts of the country, but mainly in
Ulster and the English controlled Pale around Dublin. The war ended in a
victory for the O’Neill family and the restoration of the power of
Gaelic families in Ireland.
O’Neill’s rebellion was a result of the Gaelic families of Ireland
attempting to resist the advance of English control in Ireland. The
English state sought to end Gaelic power in Ireland and bring the
Protestant religion to the almost exclusively Catholic country. Hugh
O’Neill was head of the House of O’Neill, who had lost a lot of their
influence in Ireland to the English. In 1588 Hugh O’Neill sent his
brother Shane O’Neill to the court of Rory O Donnell in Donegal to form
an alliance between the two families. Shane O’Neill was wildly
successful. O Donnell agreed to a military alliance with the O’Neills.
Shane O’Neill married Catherine, the daughter of Rory O Donnell, to
cement the alliance between the two families.
Capture and execution of Shane O’Neill
In the summer of 1590, Hugh O’Neill sent his brother Shane to form an
alliance with the FitzGeralds of Kildare, who were Catholics that were
determined to stop the spread of the protestant religion into Ireland.
However, Shane O’Neill never arrived in Kildare, he was captured by
English forces near the Pale. Hugh O’Neill demanded the return of Shane
O’Neill. The O’Neills argued Shane’s capture was unjust, but the English
were determined to stop the Catholic lords of Ireland creating alliances
with each other. In November, 1590. Shane O’Neill was brought to Dublin
castle and hanged by the English. This execution was supposed to send a
message to the Irish and old English Catholic families to cease plotting
against the English crown.
War breaks out
One week after the execution of Shane O’Neill, Hugh O’Neill raised an
army of 15,000 soldiers in Ulster and began marching towards the Pale.
When the English heard of O’Neill’s army marching towards the Pale,
which acted as the centre of English control in Ireland, they demanded
Hugh O’Neill disband his army and submit to the Queen of England,
Elizabeth I. They received no response and sent a force of 8000
professional English soldiers to Ireland. Initial reports led the
English to believe O’Neill was marching an army of no more than 4,500
men. In January 1591 O’Neill’s forces led siege to the town of Dundalk
in North eastern Leinster. The English authorities in the Pale were
alarmed at the size and professionalism of O’Neill’s army and requested
an additional 7000 soldiers. The English agreed to send 7000 soldiers
and the soldiers arrived in Drogheda, a town south of Dundalk. By
February O’Neill had taken Dundalk with very little casualties. In late
February Rory O Donnell joined O’Neill and sent 4000 soldiers to aid
O’Neills army in in the Pale.
Irish victory in Drogheda
After O’Neill’s victory in Dundalk he continued to march south and in
March, 1591 the first major fighting between Irish and English forces
took place. At the Battle of Drogheda, O’Neill’s army of 15,000 met the
English army consisting of 7000. The English army in Drogheda
desperately needed support from the 8000 soldiers making their way from
Dublin to Drogheda. O’Neills forces charged the English army of 7000
under the command of Lord Mountjoy before the 8000 English soldiers
under command of the Earl of Winchester could arrive. Mountjoy’s army
was wholly unprepared due to a spread of disease in his army. The battle
was a major victory for O’Neill. 1,500 English soldiers were killed with
an additional 2000 being captured by the Irish. Irish loses were minimal
ranging from 200-300 men. O’Neill continued south, he sent 3000 of his
men to take the town of Drogheda.
Capture of the Earl of Winchester
The Earl of Winchester’s army never reached Drogheda and began to
retreat south to Dublin to defend the city. However, the army of 4000
under command of Aodh O Donnell, son of Rory O Donnell, had been sent
south to meet with O’Neill’s army. O Donnell’s army instead attacked the
retreating English army of the Earl of Winchester. In the early hours of
the morning O Donnell’s army attacked the an English camp. The attack
seemed to be a complete failure for O Donnell, he had lost over 1,500
men and the English army had lost under 500 men. However, O Donnell’s
motive had not been to destroy the English army but in the midst of
battle his army had captured many high ranking officers, including the
Earl of Winchester. O Donnell retreated to O’Neill’s army with the Earl
of Winchester as a prisoner.
Assault on Dublin
The defeated army of Lord Mountjoy formed together with the army
retreating to Dublin. The force of some 11,000 men under command of Lord
Mountjoy had suffered great casualties due to disease. Morale was very
low among Mountjoy’s troops and Mountjoy had developed a reputation as a
coward and as a poor leader. The army of Hugh O’Neill had gathered
support from local people that opposed the English regime and O’Neill’s
army had reached over 25,000 men. But, O’Neill was badly in need of
arms. In May 1591 he sent his eldest son, Pheilim O’Neill to Spain for
support. The Spanish were at war with the English and King Philip II of
Spain hated Queen Elizabeth of England. The Spanish government listened
to Feilim O’Neill and agreed to send a force of 10,000 to Ireland, with
55 ships containing huge amounts of arms. The Spanish King recognised
Hugh O’Neill as the true King of Ireland and in September Prince Feilim
arrived in Ireland with the Spanish force. Hugh O’Neill was delighted
and arms were distributed among O’Neill’s forces. In December, 1592 the
huge force of 35,000 men commanded by both Irish and Spanish generals
attacked the city of Dublin. By this time Lord Mountjoy’s army had
managed to re-arm themselves and now had a force of 13,000 soldiers. The
55 Spanish ships blockaded any attempt to bring English supplies into
Dublin. In January 1593, the city of Dublin was besieged by O’Neill’s
army, O’Neill ordered an attack on the city. O’Neill’s army managed to
smash the gates down and Irish and Spanish forces quickly overran the
city. O’Neill’s son Feilim commanded 15,000 soldiers sent inside the
city to occupy it. 20,000 soldiers surrounded the city to kill any
English soldier who attempted to escape, and to stop any English force
that landed to try and break O’Neill’s siege. Prince Feilim occupied the
city in 2 days. He used over 100 cannons loaded with chain-shot.
English forces surrender
In March 1593, Lord Mountjoy signed an armistice with O’Neill. Half of
Mountjoy’s army were taken prisoner by O’Neill until a treaty was
signed, The rest were sent back to England. Queen Elizabeth was outraged
with Lord Mountjoy for surrendering and stripped him of his titles. In
May 1593, O’Neill sent his victory terms to Elizabeth, the terms were
that the English remove all forces from Ireland and recognise Hugh
O’Neill as the King of Ireland. Queen Elizabeth rejected the terms and
had the victory conditions burned and Irish messenger beheaded. In
retaliation, The Earl of Winchester was executed by O’Neill himself. By
this time, all English forces in Ireland had been captured, killed or
sent back to England. Hugh O’Neill was coronated in the Hill of Tara as
King of Ireland. All the families of Ireland recognised O’Neill as the
King, some were reluctant but did not want to face a war against
O’Neill’s huge army. King Hugh considered the war as good as over. King
Hugh moved the capital to Armagh in Ulster. The vassals of Ireland had a
large degree of autonomy.
Gaelic restoration
King Hugh, now set his sights on reversing the plantations of
Laois-Offaly and Munster. He revoked all titles owned by the planters
and granted the titles to the families that had lost land during the
plantations. He exiled the English planters and allowed the native Irish
to live on the land. This reversal of the plantations was known as the
Gaelic restoration. Hugh was torn on whether to allows the Old English
families to retain their lands or not. In the end, he decided to allow
the families to retain their lands, because most had supported him
during his rebellion. King Hugh began improving relations with Scotland.
He wanted the Celtic powers to join together and topple the English
government, but this proposal was rejected by the Scottish King. King
Hugh began to turn Ireland into an independent Gaelic state.
Last Elizabethan invasion of Ireland
In 1598, Queen Elizabeth, still refusing to accept the Kingdom of
Ireland, sent an invasion fleet of 50 ships carrying 20,000 marines to
Ireland with the goal of reinstating English rule in Ireland. The
invasion was a disaster as fierce storms wrecked the ships off the coast
of county Down. Only 15 ships, with 5000 men reached Ireland. The
English soldiers captured coastal fishing villages but realised that
defeating the Irish army was hopeless. An Irish army of 15,000 arrived
in county Down. The 5000 English soldiers looted the villages they had
taken and then burned them to the ground. This frustrated King Hugh. His
army was merciless and killed every man in the English army of 5000 men.
The 15 ships that safely reached Ireland were captured by the Irish and
were added to the Irish navy.
In 1603, Elizabeth died. Her successor, James I, agreed to end the war
and the Treaty of Naas was signed by King Hugh of Ireland and King James
of England. They treaty ended the war and the English conceded defeat.
The English dropped all claims to Ireland and recognised the Kingdom of
Ireland.
Posted by Jim on
Nationalist and republican groups are coming together this weekend to
again demand freedom for imprisoned Irish activist Tony Taylor.
Sinn Fein and other nationalist and republican groups urged all
supporters of human rights to attend a march in Derry this weekend for
the interned Derry man, a leading member of Republican Network for Unity
in the city.
Mr Taylor has spent almost 500 days in Maghaberry jail since he was
taken from his wife and children by the PSNI at the request of British
officials.
Local Sinn Fein representative Raymond McCartney has called on people to
attend Sunday’s march and rally. Mr McCartney said: “Tony Taylor was
returned to prison in Maghaberry Prison at the behest of the previous
British Secretary of State Theresa Villiers, without having been
charged, questioned or allowed legal representation.
“Sinn Fein has consistently stated that if evidence exists to show that
Tony Taylor is a risk to the public it should be put before him and his
legal team in open court so this can be challenged.
“His continued detention is a violation of fundamental human rights and
subversion of due process. It is a form of legalised interment by remand
and a denial of natural justice.”
The march is set to leave ‘The Grotto’ in the Brandywell at 2:30pm and
finish at the Guildhall where a rally will be held.
On Sunday 6th of August, an even larger Anti-Internment march is planned
for Belfast.
Organisers of the parade, the Anti-Internment League, say up to 5,000
people and five bands will protest internment and mark the 46th
anniversary of its introduction.
The parade is expected to leave Ardoyne in north Belfast at 11.30am
before making their way to Royal Avenue via Cliftonville Road, New Lodge
Road, North Queen Street and Donegall Street. A similar parade was
banned from going to Belfast city hall for a rally last year.