The death of Pat Finucane: just one more killing?

Posted by Jim on February 25, 2017

I was at the annual Pat Finucane memorial lecture last night in the
Europa Hotel. In some ways it was a moving evening, in some ways
disappointing and in some ways enraging.

There was a fairly large audience, but far from lan go doras –
completely full. Professor Bill Rolston, who was the MC, made the
point that through Twitter and Facebook and Periscope, this was an event
that was being shared throughout the world. And indeed there were tweets
from all sorts of people appearing on the big screen, which consisted of
old black-and-white photos of the Finucane family life when Pat was
alive.

It was a moving evening. As the event began, the south’s Minister for
Foreign Affairs (No, Virginia, don’t use words like that) Charlie
Flanagan, Pat’s widow Geraldine, her family and members of their
families – three generations – entered the room. It is twenty-eight
years since Pat Finucane was shot dead in his own home, but the Finucane
struggle for truth continues, even onto the third generation.

It was an enraging evening. Charlie Flanagan spoke of the need for
accountability for all unlawful killings; he complimented the Finucane
family on their unyielding search for the truth, set back yet again this
week. In 2011 the British Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the
appeals for a public enquiry. Three Court of Appeal judges rejected the
family’s challenge to that on Tuesday. Last night Charlie Flanagan
committed the Dublin government to pressing the British government for a
full public inquiry. Mark Thompson, of Relatives for Justice, led the
applause at that mid-speech moment when Flanagan made that commitment.
Bill Rolston nailed it down further by underlining the public inquiry
commitment when he thanked Mr Flanagan for his contribution.

After Mr Flanagan had spoken, Geraldine Finucane delivered a short
speech. I’ll copy that speech so you can read it yourselves.

And enraging? Well, to be quite honest, I had assumed the room in the
Europa would be bursting with people. It wasn’t. Time hasn’t healed
Geraldine Finucane’s pain but it appears to have dulled the indignation
of many to the Belfast lawyer’s killing. I suppose we should be grateful
rather than enraged by Mr Flanagan’s commitment to a public inquiry, but
it was hard not to wonder “What took you so long?” Twenty-eight years,
to be precise, before the Dublin government finds the will to call on
Britain to deliver a full public inquiry.

Most enraging of all, of course, is the reason behind Britain’s refusal
of a full public inquiry. Virtually everyone now acknowledges that Pat
Finucane’s death was an act of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries
and the’security’ forces. The British government knows that, and knows
that a public inquiry would drag out documents which they have for
twenty-eight years been desperate to keep hidden.

There are people who would – and do – say that Pat Finucane’s death is
just another killing, one of thousands from the time of our Troubles.
That’s true, except that it involved a man being shot dead as he sat
down with his family to an evening meal in his own house. What’s more,
that man was one who as a lawyer helped those seeking justice. For that
he was referred to by the unspeakable Douglas Hogg in the House of
Commons, with his comment on some lawyers here “being too close to their
clients”. And three weeks later, with the assistance of state agencies,
Pat Finucane was shot dead. It sounds like something from Pinochet’s
Chile. It wasn’t. It was here in our unhygienic little North-East nest,
and there are people who pride themselves as champions of lawful
behaviour who have done all they can to block the truth of what happened
from emerging. Why? Because the trail almost certainly leads to Number
10, Downing Street.

Just one more killing among thousands? I think not.

—————————————————————–
Pat Finucane Memorial Lecture
Unfinished Business: A Public Inquiry into the Murder of Pat Finucane
Address by Geraldine Finucane, Thursday, 23 February 2017
—————————————————————–

Mr. Chairman, Minister Flanagan, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am honoured to be able to address you tonight, some 28 years since the
murder of my husband, Pat, a solicitor, who was born and bred here in
Belfast. He was murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries, in our home, on
Sunday, 12 February 1989.

I would like to say that the passing of the years has made Pat’s death
easier to bear but his would not be true. In fact, the more time that
passes, the more difficult it is to bear his loss. This is partly
because of how much we miss him as a person but it is also because of
what we now know about the circumstances surrounding his murder.

We know, beyond any doubt, that Pat was murdered with the active
assistance and participation of the former NI police force, the RUC, the
British Army and the British State.

There was a time when we did not know as much as we do now and the claim
that Britain was involved produced scepticism in many quarters.

Politicians in government and officials in state positions at home and
abroad disbelieved our suspicions entirely. Some even poured scorn on
our allegations of state collusion and said the ideas were fanciful.

In a response to a 1993 report by a US human rights organisation, the
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which raised serious questions about
collusion even then, a Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC responded to
their work in a letter, which said: “… there is a repetition of
unsubstantiated allegations, as if these constituted evidence of
Security Forces or official misconduct… It is a pity that… the end
result should be so flawed.”

On 26 June 2015, Mr. Justice Stephens delivered his ruling on our
application for judicial review in Belfast High Court. In the opening
paragraphs of his judgment, he said the following:

“[Geraldine Finucane] … was convinced from the beginning that servants
or agents of the state were involved in the murder of her husband. The
government has accepted that there was state involvement and has
apologised for it. It is hard to express in forceful enough terms the
appropriate response to the murder, the collusion associated with it,
the failure to prevent the murder and the obstruction of some of the
investigations into it. Individually and collectively they were
abominations, which amounted to the most conspicuously bad, glaring and
flagrant breach of the obligation of the state to protect the life of
its citizen and to ensure the rule of law. There is and can be no
attempt at justification.”

Sadly, Mr. Justice Stephens concluded that the decision of the British
Government was not unlawful and so he was unable to order an inquiry. We
appealed this decision and on Tuesday, the Northern Ireland Court of
Appeal delivered its judgment on our case for a public inquiry. Sadly,
we were, once again, unsuccessful but there may yet be grounds for a
further appeal.

Where, then, does the case for a public inquiry into the murder of Pat
Finucane rest? The courts have concluded that they cannot order an
inquiry. The British Government has determined it will not hold one.

Perhaps all that can be done has been done already …?

Perhaps the murder of Pat Finucane is simply, ‘old news’ …?

I do not think that the controversy surrounding the murder of Pat
Finucane has been properly resolved.

I believe I am right in this, not just because of a broken promise by
the British Government but because of the unanswered questions that
arise from Pat’s murder and the fact that no-one within the British
establishment has ever been made accountable for it.

I believe I am right because the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is
here tonight and has spoken, on behalf of the Irish Government, of their
continued support for a public inquiry.

Most of all, I believe I am right because of the unwavering support my
family and I have had from the people of Belfast and beyond for the last
twenty eight years.

I see many people here tonight who have stood with us for all of those
three decades, helping us out, urging us on. I meet them often, at
events such as this or just when I am out and about my daily business. I
am constantly approached by people who wish me and my family well. They
tell me we are doing great work.

Some people even tell me that they have known tragedy in their lives but
were unable to follow through on it, for various reasons. But they gain
comfort and some degree of closure by knowing that someone is holding
the British State accountable for their actions.

But everyone ends by telling me the same thing:

“Keep going. It’s important.”

This is why we do what we do. This is why we keep going. It isn’t easy.
Many times, over the years, we have felt like we have no more left to
give. Like we are fighting an unbeatable enemy. Like the obstacles
before us are insurmountable.

It is at times like those that my family and I take strength from two
things. One, is the path that lies behind us, which helps put the
obstacles ahead in perspective.

Because of what we have uncovered, the High Court in Belfast now
declares, as a fact, that Pat’s murder was an “abomination” and that it
amounted to “the most conspicuously bad, glaring and flagrant breach of
the obligation of the state to protect the life of its citizen.”

Of course, this is not the first time there has been official
recognition of the true nature of Pat’s murder. Others have said similar
things, over the years.

But I believe that the statement of Mr. Justice Stephens in the High
Court in Belfast is significant. It is where Pat himself worked, where
he plied his trade, where he represented his own people. And it is
perhaps the recognition that would have brought him the most
satisfaction because convincing people in your own back yard is often
more difficult than anywhere else.

However, we did not have to convince everyone that we were right.

This is the second thing that keeps us going: the people who believed
us, right from the start, who knew there something rotten in the British
State, and who have supported us for so many years.

Pat’s friends; Pat’s community; Pat’s own people.

We have been encouraged and supported and helped by so many people when
the going got tough.

And the reason we keep going and can keep going, is because of all that
help and support and because there are so many people who want us to.
There are so many people, who, like us, want to find out the truth
behind Pat’s murder.

It is unfinished business for them. It is unfinished business for us.

I want to know, why. I want to know, how. I want to know, who.

I want to ask my own questions and I want to hear the answers for
myself. I want to read the documents and understand the frameworks. Most
of all, I want to be able to show them to the entire world so that
everyone can know and learn what can be done by governments in the name
of the people if we are not vigilant.

Most of all, I want to share that accomplishment with you, Pat’s own
people, so that, together, we can turn unfinished business into finished
business.

I owe you all a great deal for your support over the years. I would very
much like to share the final achievement with you also.

Thank you very much.

How far has the Good Friday Agreement gone, when DUP won’t shake a Catholic’s hand

Posted by Jim on

News Letter. Belfast. Thursday, February 23, 2017

The DUPs Nelson McCausland has said he does not regret refusing to shake the Sinn Fein finance ministers hand during a televised election debate.

Mr McCausland claimed he had been left angry and disappointed by a number of comments made by Mairtin O Muilleoir during the program and that to accept a handshake at that time would have been disingenuous.

He also accused Mr. O Muilleoir of offering his hand for show.

Alliance Party leader Naomi Long described the incident as playground behavior and said it does not inspire confidence that the DUP and Sinn Fein will be able to work together after the election.

The DUP and Sinn Fein assembly candidates were participants in a Nolan Live election debate broadcast on Wednesday.

Towards the end of the show Mr. O Muilleoir attempted to shake hands with Mr McCausland, however the DUP man refused.

M.r O Muilleoir later Tweeted: Never refuse the opponents open hand after a contest no matter how deep the divisions or impassioned the debate.

However, Mr. McCausland said: Mairtin O Muilleoir is a man who does things for effect. He was doing it for show.

He added: It is not a question of respect. I am not averse to shaking hands with anyone. At that moment I was angry and disappointed and was reflecting on what he had said. In particular he said in Sinn Fein we believe in live and let live.

For 30 years the IRA murdered people and many republicans eulogized in the crimes. Those people werent allowed to live so it was very hypocritical to say that.

Mr. McCausland continued: I was also concerned about the finance ministers numeracy skills.

He said the Gay Pride parade was the biggest parade in Belfast. I think when you count participants and supporters nothing in the city of Belfast could rival the Twelfth of July.

Ms. Long said that the deterioration of the relationship between the DUP and Sinn Fein over the past few months was clear to see.

The Alliance assembly candidate added: This sort of playground behavior is beyond pathetic and does not inspire confidence these two parties will be able to resume a civil partnership after March 2.

n McCausland

Arlene Foster is best recruiter Sinn Féin has

Posted by Jim on February 23, 2017

Storms of financial scandal, corruption and incompetence may batter the outside of the DUP bubble but inside the only sound that disturbs the silence is the mesmeric muttering of the Gerry Adams mantra 
Brian Feeney. Irish News. Belfast. Wednesday, Februeary 22, 2017

Anti-Catholic bigotry of many in DUP still significant

Posted by Jim on

Andy Pollak. Irish Times. Dublin. Wednesday, 22, 2017
Andy Pollak is former religious affairs correspondent and Belfast reporter with The Irish Times.

“It is disappointing that the deep and overlapping anti-Irish and
anti-Catholic bigotry of so many DUP- supporting unionists appears
to still play a significant role in Northern life and politics.”
Above, DUP leader Arlene Foster. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images

How much did continuing religious bigotry have to do with the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive last month? It was clear from Martin McGuinness’s resignation statement that the row which led to that collapse was not only – or even mainly – about the Renewable Heat Initiative fiasco.

McGuinness accused First Minister Arlene Foster of “deep-seated arrogance” and the DUP of rejecting his attempts to reach out to Unionists, of “shameful disrespect” to women, gay people and ethnic minorities, and “crude and crass bigotry” to Irish language speakers.

In a follow-up RTÉ interview, McGuinness said there were many people in the DUP who “hate anything to do with Irish nationalism and Irish republicanism.”

As somebody who began studying the DUP more than 30 years ago (in the course of researching a biography of the late Ian Paisley), I recognize the truth in all these charges. I had hoped that
their antiquated prejudices would have begun to diminish as a realization that they had to share their divided little society with their nationalist neighbors started to dawn on Unionists in a new century.

It is disappointing that the deep and overlapping anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry of so many DUP-supporting Unionists appears to still play a significant role in Northern life and politics.
Inherently superior

Back in 1986, I wrote about the people who followed Paisley as follows: “They believed they were inherently superior to their Roman Catholic neighbors because of their religion. They were ‘born again’ Christians, living in the ‘light’ of pure Protestantism, free men who communed with God without the interference of priests or man-made rituals. Catholics, on the other hand, were benighted and ignorant souls who were enslaved by the ‘darkness’ of Roman superstition, the idolatry of the Mass, and the rule of the papal anti-Christ.

“Such a view tallied perfectly with the superiority they felt anyway as the descendants of the people who had ‘civilized’ Ulster. Thus the underprivileged position of Northern Catholics was nothing to do with injustice: quite the opposite – it was living proof of God’s justice in rewarding those who followed the true religion.”

I wonder how many Northern Unionists of the DUP persuasion still hold such appalling, near- racist views. Too many, I suspect, although friends tell me that such bigotry is far less prevalent among younger DUP members (and I have at least one young DUP councilor acquaintance who bears that out).

A politically-minded Belfast Protestant minister told me recently that about a third of DUP Assembly members were old-fashioned conservative evangelicals – some might call them fundamentalists – who continue to oppose Roman Catholicism as non-Christian, and to look down on its followers.

This kind of anti-Catholic Protestantism also remains a significant factor in the North’s largest Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church. Its younger ministers are overwhelmingly conservative evangelicals, and many of its congregations are closed off from wider society, with a pietistic belief system that has little to say about issues of sectarianism and social justice.

As the outspoken former moderator, the Rev John Dunlop, says, whereas much of the thinking of Northern Catholics remains strongly influenced by anti-Britishness, the equivalent influence among many Northern Protestants is still anti-Catholicism.

Religious nightclubs

Church attendance in Northern Ireland, as everywhere in Europe, is in decline. Belfast is no longer a city where nothing opens on a Sunday and the only entertainment on that day is of the soul-saving type – “a city of religious nightclubs”, to use Methodist leader Donald Soper’s memorable phrase from the 1950s.

No longer is there an atmosphere of cold war between Irish (and British) Protestantism and Catholicism, the kind of atmosphere that saw the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1953 denounce “the oppressions and denials of just liberties which lie at the door of the Roman Catholic Church”.

Relations between the churches have improved hugely since then. In 2004, the Rev Ken Newell, that year’s courageously liberal (and peacemaking) Presbyterian moderator, incurred the wrath of conservatives by inviting the Catholic primate, Cardinal Seán Brady, to its annual general assembly for the first time.

This invitation was not repeated, although there have been other high-level gestures, such as Archbishop of Armagh Eamon Martin’s attendance at a Presbyterian conference on 1916 last year.

Even 30 years ago I estimated that as many as 80 per cent of DUP members would have been Catholic-fearing fundamentalists. A lot has been done, but there is still a lot to do to overcome religious bigotry and fearfulness in the Protestant North.

If anyone is having trouble getting on site with BrooklynIrish.com, it will also be on BrooklynIrish.net. Note Net not Com, it may not happen for a month but as of now both are working. Sorry for the inconvience

Posted by Jim on February 18, 2017