Posted by Jim on December 20, 2015
Armagh women’s prison protests promoted feminism within the republican movement and challenged sexist attitudes, but women’s issues were not a priority for Sinn Fein
by Maria Power
Feminist demands were secondary to the Republican agenda and most female members implicitly understood and supported this. Mairéad Farrell, on “dirty protest” at Armagh jail in 1980 and later a hunger striker, summed up this reasoning: “I am oppressed as a woman but I am also oppressed because I’m Irish. Everyone in this country is oppressed and we can’t successfully end our oppression as women until we first end the oppression of our country.” Photograph: Pacemaker
Armagh was the only women’s prison in Northern Ireland and until 1976 all those with political status were recognised by the prison authorities. After the introduction of the criminalisation policy on March 1st, 1976, the Armagh women prisoners went on a “no work” protest, which due to harsh penalties imposed by the prison governor had escalated into a “no wash” protest by February 7th, 1980.
On December 1st, 1980, Mairéad Farrell, Mary Doyle and Mairéad Nugent joined the hunger strike from Armagh Jail. Although this protest was somewhat overshadowed by that in Long Kesh, it raised questions regarding the attitudes of feminists to the involvement of women within republicanism. Furthermore, within republicanism itself, it brought into focus the role of women and feminist principles within the movement.
Hunger striking as a feminist issue
Nell McCafferty, the Irish feminist writer, believed that the issue of the Armagh women prisoners was a basic issue of integrity for feminists. She argued that the protests were a direct consequence of the very imperialism which feminists believed was violating the rights of women through the direct denial of – among other things – medical care and attention to the prisoners. She stated that “the choice facing feminists on the matter of Armagh Jail are clear-cut. We can ignore these women or we can express concerns about them. Since the suffering of women anywhere, whether self-inflicted or not, cannot be ignored by feminists, then we have a clear responsibility to respond.” (Irish Times, August 22nd, 1980)
In this argument, Women Against Imperialism, who organised the annual protest outside Armagh prison on International Women’s Day, supported McCafferty. In a 1983 article in Spare Rib they argued that Women Against Imperialism “maintained that to support the prisoners didn’t mean a neglect of feminist demands, but they could not ignore the direct effect of British Imperialism in Ireland” (May 1983). Whilst the editorial team and writers of Spare Rib were on the whole sympathetic to republican feminists and the Armagh protesters, their readers were not, and on its letters page it is hard to find a letter supporting women campaigning from a republican feminist perspective (apart from one from the Armagh protesters themselves).
Such writers supported the views put forward by the feminists replying to Nell McCafferty’s Irish Times article, and expressed a cynicism about the place of women in the nationalist movement: “the so-called nationalist cause has no more place for women than the present ‘imperialism’ which is supposedly oppressing women”. (Spare Rib, June 1980)
Feminists writing from this point of view not only abhorred the violent nature of the republican movement but argued that “their [feminist republicans’] male mentors had so thoroughly inculcated the belief into their minds that socialism automatically represented liberation for women that they refused to examine it for themselves”. (Irish Times, September 5th, 1980)
The legacy of the women’s hunger strikes for the republican movement
But how far can such an analysis be justified? The republican movement gave a face to women’s issues with the creation of the Women’s Department in 1979, which was initially established as the Women’s Coordinating Committee. This department was founded as a direct result of a campaign by women within the republican movement who, despite their contributions, felt virtually invisible and who were dissatisfied with the idea that the issue of women’s repression was secondary to that of partition. The progress made by such women in bringing women’s issues to the attention of the republican movement was reinforced and furthered by the Armagh women’s protests.
This discourse translated itself into Sinn Féin’s women’s policy commencing with Women in the New Ireland presented to the 1980 Ard Fheis. This was a disappointment to many as it was the result of a compromise between the younger, radical elements in the movement and the older traditionalists. This compromise can be seen clearly in the section relating to abortion which at the time was the question concerning feminists. This document laid the foundation for Sinn Féin’s policy on women’s issues over the next decade. Issues such as sexism and stereotyping, violence against women and access to contraception were to become recurrent themes within the Women’s Department’s policy documents.
Taken in isolation, the language used in describing policy on each of these issues demonstrated a commitment to a feminist agenda. An example of this can be seen in the development of policy regarding equal opportunities. The policies suggested were comprehensive and practical and focused upon the need for the State to treat women equally both in the workplace and in the provision of benefits. Training was a central concern and remained an issue for the party. Such schemes were presented as a means of empowering women, enabling them to gain control over their own lives rather than being subjugated by men.
By examining the policy documents presented by Sinn Féin on women’s issues between 1980 and the late 1990s, it would be easy to assume that the relationship between feminism and republicanism was uncomplicated with both ideologies being motivated by a desire to promote women’s rights and improve their position within society. This, however, is where the relationship assumed by many to exist between the two ideologies ends, as underlying the development of the Republican movement’s policy on women was a fundamental issue: partition.
Every policy was linked back to this with most of the documents published prior to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement relating to women’s rights beginning with a section outlining the brutality of the British State and its effect on women’s lives. According to this reasoning, the only way in which women could enjoy equal rights was through a reunified Ireland as national liberation was the pre-condition for socialism and the liberation of women. Feminist arguments and demands were therefore secondary to the Republican agenda and most female members implicitly understood this and indeed supported it fully.
Mairéad Farrell, one of the Armagh hunger strikers, summed up this reasoning: “I am oppressed as a woman but I am also oppressed because I’m Irish. Everyone in this country is oppressed and we can’t successfully end our oppression as women until we first end the oppression of our country.” She does, however, state that women have to play a prominent role in the movement in order to achieve that equality. Sinn Féin created a feminist agenda for themselves which although espousing the rhetoric of mainstream feminism took on a distinctly Republican flavour demonstrating that feminism and republicanism were not “two sides of the same coin” in the aftermath of the hunger strikes but rather that feminist ideas were another means of highlighting the need to overthrow the British hegemony.
Although the stand made by women during the 1980 Armagh prison protests went some way towards promoting feminism within the republican movement and challenging sexist attitudes, women’s issues were not a priority for Sinn Fein and it has been alleged by one anonymous female Irish republican that they were excluded from decision-making structures within the party: “Women in this country … have been excluded from all levels of decision making … within their political parties. Sinn Féin is no different than any organisation … Within Sinn Féin as elsewhere political decisions are being made by a minority of men despite some gestures of representation for women.” (Women in Sinn Féin, May 1995).
For the republican movement, feminism served a purpose, with its ideals being manipulated to achieve that purpose whilst the raison d’etre of the republican movement centred upon ending British rule.
Maria Power is a lecturer in the Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool
Posted by Jim on December 19, 2015
———————————————————————-
We are on the eve of a momentous year, writes Gerry Adams. This time a
hundred years ago republican men and women were planning the overthrow
of the British Empire in Ireland. (For Leargas).
———————————————————————-
For those of you who have never heard her name Molly O’Reilly was a
young teenage girl who marched with the Citizen Army to the GPO on
Easter Monday April 24th 1916. Molly was born around 1900 in Gardner
Street in Dublin. At the age of 11 she joined Clann na nGaedheal the
republican girl scouts movement. Two years later she was so appalled by
the living conditions in the Dublin tenements that she volunteered to
support the workers and their families during the Lock-out. At the age
of 13 Molly helped organise a soup kitchen in Liberty Hall.
And it was there one week before the Easter Rising she raised the Irish
flag (the gold harp on green) for James Connolly.
Molly was hugely influenced by Connolly and was an active member of the
Citizen Army. In July 1914, after hundreds of rifles were landed by the
Asgard at Howth, she brought dozens of the rifles to her home in Gardner
Street where they stayed until they could be distributed throughout
Dublin.
During Easter week and in the midst of heavy rifle and machine gun fire
and the artillery shelling of Dublin City centre she fearlessly carried
dispatches for the leaders out of and into the GPO.
Later during the Tan War she was a member of the Cumann na mBan and as a
worker in the United Services Club in St. Stephens Green – a club for
British soldiers – she gathered intelligence for Michael Collins.
Molly opposed the Treaty. During the Civil War she was held in prison by
the Treaty side and went on hunger strike. As a result she and 50 other
women were released in November 1923. Molly remained a stalwart of the
republican struggle until her death in October 1950.
Molly O’Reilly was an exceptional woman; a courageous woman; a strong
woman.
I give you this short account of her exceptional life experience because
the Sinn Fein exhibition to celebrate the Easter Rising – REVOLUTION
1916 – which will open on Saturday February 27th 2016 – is largely
centred around Molly’s story. The visitor will experience the Rising
through Molly’s eyes.
The exhibition promises to be one of the highlights of the centenary
celebrations. It will be held in the historic Ambassador Theatre on O
Connell Street. It is part of the Rotunda complex which saw the founding
of Sinn Fein in 1905 and the Irish Volunteers in 1913. Over seven
thousand joined the Volunteers at that inaugural meeting and on the same
night a special section set aside for women was also full.
The organisers of the exhibition are going to extraordinary lengths to
make REVOLUTION 1916 an event not to be missed or forgotten.
It will host the Irish Volunteers Commemorative Organisation (I.V.C.O.)
collection of artefacts covering 1916 and afterwards. It will also
include an original 1916 Proclamation – one of only 50 known to exist.
This week another of the original Proclamations sold in London for
#300,000.
The exhibition will also have on display three Single Shot Mausers which
were part of the consignment of 900 brought in as part of the Howth
gunrunning episode. These were used during the Rising. One of the single
shot Mausers is a “Black” one – a one off rifle – that was said to have
been given to the veteran Fenian and 1916 signatory Tom Clarke. It was
only recently identified and the brass trigger guard has 20 notches
carved on it. It also has a British sappers serrated bayonet attached.
Only 12 of these Mausers are known to still exist.
Other artefacts include Luger and C96 Mauser machine pistols, original
uniforms of Irish Volunteers, Cumann na mBan and na Fianna Eireann.
There will be over 500 artefacts on display, many of which have never
been seen before. Also included are other items from after 1916
including Michael Collin’s revolver, the first I.R.A. Thompson machine
guns brought to Ireland, and the Tricolour that flew over the G.P.O. in
1966 on the 50th anniversary of the Rising.
A significant part of the exhibition will involve lifting part of the
floor of the Ambassador so that visitors can look down into the network
of tunnels underneath. These were used by Michael Collins’s, ‘The Squad’
to carry out attacks on the British military. It is also believed by
some that the leaders who abandoned the GPO as it burned on the evening
of 28 April 1916 were trying to make their way to these tunnels.
Also on display are a wide range of artistic pieces from framed
portraits to stylised garrisons, large charcoal prints to life size
sculptures. Artist Robert Ballagh has created a set of iconic images of
the 1981 Hunger Strikers which will be on exhibition for the first time
to mark the 35th anniversary in 2016. And master mural artist Danny
Devenny is completing two 1916 murals in the lobby of the Ambassador.
Each day at midday a uniformed P.H. Pearse will read aloud the
Proclamation outside the Ambassador.
The exhibition is scheduled to run for at least 33 weeks.
International Women’s Day on March 6th will see the ‘Women of the
Revolution’ honoured by an event at the GPO.
Other events will include a parade of the Irish Citizen Army that will
take place from Liberty Hall to St. Stephen’s Green on March 26th.
Dawn Vigils will be held outside Kilmainham Gaol on the dates the
leaders were executed and in Cork on 9th May and Pentonville on August
3rd 2016.
And on Sunday April 24th 2016 the Citizens’ Initiative will be holding a
national march and rally to ‘Reclaim the Vision of 2016’.
So, a lot of hard work and planning is going into REVOLUTION 1916.
Whatever else you are thinking of doing next year as your contribution
to the centenary celebrations take the time to come to Dublin for a once
in a life time opportunity to see a unique exhibition of artefacts of
that period. See you there.
Posted by Jim on
Relatives of some of those killed and wounded on Bloody Sunday have said
they are not surprised by a High Court ruling in London that those
involved in the massacre will not be taken to Ireland for questioning.
The seven former paratroopers who brought the legal challenge have still
not been questioned by any police force over the events of January 30,
1972, in which 14 civil rights demonstrators in Derry were killed and a
further 15 were injured.
The basis for the former Paratrooper’s lodging their objections at the
High Court began in early November after the arrest of the soldier known
as ‘Lance Corporal J’, who lives in Ireland. He was arrested at his home
in Antrim and questioned at a police station in Belfast before being
released.
The High Court in London granted the seven former British soldiers an
order prohibiting the PSNI from arresting them on their undertaking
“that they will attend for an interview under caution… to be carried
out by the PSNI at a police station in England and Wales, or other
acceptable location”.
The three judges agreed with the former soldiers that their lives would
be put at risk by being questioned in Ireland, and that there was little
point in the questioning.
They said: “The present position of the claimants is that each will
exercise their right to silence in the interviews. It is, in our view,
almost impossible to foresee that any will depart from that position.
The interviews are therefore likely to be short and straightforward.”
Mickey McKinney, whose brother William was shot dead on Bloody Sunday,
said it was simply a continuation of what went on at the Saville Inquiry
some ten years ago.
He questioned the supposed threat to their security. “If the Queen on
Prince Charles can come to northern Ireland and receive protection from
the PSNI, then why can’t they?”
Kate Nash, whose brother William was shot dead on Bloody Sunday and
whose father Alex was seriously wounded, also said she expected them to
“continuously move the goalposts”.
“The next move we expect will be an insistence on anonymity, then it
will be that they will have to be tried in England and then it will
proceed to attempting to stop in on national security grounds,” she
said.
“What they need to know however is that we will continue to fight this
and seek justice. We are not prepared to give up on this, it is too
important.”
Both Mickey McKinney and Kate Nash said that the PSNI needed to initiate
the arrest procedures straight away.
“What needs to happen now is that we need to get on with it and get
these guys interviewed and get files sent to the Public Prosecution
Service. Let’s get this moving,” said Mr McKinney.
DARK HAND OF PRINCE CHARLES
Kate Nash also queried whether the commander-in-chief of the Parachute
Regiment had sight of secret military and government documents relating
to Bloody Sunday.
It was revealed this week through the Freedom of Information Act that
Prince Charles has been receiving Cabinet papers on a range of subjects
for decades and writing his thoughts on them to various Ministers.
It has been revealed that both Charles Windsor and his mother, Queen
Elizabeth, receive all cabinet memoranda, including highly classified
discussion documents that are only publicly released after 30 years. The
revelation has renewed allegations that the English royals retains
significant powers over the day-to-day lives of those living under their
jurisdiction.
Kate Nash says the affair also raises serious questions as to influence
of the Prince in the Bloody Sunday cover-up.
“It is outrageous that he is given preference over victims,” she said.
“Not only does Charles see the documents but he isn’t slow to tell
Ministers what he thinks of them and what should be done.
“Everyone who has campaigned for truth and justice regarding Bloody
Sunday should speak out and demand the details of the material Charles
has been allowed to examine and details of any conversations he may have
had afterwards with Ministers, army chiefs of members of the security
services.
“For example, was the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment allow
to express a view in advance on how the report of the Bloody Sunday
Inquiry should be dealt with? We know the report was discussed by the
cabinet. Did they also have Charles’ opinions in front of them? Did
these opinions influence Ministers?”
“The Saville report let every senior Para off the hook. It exonerated
every politician involved.
“It gave MI5 a clean bill of health. It pointed the finger at individual
paratroopers, but whitewashed everybody higher up the scale.
“Was this a result of establishment pressure and did Prince Charles
contribute to that pressure? How many other secret documents relating to
the North have been shown to him over the years?
“The fact that it has now come out is a victory. But, there is a great
deal of information about Bloody Sunday and about the North generally
which is still being kept from the public. Let’s have it all out in the
open. Charles Windsor has no more right than the rest of us. Answers
about this should be the very least demanded by elected representatives,
particularly from Derry.”
Posted by Jim on December 18, 2015
Who are the 1916 Societies?
For more information on our campaign visit our website: www.1916societies.com
WE BELIEVE:
- Constitutional authority resides with the Irish people alone
- The British Government Veto on Irish Unity is without legitimacy
- Dáil Éireann should be restored as the National Parliament of All Ireland
We contend the will of the people is for change in this country – for a National Republic in line with our democratic rights. We believe our flagship ‘One Ireland One Vote’ initiative – our demand for a single-constituency All-Ireland Referendum on Irish Unity – can realise that end.
Britain’s partition of Ireland and ongoing presence in the North is based on conquest, without mandate and usurps the will of the people. External interference in the democratic process violates Irish sovereignty and should be rejected.
‘One Ireland Vote’ is a means to resolve the constitutional conflict in Ireland. It seeks to end partition, establish a Government of National Unity and rebuild the Sovereign All-Ireland Republic.
Join 1916 Societies:
Membership of 1916 Societies shall be open to any Irish or Irish-American republican regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion or ability, with the exception of those who endorse the legitimacy of British rule and the forces of British occupation in Ireland’.r ability, with the exception of those who endorse the legitimacy of British rule and the forces of British occupation in Ireland’.
The 1916 Societies are an Irish Separatist Movement and believe that the Irish Republic should be a Sovereign Independent State.
The 1916 Societies are committed to fostering and promoting Irish unity as set out in the 1916 Proclamation.
The 1916 Societies believe in the right of the Irish people to national self-determination. We demand that this right is recognised in the form of a 32 county referendum on Irish Unity.
The 1916 Societies believe the proposed Referendums under the 1998 Act do not constitute National Self-Determination, and would in effect be merely an internal six County border poll. Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act gives the British Secretary of State a supreme veto over the Self-Determination of the Irish people and guarantees Unionists gerrymandering of the island of Ireland. Under this act, the British Government through the Secretary of State, claims that they and they alone may or may not call a Referendum, and claims the right to decide who and who will not have the right to vote, decide on the wording of the Referendum and will only call one when they are satisfied as to its outcome.
The 1916 Societies believe it is for the citizens of Ireland who have the absolute and sovereign right to decide the future of this island. It is for them and they alone, free from external impediment, to choose their own destiny.
The 1916 Societies believe National self-determination expressed through an all-Ireland referendum will give every Irish citizen the equal right to vote on the issue of the partition of Ireland and the formation of sovereign independent unitary state.
The 1916 Societies are committed to organising a campaign for Irish Unity.
The 1916 societies believe that a party political strategy will not unite Ireland. They have no intention of engaging in an electoral strategy to partitions institutions.
The 1916 societies are committed to putting the issues of the partition of Ireland and Irish unity at the top of the political agenda.
The 1916 societies are committed to honouring Ireland’s patriot dead.
The 1916 societies will work with other organisations and individuals, at home and abroad, to promote Irish unity.
The 1916 societies’ are committed at a local level to the following
To remember the patriot dead of Ireland.
Posted by Jim on December 16, 2015
Britain’s most decorated reporter set out to write a Famine novel to restore England’s reputation but the facts confounded him. He tells how Trevelyan earned his scorn
Michael Nicholson: Almost all I have written happened in real life. I have exaggerated nothing. There was no need. The truth is appalling enough and if the reader finds the descriptions of people, events and their outcome hard to believe, then go to the history books and be convinced
A million dying because a foreign blight had turned a potato crop into rotten, stinking, putrefying mush. Try to picture families of living skeletons whispering their last prayer in the shelter of a ditch as they watch others turning black with the fever that spread like a summer fire across bracken from Skibbereen to Donegal, from Wicklow to Clare. Imagine another million, still untouched by it, desperately fleeing their motherland to find safety and sanctuary anywhere and with anyone who would take them. This was Ireland in the Famine years.
As a foreign correspondent for ITN, travelling the globe for more than 30 years, I reckon I have seen more than my fair share of man’s inhumanity to man. It is said that we reporters suffer from an overdose of everything, saturated as we are in the world’s woes. In places like Bangladesh, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda, I became used to dealing in numbers; the dead and dying in their hundreds, or in their thousands, even their tens of thousands. But a million corpses in a forgotten corner of what was then the world’s greatest and wealthiest Empire is inconceivable.
Dark Rosaleen is the story of murder and betrayal, of a starving people held captive, of a failed rebellion and a love that grew out of it during those years of the Great Hunger. In 1845, when the potato crop failed yet again, the British government sent a commissioner to Ireland to oversee the distribution of food aid. In my story his spoilt, overprivileged young daughter Kate is obliged to go with him to what, in her tantrums, she calls “this hateful land of saints and savages”. In her first few months, isolated in her father mansion overlooking Cork, she cares nothing for the suffering outside. Then the scale of the disaster gradually overwhelms her and her selfish arrogance turns to pity and anger. Finally, despairingly, she turns against both her father and her country. She is condemned as a traitor when she joins the rebellious Young Irelanders in their fight to end British rule.
You might think this would have been better written by an Irish author rather than an Englishman. I had a reason. At the start, my intention was to defend the government of Prime Minister Peel, to illustrate the immense physical and political problems trying to feed a starving nation across the Irish Sea. My mindset was that we English had been badly judged, that both England and Scotland were also suffering from the ravages of the blight, that communication between London and Dublin was slow and unreliable, that transporting food aid to the hinterland was a massive problem. In short, I thought there was good reason to reduce England’s blame.
I had read the famine novels of Liam O’Flaherty and Walter Macken, and was moved by their simplicity and pathos. I had listened at length to Ireland’s historical grievances in Dublin and Liverpool, in Cork and in Boston, Massachusetts, wherever Irishmen gathered over a pint of porter or a Jamesons. They spoke of a deliberate policy of imposed starvation, of land clearances, of ethnic cleansing, of exporting Irish peasants in coffin ships that might never reach the far shores of the Atlantic, and all this said as if it was proven historical fact.
Given an Irishman’s well-known considerable verbal licence I was happy to persuade myself that much of it was exaggerated blarney. But as I ploughed even deeper in my research, my characters took over and my storyline went into reverse. It was if I was a prosecuting counsel who had his side changed midway. I was a convert and I ended up with a novel I had not intended to write.
Kate is my heroine and Sir Charles Trevelyan, the government’s director of famine relief, is the villain. This is his real name and all that he does and says in my novel is as they appear, word for word, in the historical records of the time. I make this point because so much of what he said and did is barely believable.
“We will do what is necessary but no more. The Irish peasants are perverse and prefer to beg than borrow. They would rather eat free English food than labour for their own. It would be unjust and unwise to pamper them when our own people are pleading for assistance. I do not intend to transfer famine from one country to another.”
Trevelyan was guided not by any agreed government policy because there was none. He was guided by God. A pious, stubborn, uncompromising, devout evangelist, he saw the blight and the suffering as an act of Providence and to deny it was tantamount to blasphemy. The Anglo-Irish landowners, who considered the Irish peasants vermin, were loud and constant in their support and applause.
Here I must end this historical explainer for fear you will think my novel is yet another academic heavyweight. But against this background is the sequel, the story of Kate and the man who loved her, based on John Mitchel, leader of the rebellious Young Irelanders, the forefathers of Sein Féin. Kate rode with them as they preached their revolutionary gospel, as they attacked the landlords, set fire to their estates, ambushed the Redcoats and stole from the rich to feed the hungry. She became the legendary Dark Rosaleen, named after a banned nationalist poem by James Clarence Mangan.
“The Erne shall run with blood
The earth will rock beneath our tread
And flames wrap hill and wood
And gun-peal and slogan cry wake many a glen serene
Ere you shall fade, ere you should die
My Dark Rosaleen”
In order to turn history into a novel, an author is obliged to dramatise, to put words into mouths that might never have been spoken, to lay blame that perhaps was not entirely deserved. My heroine and her revolutionary lover may not have existed as I portray them. But some part of them will have lived those times and helped forge those times.
Nothing in my pages, not the people nor the lives they lived, is wholly fictional. Almost all I have written happened in real life. I have exaggerated nothing. There was no need. The truth is appalling enough and if the reader finds the descriptions of people, events and their outcome hard to believe, then go to the history books and be convinced.
