The G8 in Fermanagh - isn't it GR8?

God isn’t it great, though? I can hardly believe it - it’s like getting all your birthdays and Christmases bunched together on a couple of June days. Sure we’ll be like a house that’s been nominated for the stations - there’ll be no let-up in white-washing and scrubbing and cleaning and painting and putting up ‘Cead mile failte’ signs on every lamp-post and tree.

And to think that where was that remote village Obama visited a while back, what was it, right, Moneygall. To think that  the Moneygall people thought they were the tops. Hah!  Forget it, Co Louth. We’ll be getting Obama plus every other important person you could think of - the political creme de la creme of Britain, France, Germany, Russia - we really have been selected for an honour so top-heavy, it’s a wonder it doesn't topple and fall into one of those loughs around the hotel.

What’s that? The hotel is in receivership? Oh. That does put a slight dampener on things. But hey, think of it this way: having the G8 summit there shows that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, that there’s resurrection after receivership, that phoenix-like, we’re set to come swooping clear of the ashes. I knew there was a positive aspect to it, if you thought hard enough. 

Will I be going myself? Well, no. And no, none of my friends either. Though there is a neighbour’s lad that’s got a job taking out the garbage at the back of the hotel - he’s going to be there. No, he won’t be able to take pictures with his camera-phone, but still: he’ll be able to tell his grandchildren he was there, won’t he? And then there’s the tourist boost this will give the area. Just think of it! People will see how lovely Fermanagh is and they’ll only be lining up to get visiting us, thus doing wonders for the local economy. What’s that?  They said the same thing about the visit by the Windsor woman, and tourism numbers actually fell in the year after? God, I hadn’t heard that. Maybe that was because there are a lot of anti-royalists about. This is different. This is the elected heads of so many states - people will be certain to follow their lead and visit. And spend their money, of course.  How much money will the G8 itself generate? I don’t know...Yes, of course they’ll bring their own chefs and food and stuff - you don’t want to risk somebody poisoning them, do you? ...That’s a shameful thing to say, shameful.  OK, I can’t see Cameron or Merkel going down to the village to buy a pint of milk or some Cornflakes or a packet of fags, but at the same time somebody  local must be benefiting. And think what it’ll do for the hotel - what an ad! It’ll flash round the world. 

Yes, to every nook and cranny. To remote spots in Asia, in Africa, in South America - places where people barely scrape out an existence. Sure it’ll be only inspirational for them...Well yes, you could  put it differently. You could say the rest of the world will be pressing its nose to the shop window to watch how our leaders live life. How soft their beds are, how sumptuous their banquets, how elegant their surroundings. You could if you were that nasty negative sort of person...EH?  Oh well, now you’re preaching the politics of envy. Just because you  can’t have that sort of lavish life-style, just because there are millions of people in Africa and South America living in appalling conditions, doesn’t mean the G8 people shouldn’t be given a proper lfeather-bedded time when they visit us. How else would their brains work so they could continue running the financial and political world in the clever, wealth-developing way they’ve been doing for the last ten years? 

It’s humbling, that’s what it is. To have these immensely powerful men and women, who could have gone anywhere in the world, deciding to come to Fermanagh and put the Province on the map...OK, who was it? Who shouted that remark about dreary spires?  Get him out of here  this instant. We all know that a massive honour has been bestowed on humble little Fermanagh and the Province. Thank you,  Mr Cameron sir. Never let it be said that Britain  forgets us. We are eternally  in your debt. And no, I don’t mean the £7 billion each year.  Oh, I feel quite dizzy with delight. Give me your arm, Marjorie...

Jim seizes the high ground

There are few things more enjoyable than a man or woman in full moral-outrage flow.  Jim Wells was flowing very well in the Stormont debating chamber the other day and I must say it was a tour de force.

Jim was making it clear that non, il ne regrette rien.  If any muddle-headed nationalists or republicans were waiting for him to apologise for his remarks, they’d be waiting a long, long, LONG time. The remarks Jim was referring to were when he, behaving in what Minister Carál Ní Chuilín described as an aggressive, venomous and threatening manner, and referring to the Minister’s   adviser Mary McArdle, said to her “You needn’t think you are going to bring that murderer to South Down”. In another incident, Jim passed Mary McArdle in a corridor in Stormont and said to her “There’s the murderer herself”.  In the light of the incidents, the committee on standards and privileges proposed to bar Jim from Stormont for  a week. But the motion was defeated. Jim stays.

Why was I cheered up by these matters? Several reasons. It brings into the open what people are thinking - in this case, what unionist politicians, particularly Jim, think of people like Mary McArdle who were formerly IRA members. It brings into the open what people think of themselves: in denouncing the actions of Ms McArdle, Jim clearly was claiming higher moral ground for himself. Finally, it brings into the open the attempts of unionist politicians to instate their version of the history of the past forty years as the official history. I’m cheered by that because it’s always comforting to see what people are really up to.

Unfortunately there’s a down side as well, and that is that what people are up to may prevail as accepted wisdom and fact. Let’s consider the three I’ve listed.

Even if we were to accept Jim’s judgement of Ms McArdle as a murderer, why just her? Why doesn’t Jim stop Gerry Kelly, Martin McGuinness and any number of other former IRA people and tell them they’re murderers as well? He might even stop former members of the UDR or the British Army or the RUC and upbraid them. But he doesn’t. Jim’s wrath is confined to one woman.

Clearly, in denouncing her, Jim believes himself to be morally superior. I’m assuming (perhaps I’m wrong) that if he were asked his religious affiliation, Jim would reply without hesitation “Christian”. But doesn’t the founder of Christianity say somewhere “Judge not that you may not be judged”? And didn’t he forgive sinners again and again? And urge his followers to do likewise?

But maybe Jim’s history-writing is the most important part of his display of wrath. If Jim and those who think like him can promote as official the view that the IRA were a murderous gang and the cause of all the deaths of the Troubles, then that will mean...Well, that Jim’ s side was right. That they had God on their side. With the devil, presumably, on the side of those who opposed him.  Not that Jim’s the only one to take this tack. Quite a number of those who would describe themselves as nationalists take the same tack, only without Jim‘s thundering anger.

Post-script. It could be that Jim chose his moral-wrath target because he knew he’d have a fair number of nationalists lining up beside him as well as unionists. When I was sufficiently reckless to suggest that Mary Travers, in whose death  Mary McArdle  has been implicated, was killed by the IRA but not murdered,  I received more, well yes, venomous responses from people than for pretty well anything I’ve blogged in the past few years. No doubt Jim had that kind of venomous back-up in mind when he targeted Mary McArdle.  I've also noticed that, since that blog, my appearances on Radio Ulster/Raidio Uladh's Thought for the Day, once regular, have petered into non-existence. Coincidence? Mmm. Let me think about that one.

Still, you have to admit: the Stormont outburst was as fine a display of off-the-leash moral indignation as we’re likely to get this side of Christmas.  Go raibh cead maith agat, Jim - thanks loads. 

What did you call yourself? How dare you!

There’s a letter into today’s Sindo, with the heading ‘Few people are anti-life’. It’s from a John Fitzgerald in Co Kilkenny, and he’s taking to task those who are referred to as ‘pro-lifers’ in the abortion debate, because there’s an implication in their title that those not in agreement with them are anti-life.  He says that excluding ultra-right-wingers like the guy who killed 77 people in Norway and people “who peddle death as a matter of routine” (presumably drug-pushers), there are surely very few anti-life people on the planet.

It might be interesting to ask those in the Gaza strip right now if they share John’s view on the hard-to-locateness of anti-lifers. But let’s set that aside. I think people have a right to call themselves whatever (within reason) they like.  If others feel the name is in some way passing judgement on them, then it’s their job to argue a case showing how wrong they are.  Instead of doing this, John Fitzgerald advances the only-the-occasional-nutter argument, and supplements it with the charge that a lot pro-lifers aren’t so hot about looking after the living. This second charge  may or may not be true but it's shifting the argument from its focal point: abortion. It may be ironic if I were, for example, pro-capital punishment and anti-abortion, but drawing attention to that does nothing to answer the central questions around the abortion debate. 

  If those who describe themselves as ‘pro-choice’  are just as pro-life as the pro-lifers ( as John claims)  then presumably they see the foetus as human life, since it’s the foetus we’re talking about here. If they do see it as human life, the abortion debate is over. Human life deserves to be protected, and only in cases of self-defence (in this case defence of the mother’s life) can that right to life be flushed away. If on the other hand pro-choice people believe that there is no human life in the woman’s womb during the early stages of pregnancy, why do they speak of an abortion as always a serious, soul-searching decision?

I would class myself as pro-life in the abortion debate, and that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, so please, don't start telling me about what a shit your parish priest was/is.  I just believe the pro-choice people are unconvincing in their claims as to when the foetus becomes human, as well as in their claims about abortion always being a serious, soul-searching decision. 

As to the Galway case, to describe reactions to it as knee-jerk would be to understate. Until we hear, clearly and dispassionately,  what actually was said and done - or not done - in this sad, nightmare case, we’re adding our wasted breath to the Irish stereotyping that’s currently being peddled at home and abroad. 

Nice one, Eamo...

There are people who’ll tell you it’s impossible to ride two horses at once.  They haven’t talked to Eamon Gilmore, obviously.  Shortly before the Israeli killing of the leader of Hamas,  I got a call from presstv (google them). They wanted to know what I thought of the Irish government’s decision to push for the boycott of goods from the Jewish settlement areas in the Middle East. So I did a bit of research on it and discovered that much of it revolved around a lengthy letter written by Eamon Gilmore to the chair of the south’s Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, Pat Breen. 

In it,  Eamon manages to make much of the possibility that the south will use its period of Presidency of the EU Council to push other member states to mount this boycott. So far so good. Except then Eamon says, in effect, there’s no point in trying to do it, because many of the other states won’t join in. 

See what he did there? Hopped one leg very nimbly onto a second horse. When I was asked on presstv what I thought of it, I made two points: (i) that Mr Gilmore and his Irish Labour Party colleagues have something of a reputation for getting agitated over injustice in other countries, the degree of their indignation often measured by its distance from Ireland and Ireland’s powerlessness to act; and (ii) that while it’d be nice to see Ireland lead the EU in a move to highlight some of the terrible deeds done by Israel to the Palestinian people,  it wasn’t exactly good strategy to start by saying you didn’t expect to get anywhere.  

I haven’t heard what Mr Gilmore has had to say about the recent killing of the Hamas leader and the brutal  bombing raids by the Israelis in recent days. Thank God. 

The death of Savita Halappanavar

I don’t know all the detail of what happened  in the  Savita Halappanavar case, and I’d be fairly certain neither do you. What we do know is that this young woman was 17 weeks pregnant, that she died of septic shock in the course of a miscarriage, and that doctors stated they could not abort her pregnancy due to the current Irish laws. We also know that her husband said that doctors told her she couldn’t have an abortion because ‘this is a Catholic country’ and that her death prompted demonstrations by hundreds of people carrying placards saying ‘Ireland’s shame’ and ‘Our shame’.

To say this is an emotive case is to understate it. The grief which the woman’s husband must be feeling is unimaginable, and it’s hard, even though we’ve never met the man, not to share in some way in that grief. The Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore has declared the law must be clarified. 

My response to the last item is that Eamon Gilmore should try to refrain from stating the obvious. Laws should be passed and/or clarified by people with cool heads, not those in a state of emotional agitation such as many are presently experiencing. As for ‘Ireland’s shame’ and ‘Our shame’,  include me out. None of us on the northern side of the border have any control over the state of the laws - and their consequences - south of the border. 

A  couple of other things. If you don’t believe Savita Halappanavar was carrying a human being, you should be calling for the doctors involved to  be struck off the register and jailed. If you believe Savita Halappanavar was carrying a human being, you must be wondering what Irish law says that when the mother’s life is at risk, an abortion must not be performed. 

The squalid temptation at present is for those who favour abortion on request to use the emotion generated by this desperate tragedy as a soapbox from which to further their cause. The facts of the case should be clearly established and the law clarified in a calm, detached manner. That done,  the people of the twenty-six counties - better still, of all 32 counties -  should be given a chance, by referendum, to decide  whether they wish abortion on demand/request to be made available.  Those who believe the foetus isn’t human will certainly vote for such availability. Those who believe the foetus is human will certainly vote against it. All the rest is useless hysteria. 

Can Ireland stand up to the oil companies?

Oil. Dark greasy stuff, looks silly when applied to guys’ heads to make their hair stand up a la Jedward. On TV it’s what makes the Ewings run in the remake of Dallas. In real life it’s a source of energy and a source of strife. 

Latest source of oil and controversy is said to be lying six kilometres off the coast in Dalkey, Co Dublin.  Yes, that Dalkey - the one where celeb people and writers and artists live. You think they’re going to take oil-drilling and maybe oil-bringing-ashore lying down? No chance. Not in their back yard. But of course they dress it up as being concern for the environment and the Irish people. One spokesman for the group Dublin Bay Concern says that the government’s licensing system allows companies to extract “100 per cent of resources and pay no royalties”. Eddie Hobbs, who has made a  nice living wearing pink shirts and denouncing the rip-off Republic, says there’s no requirement for the oil companies to bring the oil on-shore or generate jobs. According to him, the the twenty-six counties’ licensing regime comes second-worst in the world. The oil people called Providence (what a nice name) say that “up to 40% of profits from production  would accrue to the State”, not to mention loadsajobs. A Dublin Bay Concern person says yeah,  corporate tax of 25% rising to 40% would be paid but would be written off against the cost of drilling. 

It’s kind of exciting to think of Ireland being rich in oil and/or gas  (remember that big gas resource underground in Leitrim/Fermanagh?) but as with all such things, it’s how they’re handled that matters. Ask the Shell-to-Sea people in the west of Ireland what they think of oil companies;  several of their number have been to jail because they’ve tried to stop Shell doing what it wants. The residents of Leitrim and Fermanagh are nervous that the environmental price in extracting gas will be catastrophic for the environment. 

It’s a bit like the US’s role in the world. When it intervenes in countries, it says it does so for the welfare and prosperity of that country’s citizens. There’s truth in that, but only a fool would believe that the US goes in there solely for the good of that country’s people. It weighs the balance and only when it finds that there’s a big plus on the US side of things do they commit companies and resources, with of course military back-up.  Likewise the oil exploration companies. They couldn’t care less if Ireland sinks beneath the Atlantic waves, providing they make a massive profit and it doesn’t impair their potential to make a massive profit at the next impoverished stop-off country they target. 

Shell-to-Sea have had very little success in putting manners on Shell; maybe the more well-heeled and articulate denizens of Dalkey will have better luck. But the tide of oil history is very much against them. 

QC says report will include some "highly-classified documents". Oo-er.

Sir Desmond de Silva QC (don’t you wish you’d a name like that?) who’s been leading a British government review of the killing of Pat Finucane says some “highly-classified documents” will be included in the report. The idea, apparently, is to ensure public confidence when it comes out. De Silva says he's rather proud of the fact that his review has been produced “on time and on budget”.

That’s nice. It’s not what the Finucane family wanted - they wanted a full public inquiry  - but it’s nice. And it’s nice that the report will include highly-classified stuff. But the elegantly-named Sir Desmond has over-reached himself a bit when he talks “ensuring public confidence”.  Because it won’t, you know. The Finucanes and thousands of others will wonder what other “highly-classified documents” were there that the the British government, vis Sir D de S QC, chose not  to include. British Secretary of State Theresa Villiers has said there’s nothing in the de Silva report that’ll affect British security or put anyone’s life at risk. Which suggests the bottom-line criteria for releasing documents can be found in the answer to the question “Will this be bad for us?”  Us being the British government. 

In sum: the wishes of the family of the victim have been ignored; the review will not carry any information that might be bad for British ‘security’, and the person carrying it out has been appointed by the British government. 

The rest of us will get to see the report  in early December. Let’s hope  our other Christmas presents are a bit more promising-looking.