You murder, he kills, I clear the area

Either a number of commentators - notably from the Indo - are strangers to some of the grimmer facts of life,  or they are pretending to be shocked and horrified when they’re not. What am I talking about? I’m talking about Dessie Ellis.

Mr Ellis is a Sinn Féin TD who has never, as far as I know, made any secret of his former membership of the IRA. For several decades the IRA was engaged in a conflict/war/terrorist campaign (take your pick) against the RUC, the UDR and other British armed forces in the north. What happens in conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns is that people try to kill each other. Put like that it sounds brutal and it is brutal. You might even say barbaric. But that’s what happens in conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns. The winners are the ones who do the most killing or threaten to do the most killing ( cf Lloyd George’s threat of ‘terrible and immediate war’ in 1921). 

Now British documents hitherto under wraps allege that Mr Ellis was involved  in over fifty “murders” during the conflict/war/terrorist campaign in the north.  I’m not sure what Mr Ellis’s role in the IRA was, but it’s generally accepted that he played a prominent part. And since conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns involve by their nature killings or attempted killings, the allegation could be true. Except, of course,  that conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns don’t usually term the object of the exercise as “murder”.  We don’t say “President Truman ordered the murder of 255,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima”  or “Winston Churchill arranged for the murder of 25,000 Germans in Dresden” or “Between them, George Bush and Barack Obama used drone bombs to murder 2680 people, including 173 children” or “Opposition forces in Syria today murdered 18 state soldiers”. 

That’s because we don’t always disapprove of killing. We use “murder” when we want to say we disapprove, but we say ‘take out’  as in ‘Americans took out Osama bin Laden’, when we don’t think the killing was too bad an idea. When we think that the killing was a very good idea, of course, we pin ribbons and medals on the chests of the men who did the killing. Sometimes we erect statues to them.

My point? That when Indo writers such as Fiach Kelly  talk about Dessie Ellis and alleged  murder, they  mean that they disapprove of the IRA campaign in the 1970s and 1980s. Which most of us already knew. Had they been talking about the IRA campaign of Michael Collins in the second decade of the last century or the Arab Spring last year or countless other conflicts,  it’s a safe bet they would have used another word and shown considerably less moral outrage.  

I say, there's a duke outside...

The release of historical papers at this time is always interesting. Sometimes we find that politicians were swearing themselves blind that X was the case while privately confiding in others that the case was definitely Y.  There’s an ethical term for it: lying. 

The release of papers relating to the 1981 hunger strike are  particularly interesting for a number of details that emerge. That John Hume wasn’t too keen on Charlie Haughey and preferred Dessie O’Malley (although you could probably have worked that one out for yourself).  That Thatcher was flexible on the Falklands, while presenting her best Iron Maiden side to the public. And that Irish civil servants were warning the Fine Gael-Labour government to avoid having their views on the Hunger Strike match with those of republicans. This, Garret Fitzgerald was warned, could pose “real and urgent dangers” because prisoners in the south might join the hunger strike. “What if Portlaoise erupts?” his civil servants asked him.

But the two I like best are those involving the Catholic Church. The Pope apparently sent a personal message telling Sands it was his duty as a Catholic to come off the Hunger Strike. Sands responded by saying he’d suspend it for five days if the British engaged in negotiations. The British reported this by telling the Irish government that Sands “had not responded” to the Pope’s demand.  Only when questioned further did they  concede that  when they said Sands had “not responded” they meant that he had not agreed to the Pope’s demand. See what I mean about public face and private reality? And what we ethicists  call ‘lying’?

The other  (I don’t know whether to laugh or weep here) was the visit to Long Kesh of the Duke of Norfolk, apparently the top Catholic in the British nobility. He spoke to several hunger-strikers, trying to use his Catholicism as a lever to end the fast. Fr Tom Toner, a chaplain to Long Kesh prisoners at the time, to his eternal credit, wrote to the Duke:  "Your attitude and views caused unnecessary hardship for a family already bewildered and distressed by the imminent death of their son”.  When the Duke received this message, it caused, we're told, "his hackles to rise". Hello, I’m British but I’m a Catholic Duke, you chaps really should stop all this and let's have no backchat from the padres either, please. 

You couldn’t make it up. 

On lop-sidedness and neutrality

Don't shoot the messenger but do have a look at his/her track-record. I'm fresh and panting from the Nolan Show look back at the year that was in it, and he has (or had - it's taped) four commentators on. They were Alex Kane, Finola Meredith, Andrea McVeigh and  Denis Murray.  Now the theory is that all commentators here come at events from a detached viewpoint which allows them to see the Truth, unlike other people who are mired in prejudice and one-sidedness. To which I would reply with a rude word only I'm working up to going off swearing for the New Year. Let's not say we had four unionist commentators  but let's say we had no sign of a commentator with a nationalist perspective. It's a bit like the British-identity thing - what we've been taught to accept is that a civilized unionist perspective is the decent, unbiased view to take and all else has the whiff of cordite to it. By the way I'm arguing this on purely political stance - I've met and talked with all of the above and I've found them pleasant, friendly people of considerable intelligence. So I promise you there are no old personal grudges involved here or sour grapes.

On the other hand, I may be doing them an injustice. I listened to only the first twenty minutes or so. The topic under discussion was  unionist working-class alienation. We heard several views - that the press and commentators treated them unfairly, that the flag was the last straw, that their educational under-achievement is holding them back, that Catholics (read that as nationalist, please) have a sense of coherence, discipline because of their religious background, whereas unionist tend to be much more fragmented because of their religious background. There could be some truth in that, although I really get good and growly when I hear people talking about Protestants and Catholics when in a great number of cases they aren't Protestants or Catholics. But the one thing I didn't hear discussed - maybe they got to it later - was that the flag-protest people were called onto the streets by the two unionist leaders, Robinson and Nesbit, Robinson with the clear intention of doing some political damage to Naomi Long. Odd, that. You'd think people talking about the Big Picture would have included that. Or maybe you had the stamina to keep listening and they did?

Anyway, my main point is simple: whereas you'll get commentators galore who are either frankly unionist or implicitly unionist, you'll search fairly hard before you'll get a committed republican or even nationalist commentator on the air. It's true, y'know. It's not just the Yuletide booze talking.

It's a question of respect

Well, that's breakfast done. Verging on abstemious to leave room for what is to follow. Here in Beckenham the rain has been PISSING down during the night - eased off a bit at the moment but dark and threatening. No matter: I have That Speech to look forward to. Needless to say there are  people lacking the respect that is required for proper reception of The Speech (see http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/22587). How sad, that  seditious elements should fail to adopt a properly respectful posture for  The Woman that Ireland-  North, South, East and West - was so filled with delight to receive not so long ago. What a pity the Eire president could not find himself capable of delivering a similar speech to his subjects ...sorry, citizens.  Or maybe it's better not - he wouldn't suit a tiara.

That said, enough already. The day beckons. There is a light in the east. Enjoy.

To coin a phrase: glory be to God for dappled things

I've just come from talking with a man who is 100% unionist and whose company, on the few occasions I meet him, I enjoy. And that set me thinking about something: when I was working on my book (yes, the one you should rush out and buy for Christmas - Whose Past Is It Anyway? - and if the shop hasn't got it, ask me and I'll sort it)...Where was I? Oh yes, brief commercial...But I was struck during those interviews by the frequency with which I found myself liking people whose political opinions are totally at odds with my own. I find no problem in separating the two  - the politics from the rest of the man/woman - but I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't  something wrong with me. Most people seem  happy to confer sainthood on those whose opinions they agree with and to consign to damnation those whose opinions they disagree with.  Does that make sense?

Not as I see it; but I suppose it's linked to affirmation. To that good feeling we get when someone tells us, either implicitly or explicitly, "Your political views are excellent - they agree with mine. You are an intelligent chap".  And when someone disagrees with us, it's easy to feel they're dismissing you along with your opinions.

Really, this shouldn't be. Political thinking is only part of our intellectual make-up. There are views on sex, religion, art, psychology,  plumbers -  the rest of human knowledge, in fact; and on these you may very well agree with your political opponent. Or maybe you like your  political opponent  simply because s/he is a cheerful and thoughtful conversationalist. There are so many elements go to make up the entire person, it strikes me as daft to dismiss someone because we see one part of them as being defective, or at least different from us. That's why I've always had a slight question-mark over that line from the Bible, where the heavenly choirs at Christmas sing of 'On earth, peace to men of goodwill'.  Leave aside the non-reference to women: shouldn't we be wishing peace to those we consider to be of ill-will as well? Or even especially? Note, I'm not  saying befriend them, but do leave yourself open to enjoying other aspects of their personality.

See? I'm doing my damnedest to move away from the instinctive ba-humbug that this time of year tends to provoke in me. So in case I miss tomorrow,  Nollaig shona duibh go leir -  Happy Christmas to all, especially to those who detest my political take on the world.

Two thoughts to ruin your Christmas

I know I should be cheerful with the time of year that's in it, but I came across two statements today that have plunged me into serious gloom. Move over, Scrooge.

The first was on the car radio, where I heard RTÉ give a free five-minute plug to the Irish Independent.  Apparently that organ is going to go 100% tabloidy as from tomorrow so they had the editor on to say how significant it was. Well, said the editor, people had told them they liked the tabloidy thing - apparently some of the Indo  is already in tabloid form  - so they responded. The public were happy with the tabloidy news because (and he repeated this at least twice) they looked for a paper, whether online or in hard copy, that was “trusted and authoritative”. Oh, and unbiased. The interviewer didn’t slap the table and tell the Indo editor  to get the hell outa here, he was such a joker. Nor did the phone lines to RTÉ, as far as I know, flood with calls from people saying in effect what Jeremy Paxman says he asks himself when confronted with a politician: why is this lying bastard lying to me? No - the interviewer played it straight. Accepted every word from the editor’s lips as gospel truth. That, I thought, is the south’s national broadcaster responding to the Indo. And then I thought of Miriam O’Callaghan and switched off the radio before I plunged in gloom so thick, I’d crash the car.

The other uncheerful statement I read online when I got home. It was an article in the News Letter,  headed “Ulster’s drivers urged to join in protest”. Apparently the guardians of the Union flag will be out in force at a place near you this evening at 6.00 pm, and they’ve urged “people that are stuck in traffic instead of sitting in your car get out and join in”. WTF? You expect people who can’t get home or to the shops or to wherever they’re going to abandon their cars and join in with the people who think that blocking roads and issuing death threats is being clever? God give me strength.  Adding insult to injury, the flegboys  say:

“We would encourage all members of the PUL (Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist) community taking part in Friday’s nationwide protest to do so in a peaceful and dignified manner to ensure that we can portray the right image of unionism/loyalism and gain support from the wider PUL community.”

Now there’s a statement that’s calculated to take us all forward to a reasonable, shared future. PUL the other one, guys.  The only consolation I can think of is that I’m not a unionist, which means I don’t have so much as a smidgen of responsibility for these head-bangers intent on chaos.

Please - don't befriend me. Just play straight.

OK, cards on the table. I like William Crawley. He’s smart, cheerful and maybe the best presenter in BBC Belfast. ‘Sunday Sequence’, the radio programme he presents, has become a must-listen for anybody interested in political as well as religious developments here and elsewhere. 

Right, that’s the nice stuff. Now the point on which I disagree with him. Yesterday on Twitter he said “We need to learn how to talk about one another without alienating the other. We can’t do that without befriending one another.”  I agree with him on the first bit, I fundamentally disagree with him on the second . He’s quite right that there’s not much point talking to someone if all you’re doing is getting up his/her nose. But the notion that we have to be friends with people in order to talk to them is plain wrong.

It’s also dangerous. During the Troubles there was a view touted, mainly but by no means only by the Churches, that what was called for was a conversion in each of our hearts. If we could all go through the day being nice to each other, the Troubles would be over. The gap in that reasoning is that we act towards each other partly through free will but to a considerable measure by the kind of society structures we live within.  In other words, politics matters.

The present flag dispute is a perfect example. Working-class unionists, or some of them, appear to believe their Britishness is being torn down, stripped from them. The facts contradict this, in terms of what flag flies on public buildings, what iconography and imagery adorn public buildings, what names streets have, what political view is exemplified 3,000 times over in marching form each year. Leave aside the brute fact of partition for a moment. The existence of the conditions described above are what need addressing, in an open, logical, fair-minded manner. Certainly if people involved are also friends, that’s fine. But I don't like everybody and I wouldn’t presume to expect that everyone likes me. I will insist, and so should everybody, that society is organised on a basis of fairness and justice, and if there are competing political viewpoints, that the cities and towns and society people live in reflect this. Forget the ‘befriending’ bit, William. Let’s just start building in a business-like, decent-minded way. Then friendship will flourish.