What to do when your house is attacked

Two comments from the Nolan show minutes ago: “Police struggled to keep rival factions apart” and “Did you feel vulnerable during all this?”  The latter to a pensioner who had stones and petrol bombs aimed at his house. 

I’ll move discreetly past the inanity of that “vulnerable” question and on to the heart of the matter - “Police struggled to keep rival factions apart”. I don’t know how the programme will develop but that notion of two rioting mobs with the cops as piggy-in-the-middle really does have to be nailed. And nailed it was by Alex Maskey on UTV last night. When questioned about stone-throwing from the Short Strand, he replied grimly “If I lived in the Short Strand and my home was being attacked, I’d be out throwing stones too”. I tweeted that and had, among overwhelmingly positive response, one tweet which gleefully suggested that this meant Alasdair MacDonald would have a safe Westminster seat “for ever”. Dear tweeting person,  perhaps you underestimate the intelligence of the South Belfast voters; besides, there are other ways of looking at the world than how you can keep your rear in a Westminster seat. Like how long you can go on living in your home. 

Which brings me to Jim Wilson, a Protestant community worker, I think. He did two good things at least in the last four or five days. The first was confronting the immense intellect that is Willie Frazer at a rally in front of Belfast City Hall. Why that is  a good thing should be self-evident to even the slowest of us. The second is Wilson's concession last night that loyalists had attacked Catholic homes and that he disowned such people entirely. Wilson was out on the ground, as I understand it, trying to keep the peace. Full marks for that and your statement - maith thú, Jim.

 Is there a difference between that and making statements up in Stormont, when you yourself were the instigator of these street scenes? You betcha.  Except unionist politicians take their courage in their hands and tell their constituents that things are changed now - not just the flag, not just power-sharing in Stormont, but everything. And that nationalists/republicans making gains on a number of fronts is not “them ‘uns getting everything”, it’s about them ‘uns finally beginning to get their fair share after almost one hundred years of deprivation. Only when the leadership of the unionist community explains that justice and equality are concepts which everyone should be keen to see put in place will ugly, sectarian street violence such as last night wither on its own twisted branch.

Things that kill

There are those who think that  school sex instruction only encourages teenagers to turn instruction into practice.  There are those who think the same thing about political unrest. Those involved wait for the cameras and then  step into focus and do their violent thing. 

Michael Kelly, writing in The Scotsman last week, takes up a similar theme. He suggests that Catholics in Scotland harping on about anti-Catholicism may in fact encourage it.

“Agonising over sectarianism is going to exaggerate its importance in the list of social problems that we face. Poverty, unemployment, deprivation generally, education and health all demand public resources ahead of relatively minor inconveniences to relatively few individuals”.       

Whether or not you agree with his analysis, there’s an argument to be made that sometimes those things which catch the headlines - blatant discrimination, street violence, maybe even issues like gay marriage or abortion - are deliberately highlighted by politicians and a compliant media in order to distract public attention from less sexy but more deep-rooted problems in our society. Gerry Adams was in the Short Strand yesterday and he said that it was but for the grace of God that no one had so far been killed. He’s right.  But there’s one thing the people of the Short Strand and the flegmen share: poverty. And it’s at least as dangerous as the fleg thugs.

Take a few statistics from Britain. Both men and women in Blackpool die ten years earlier than men and women in Kensington and Chelsea.  Children in poverty suffer similarly: three-year-old whose parents earn less than £10,000 a year are more than twice as likely to suffer from chronic illness than children whose parents bring home over £52,000. Like their parents, infant mortality is 10% higher in poor households than in the average British household.  The Short Strand or  East Belfast may not be as British as Finchley, but I’ll bet the gap between them and the leafier areas of Holywood or Malone is just as great. 

When people are injured or killed in street violence, the rest of us feel shocked, outraged even. Yet we accept that the poor - with their illnesses and earlier deaths - are always with us. No outrage expressed; if anything there's a half-assumption that  the poor have only themselves to blame.

 Maybe that’s why the flegmen keep getting their Britishness mixed up with their deprivation. 

No Poll here (referenda and how to avoid them)

And speaking of Number Ones...This is a first guest post on this site. I'll be interested to read reaction to it and to the idea of using guest posters/bloggers. The description below comes from Sammy himself - JC

 

Sammy McNally is an itinerant Fenian scribbler… and a fictional prod character bestowed upon us by James Young. He has previously written for other blogs such as Keeping an eye on Tzar of Russia, We in the coming days, Three Thousand Versts of loneliness,  and Slugger O’Toole. He describes his politics as republican lite. 

No Poll here (referenda and how to avoid them)

If there is one thing Nationalists, whether Scottish, British or Irish, like even less than those larger, nefarious, noisy, neighbours - who always seem intent on suppressing and subjugating them - it is a referendum(which they are certain to lose).

The leader of the Scottish National party, the canniest of Scotsmen, the man who singlehandedly harnessed the emotion surrounding the Australian directed drama about a 13th century woad-wearing insurgent and used it to deliver himself into power, the man who was thought by many(including yours truly) to be the best political operator in these islands - has a particular dislike for referenda - because poor Alex - has to actually deliver one in Scotland.

As all good Nationalists in these islands should know well, the trick is to be fully behind the principle of a referendum (in public) whilst simultaneously being determined(in private) to avoid holding one. So quite how Alex-the-wise, managed to trip himself up on his own constitutional shoelaces is not clear. It is of course possible that Alex started to believe his own propaganda but it probably more likely that he was labouring under the mistaken impression - that if you make an election promise- then you have to stick to it.

…a basic schoolboy error, as fellow countryman, the estimable George Galloway, might well say.

Down England way, the (otherwise) less promising British nationalist leader, Davey Cameron, had no intention of committing such a howler. As a diligent student of Tory party history (and a Bullingdon Club activist), he would know full well that election promises(like restaurant furniture) are there to be broken.

…and so confident was the Tory leader that he could make a referendum promise and break it, that Davey, even offered his referendum wrapped up in a 'cast iron guarantee' promising to allow the long suffering, plain people of Britain, the chance to throw off the yoke of the perfidious Europeans(and especially those dreadful French).

Meanwhile, across sea in Ireland, the nationalist leader Gerry Adams, fresh himself from (allegedly) leading an insurgency to expel the British overlords, is still demanding a referendum on the removal of the border - in spite of the fact that the 2011 Census results from Northern Ireland showed less that 30% claiming ‘Irish’ as their National identity. Gerry, unlike Alex and Davey, won’t however be making any promises on referenda because he is (luckily for him) unencumbered with the power to actually deliver on one.

…also luckily for Gerry, the one person who has the power to call a referendum on the border is Teresa(the Viceroy) Villiers, herself a Tory who, therefore, fully understands that when a fellow Nationalist in these parts,  stamps his feet and rallies his troops by claiming he dearly wants a referendum, he does of course actually want no such thing - just like Davey, her own leader -  and of course the unfortunate Alex.

Five questions from last night

When I was a teenage boarder in St Columb’s in Derry, I used hold my breath on a Saturday night as my (illegal) crystal set ( attached to metal bed-post and under-mattress bed-springs) played the hits and told me what was Number One that week. Maybe that’s what’s motivating the flaggers: last night they were Number One item on practically every TV channel l- BBC One, BBC News 24,  RTÉ, Sky. Well done, guys. You’re famous. 

But I have a number of questions that baffle me:

1. Could the PSNI have seen to it that the City Hall demonstrators went home to East Belfast without going near, much less directly past the Short Strand? After all, every year  over 3,000 marches ensure that the rest of us must wait/take a detour while the loyal sons of Ulster remember that battle more than 300 years ago. 
2. What kind of reporting describes demonstrations as ‘peaceful’ when they are in fact blocking roads? Or has the law against such actions been changed when I wasn’t paying attention?
3. Let’s imagine for a moment Parity of Arrogance. Flag protestors from the Short Strand, outraged that the parity of esteem promised by the GFA has not been delivered,  decide to block off roads and wave Irish tricolours. How long would it be before the PSNI cleared the road? How often would the media report such events as ‘peaceful’?
4. When will the media accept and report that both-flags-or-none  is a reasonable position to take in a society that is hoping for a shared future? And when will they note that republicans actually made a concession when they voted for flying the Union flag on 17 occasions?
5. What unionist leader will be honest enough to tell his/her followers that the times, they are a-changin’? With Belfast a city 49% nationalist, 42% unionist; with the school-going population showing Protestant numbers lagging far behind Catholic numbers; with the Protestant population generally having a  more-elderly profile than that of Catholics -  it’s not a question of if change comes, it’s a question of how change will come. I’m for peaceful, managed change that shows equal respect (and equal means equal) for both traditions, rather than trying to contain the contradictions of yesteryear until they explode and the jagged debris damages us all. 

Why Rory plays golf (and who for)

It’s been said of the game of golf that it’s a good walk ruined but I think that’s being too soft on it. It’s a game where you play against others but nothing you do can affect their play - unlike football, soccer, rugby, tennis hurling,  handball and lots of other sensible games.  I don’t say there aren’t good people who play golf but I do say I can easily see why the Olympics Committee has so far resisted any temptation it may have felt to include golf on the list of Olympic games. So far. Word is, we can expect to see golf climb aboard in the next Games in 2016.

But let me not be blind to golf's one big plus: it can make you seriously rich. Rory McIlroy knows that. Now that his hair and his ears have arrived at a vague agreement with his nose, he’s earning so much, it’s a joke to even talk about it.  How much? Well, the word is his net worth as of now is about $20 million. And as he’s tipped to sign up with Nike to display their wares soon, he should guarantee himself over $22 million  a year for the next ten years. 

When you’re making that kind of money by playing a dumb game, there’s no way you’re going to allow yourself to be shackled by ANYTHING from making lots and lots more money. Least of all politics. And yet if we’re to believe what we read, that’s what’s on the cards for Rory. 

Remember the brouhaha there was when he said he felt more British than Irish? Well apparently he sort of mis -spoke when he said that. Because now he says he’s agonising about whether to declare himself as a British player in the 2016 Olympics, or whether to declare himself Irish, or whether to solve the problem (he says it’s a problem, because he knows somebody’s going to be offended) by not playing in the Olympics at all. 

EH?  He’s set to earn over $22 million a year over the next ten years, he’s sitting on $20 million already, and he’s worried that he might offend somebody by declaring for Britain or Ireland? Wish I had his worries. 

Let’s lay aside the niceties, Rory, shall we? I don’t believe you give a monkey’s. When you’re as good at golf as you are (I never thought I’d write ‘good’ and ‘golf’ in the same sentence) and more important, earning what you’re earning and going to earn,  the sensibilities of some really stupid people back on the tiny pimple of an island from which you emanate matters less than a tomtit breaking wind at dawn. 

 I know there are people biting their nails about whether the union jack or the tricolour is draped around those 23-year-old shoulders. If it’s contrary to their own loyalties, they’ll get all annoyed. Listen, guys. Beyond death and taxes, there are few certainties in life. But there is one you can rely on, and that is,  what will motivate Rory to adopt one flag or another or neither. And that is? All together now: MONEY. Right in one. You think he’s going to take a step that he thinks will maybe shrink those massive earnings? Pu-lease.

Nobody should care. What kind of loyalty, commitment is influenced because some rich little Holywood-boy-next-door decides he kicks with the other foot, as it were?    Why should somebody who spends all day in the world of golf be seen as some sort of role model for the rest of us?  He’s a golfer, for God’s sake. A brilliant golfer. Without a political idea in his head. Not a philosopher. Not a spiritual guide. Or a political one. So when he makes these announcements, keep in mind that he's really talking about money. His money.   

The saddest part of all, though, is not that Rory is motivated by money and what will help keep his sponsor and bank manager happy. Sadder, far sadder is the fact that there are people out there who will feel IN SOME WAY LET DOWN by Rory’s decision. Let us now offer a decade of the rosary for these poor lost souls.

Shared future or unionist huddle?

Well, Peter Robinson and Mike Nesbitt may believe in a shared future but they definitely don’t believe in a shared forum. That’s strictly unionist - no taigs need apply. Which is odd, really, because you'd think that violence in response to a democratic decision should be the concern of everyone. If you’re an inner-city trader or restaurateur,  it doesn’t matter whether you’re unionist or republican - you still lose. Businesses go bust on a purely non-sectarian basis. 

Of course Mike Nesbitt has explained why the unionist forum had to be for unionists only: it’s so unionism can get its act together. Once that’s achieved, what used to be referred as ‘the minority’ (to wit, nationalists/republicans) can become involved. Which makes one thing clear: that Mike is more concerned with the state of unionism than he is with the state of Belfast.

What did the unionist forum discuss?  I’ve no idea. But I’ll bet £100  that no plans were made to explain to the flag protestors that actually Belfast is overflowing with unionist symbols and iconography - the streets, the bridges, the buildings again and again cry out “We are British!”.  The creation and carrying out of such plans would have been indeed worthwhile.  If all they  did yesterday was go into a unionist huddle to work out wheezes that’ll please the flag protestors, Peter Robinson can kiss a shared future (and Catholics voting for the DUP) goodbye. The First Minister crowing that it was “the most representative group in the unionist community to meet in half a century” says it all.   

Alasdair Milne is dead; Thatcher's spirit lives on

“Humankind cannot bear very much reality”  - that was T S Eliot’s judgement on us.  Had he been around in the 1980s to witness the huff-and-puff about the BBC NI programme Real Lives, he would have nodded in recognition. Alasdair Milne, who has just died and was director-general of the BBC at the time,  pushed for the programme’s  airing and was in the end successful. But he paid the price with his job a short time later: Maggie Thatcher didn’t like people who supplied the IRA with “the oxygen of publicity”.

For younger readers, the controversial Real Lives programme featured Martin McGuinness and Gregory Campbell. It sought to show both men as human beings, with families behind their differing political stances. Nobody minded this being done with Gregory but Martin McGuinness was another matter. I  remember being around the BBC in Belfast at the time and hearing one producer comment with some distaste the absurdity of a programme with the title Real LIves  featuring McGuinness. But most BBC people wanted the programme aired, probably on grounds of professional self-respect than political sympathy. Unfortunately the people at the top - the BBC Board of Governors - were agin it.

Why so? Well, they didn’t want McGuinness to be shown as anything other than a ruthless terrorist. In an effort to have the programme aired, the BBC  NI Controller at the time suggested it should go out but with periodic clips of bombs going off. You get the idea: there was a danger the audience might be lulled into some identification with McGuinness, so give ‘em a bit of shock therapy at intervals.  In the end this daft idea was shelved and many weeks later than originally intended, the programme went out. It was a good programme. Not world-changing but good.

However, the controversy highlighted for me what many of us tend to forget: Thatcher was right. If you keep people off the airwaves or present them in a particular manner, you control them. Hence the famous BBC (and RTÉ) gagging ban, which allowed the words of Sinn Féin people to be heard only if spoken by an actor. To allow people to think of McGuinness as a man with a wife and family would be to blunt the contempt for him in the public mind that the BBC and  other ‘respectable’ media of the time believed was necessary. 

Alasdair Milne is dead but  the thinking of those opposed to him hasn’t gone away, you know.