Will Buckingham Palace go green?

“I’m sitting by the telephone/Waitin’ for a call from you” - aren’t those two lines from some old song - Fats Waller, maybe? Anyway they’re true of me this morning - I’m sitting here waiting for a call from the Nolan Show. (Which, like Fats Waller’s call, may never come. Life’s like that.)

If I am called, the topic for discussion is this request by Tourism Ireland that Buckingham Palace go green for St Patrick’s Day. I gather they’re not actually talking about Buck House being given a paint-over: the play of several green lights on the building should do the job. 

What will I say? Well, if I get the chance I’ll point out that the whole aim behind this request is to boost tourism figures. Under that heading, it’d be a considerably cheaper option than QE2’s visit to Dublin. Like the greening of Buck House, the royal visit was sold to the Irish people as a way of generating increased tourism. Yes, it’d cost the state somewhere around €25 million euro, but think of the money from increased British visitors, who’d flock to follow their monarch’s footsteps. Except that what actually happened over the past year was, British tourism to Ireland went down 3%. Oops.  Sorry about that €25 million, folks. 

It’s not just Buck House that’s been asked to go green on Paddy’s Day. Sydney Opera House, Niagara Falls, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Little Mermaid statue in in Copenhagen, the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio  - all are going to go green. And if it’s good enough for Christ the Redeemer, you’d think it’d be  good enough for Queen Elizabeth. 

The objection that’s being raised is that the queen doesn’t do commercial stuff. Right. Like,  monarchists don’t keep telling us how useful the Royals are in drawing tourists from around the world? And we’re forever hearing of various members of the royal brood heading off to somewhere “on a trade mission”. Though I would have thought the sight of Prince Andrew would be enough to stop the strongest trade deal square in its tracks.

But it’s here, in our own tormented little corner, that the main opposition will surely come. Having Her Majesty’s residence lit up all in green!  How dare they.  Where’s the respect? And what about those of us who don’t subscribe to a green agenda?

Relax, guys. I’ve thought this one through. If Her Maj does give the thumbs up to green spotlights on Buck House come Paddy’s Day, that could be counterbalanced by having it bathed in orange on the Twelfth. All right? Even the Alliance Party could hardly improve on that - perfect balance. And in the intervening months, Buckingham Palace will be its normal creamy-white self. So that’s green, white and orange. Sunds like a nice combination of colours to me. 

Ian Paisley Jr, 1912, 1916 and all that

[This is an abridged version of the interview with Mr Paisley in my book 'Whose Past Is It Anyway?]

I have to wait an extra half hour to see Ian Paisley Jr., I’m not sure why. But eventually I get to the inner office and he leans back in his chair and eyes my microphone. Am I planning to broadcast this? I reassure him that no, as I mentioned in the letter it’s for getting interviews for my book.   I start by asking him if politics was discussed in his house when he was growing up. “Funny enough - not at all!” He laughs at his own joke for a few moments, then becomes more serious. 

“I grew up in a situation where there were police guards at our house, where for a period of time I had to go to school in the back of a police car. So that obviously had an impact, especially when I was a very young child. When your father carries a weapon - a gun - and you see that as a child, it does provoke thoughts as to why.”

He goes on to contrast that with his daughter’s experience of growing up. 

“Two years ago my daughter said to me ‘Dad, I’m doing something in school in my history class. What were the Troubles?’  It was a word she’d never heard, because it was history she was talking about, it wasn’t actuality. She was fifteen then and her words were quite inspiring”.

When we talking of the signing of the Covenant, he stresses the range of people who signed it: “The tycoons of industry, influential religious figures on the Protestant and Evangelical and Episcopalian side. Not only captains of industry and people of religion, but major politicians, from prime ministers down - I mean really significant figures. My grandfather signed the Covenant in his own blood. I think I’m entitled to say what that means to me, not to be told by someone what it means to me, and I think that will be the feeling that will influence most people”.

I ask if commemoration of the signing of the Covenant - or other centenaries - might deepen division between people here. 

“We’re a divided people anyway. What is important is how it’s handled and how it’s managed. The fact that the union is so safe now - for a whole host of reasons, including the outcome of the political negotiations and the economic situation that we find ourselves in today - means that I don’t think commemoration poses a threat”.

We move on to the subject of the Easter Rising. 

“It was very much a case of ‘England’s disadvantage, Ireland’s advantage’, and there’s the view that the Easter Rising was the stab in the back.” He has no problem with the Irish government - “the current Irish government in the Republic of Ireland”  - organising commemoration and celebration of the event. “But there was hardly anything of a Rising in Ulster, and to try to portray something up here that didn’t occur would be the airbrushing and rewriting of history...I’ve absolutely no doubt that some people will want to usurp the occasion and use it as a political tool; we have to caution against that and say that would be silly. That’s why I think the government in the south should take command and drive it. If they don’t, they will be the biggest losers”. 

Would he be interested in attending any of the ceremonies around the Easter Rising commemoration? 

“I don’t see why I would be inspired to attend. I’ve read about that history. It’d almost be like going and celebrating and understanding what happened in some of the death camps. I’ve always wanted to avoid going to Auschwitz. I’m just saying there are parts of history I’ll learn about, read about, understand. There are dark parts of history that wouldn’t inspire me to want to go and see it, or to want to go and commemorate it, but I would still want to understand it.”

He sees the commemoration of both the signing of the Covenant and the Easter Rising as preludes.

“I actually think that 2020 - whatever happens around that celebration or recognition - is probably going to be the most telling one. Because that was about cutting the island and saying that’s how the succession will be handled, that’s how it will be cut. I suppose these are two dry runs - 1912 and 1916 - for how we handle the big one in 2020.”

He stresses the complexity of history, both for unionists and nationalists. 

“I studied what happened with Pearse. i think he was a lunatic. There are other people, however, who fought at the Easter Rising who had what I can only describe as noble ideals...I’ve seen the same thing all over the African continent where people awoke and said ‘No, we want to move away from this imperialism’.  I can understand that. But I can also say that Pearse was, in my view, a madman. In his own writings he compares his blood to that of Christ’s. Those are the words of a lunatic. I mean, he was going there deliberately to die. You go into battle to win - even if you know you’re going to die”. And he laughs again. 

He doesn’t think any of the centenaries will do anything to change people’s views. “There might be a few people around the fringes who’ll say ‘Ah I get it now!’  Will it make republicans become unionists or unionists become more republican? I doubt it”.

He believes that, as the government in the south should “drive”  2016 commemorations, so the government in Westminster should “drive” centenary commemorations. “Can an Executive that’s made up in the way ours is drive it? I don’t think it can, because of the complexities and differences that exist”. 

He doesn’t believe that the centenaries will lead to a fresh version of the Troubles. 

“I heard all this before Her Majesty’s visit: ‘Oh, this could spark things off. It’s not the right time.’ It happened, it passed and I think it’s been an acclaimed success. While I don’t know if these centenary commemorations will be on the same par, who knows? But they have the potential to be really positive and they have the potential to be positive marketing tools as well. Why not seize the opportunity?”

Never mind the Pope - God save the Church

I'm just off The Jeremy Vine Show  on BBC Radio 2, where I was debating the needs of the Catholic Church. My sparring partner was a young (I think) Englishman who appears to embrace the Church as it is. Maybe it's different in England. In Ireland, the Catholic Church is on the ropes.

Let's, with an effort, leave aside the clerical sexual abuse scandal - not because it doesn't matter but because it has been highlighted already as a ghastly stain on the Church. (Mind you, you're more liable to be abused by a relative than by a Catholic priest.) A number of things about the Catholic Church in Ireland appall me.

1. Its attitude to young people. Or rather non-attitude. Young people of Catholic background very largely find the Church at best boring and irrelevant, at worst cold and repellent. The Church's response? Nothing. Zilch. Rien. I know there are honourable exceptions to this but for the most part, young people leave the Church to the oldies.
2. Democracy. Or rather, non-democracy. From the Pope at the top to the parish priest at grassroots level, there's an obsession with keeping control, making sure those seen as further down the faith ladder don't come tramping where they don't belong. The windows of the Church which John XXIII tried to fling open have been nailed shut. Priests like Tony Flannery, Owen O'Sullivan, Brian D'Arcy have been silenced. Even to discuss topics such as celibacy, women priests, homosexuality is, to use Thatcher's word, out.

3. The liturgy. The Mass for young people particularly, but for older people too, is often a total yawn. Pope Benedict's intervention recently, making sure that jaw-breakers like 'consubstantial' were inserted into the wording, sums it up. And no, I don't know the answer to it all. But I know what I don't like.

I could go on but life is short. Anyone who thinks that by clinging to the orthodox, following the rules 'faithfully', putting your brain in neutral, is deluding themselves.  There are good and even heroic priests  and Catholic people in Ireland. But as an institution, the Catholic Church in Ireland is a mess.

Pope Benedict packs it in

The most telling tweet I read today was from Alastair Campbell. It said “Anyone who thinks religion not relevant to modern life (writes a pro-faith atheist) just look at how Pope announcement is dominating all”. And he was right. When the news of Pope Benedict’s planned retirement broke, Twitter had tweet after tweet after tweet on the subject. I’ve never seen it that one-topic.

So. Am I glad or sad he’s going? I could say ‘sad’, in that I believe he’s a sincere and holy man, and a man of considerable intellect. But my main emotion is one of gladness. Despite his quiet charm (which floored most of Britain that time he visited them) and despite the great charisma of Pope John Paul II, their terms as Pope were not good for the Catholic Church. In the early 1960s, that extraordinary man Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council to, as he put it, open the windows of the Church and allow the fresh air of renewal to invigorate it.  Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI did all they could to close those windows. Dissent, even discussion was forbidden; good and thoughtful people were not allowed even to discuss such burning issues as married priests or the ordination of women. I don’t for a moment believe that either of those steps would remedy all the ills of the Catholic Church, but to block discussion and real involvement by gifted people was misguided and counter-productive. 

So will I feel bad as Pope Benedict rides off into the sunset? Not really. He’s 85 years old. In any other profession to retire at that age would be seen as long overdue. I have no doubt that Benedict did good things in his term of office - among them addressing the issue of child abuse -  but he didn’t do the kind of things that would bring back to the Catholic Church people (particularly young people) who have abandoned it, nor did he encourage structures that would have allowed the Church at grass-roots level to be the people of God rather than the parish priest. The one thing the Catholic Church truly needs is a vigorous and abiding blast of democracy, and neither the present Pope nor the one before provided that. In fact they did all they could to block it. 

The question now is, will the next Pope provide a new beginning? I’d like to think so, except that the overwhelming majority of the College of Cardinals, who vote in Gregory’s successor, have been appointed by John Paul or Gregory. The sign are not good.

Chris, Gerry, the Pope and lies

Funny old thing, lying. When I was a youngster I used read books where Englishmen would blow their top if accused in this way. “Are you calling me a liar, sir??” Pistols at dawn and all that. And of course we were brought up with a catechism which told us that “No reason or motive can excuse a lie”.  Which always presented me with a problem on those occasions a female looked me in the eye and asked “Does my bum look big in this?” 

Ten years ago Chris Huhne got his wife to take a speeding fine for him and lied that she’d been the driver of the car at the time.One thing has led to another, and now from being a runner for the top post with the Lib Dems, he’s had to resign his seat and is probably on his way to prison.   Closer to home and on the back of an opinion poll, the Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin has told journalists “I have watched Sinn Féin in the North, all they have been about there is getting votes and securing power”. Later on in the same interview he added “I have no interest in just winning votes”.  Would you say Micheal himself believes both those statements?

Which brings us to Gerry Adams and the Pope. Gerry Adams has repeatedly said he wasn’t in the IRA, a statement which the media world  and beyond have declared a lie. And while Pope Pius XII has been denounced by many as anti-Semitic during WW2, a report in today’s Observer suggests that he wasn’t, and in fact arranged for fake baptism certificates to be issued to hundreds of Jews hidden in Italy, got fabricated Vatican documents to 2,000 Jews in Hungary identifying them as Catholics, and was involved with the hiding of 4,000 Jews in convents and monasteries across Italy. Or to put it another way, Pope Pius XII concocted lies about thousands of Jews.

And I haven’t even mentioned the matter of pleading “Not guilty” in court. If you know you’re guilty and say you're not, that’s clearly a lie. But you’ve employed a lawyer to fight your case; if you start by pleading Guilty, the show is over before it’s started.

You see where I’m going with this? Strictly speaking, lies are woven into the fabric of all our lives. Lies can be told to impress the electorate, lies can be told to save lives, lies can be told to protect yourself from prosecution. Not to mention a kick in the teeth should you say “Yes, your bum does look big in that. Enormous, in fact”.

So I do hope the next interviewer to ask Gerry Adams the well-worn “Were you in the IRA?” question will keep those complexities in mind. Even though I'm certain they won’t. And that’s the truth.

Gerry Adams on the Marian Finucane Show

   I caught only part of that interview today of Gerry Adams on the Marian Finucane Show. What I heard followed the usual pattern, much of it about Adams’s past in or not in the IRA. And there was some stuff about him having a holiday home in Donegal, which I gathered by inference is something you’re not supposed to have, and about him having been treated in a private medical clinic in the US, which apparently is something you’re not supposed to do either, and where did you get the big money for that anyway?

But while those were interesting questions and the way Adams dealt with them was interesting, I thought the key moment of the interview was when Adams said a word I don’t think I’ve heard on Finucane’s show before. I can’t remember what the question was but I remember the Sinn Féin president’s answer.

He was talking about the day the British Army came to his family home and arrested, I think he said, his father and his brother. “They wrecked the place completely.  They shit on the couch, they urinated on the curtains, they smashed religious pictures and statues. They wrecked the place completely”.

I’ve put that in quotation marks although I’m not sure if those were his exact words. But that was the essence of what he said. 

I thought it was remarkable because it brought alive, maybe for the first time to a southern audience, what life was like for many nationalists and republicans during the years of the Troubles. Everyone or nearly everyone has a home. And most people have small things - pictures, ornaments, furniture - that they’re fond of and sometimes proud of. What Adams’s sketch of what happened to his parents' home did was ask an unspoken question: How would you react if some people came into your home and did that?  To which he might have added “And how would you feel if 30,000 British soldiers took over South Dublin?” 

I do hope that helps bring home to southern listeners the sense of helpless rage that so many people must have felt, after being paid a visit by British squaddies. Of course, in comparison to the lives that were taken on all sides during the Troubles, the trashing of a house is nothing. But it’s still an interesting question to ponder: How would you react if that happened to your house?

(I know I shouldn’t but my inner teacher demands I do: the past tense of “shit”, Gerry,  is “shat”, not “shit”. Just sayin’, like.) 
Here's the interview link - thanks to Paul Evans : e http://www.rhttp://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/

Normal service etc

Apologies if you've recently posted a comment that doesn't show. There's some glitch in the system which I'm hoping will be repaired swiftly.  Meanwhile, take out your 2-minute packet of popcorn, settle back in your two-minute seat and have a good laugh/nod approvingly/ shout obscenities at the clip below...

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od