Ed, football and flags

Ed Curran is offering some thoughts on sport and politics in the Belfast Telegraph this morning. Some of his contentions are predictable, others are gob-smacking to the point of incredulity.  Talking of soccer he says “The international team and its supporters are drawn from across the community. They occupy a uniquely shared space in the context of the new Northern Ireland”.

Blimey, Ed. That’s the Northern Ireland soccer team Neil Lennon once played for? And stopped playing for when he received death threats?  I must lead a sheltered life: I don’t know any nationalist or republican who is a supporter of the Northern Ireland football team. Maybe you can produce evidence to the contrary, Ed?

He goes on to say “if the British national anthem was not appropriate on Saturday afternoon at Windsor Park, can we look forward to the day when the Irish national anthem is considered just as unnecessary to the enjoyment of a GAA game?” 

I’m afraid I see a difference between the crowd supporting Northern Ireland and the crowd watching Donegal beat Down last Sunday. The main difference being that one crowd would be composed of people supportive of the union with Britain, the other not supportive of it. But let me come clean on this: I don’t think we need to hear Amhrán na bhFiann played before every Gaelic game. Or any need to have the Irish tricolour flying. Just as I see no need for the British national anthem to be played before soccer games or the Union flag flown. Gaelic teams represent their club or county or sometimes province, but they don’t represent their country. And of course the state of Northern Ireland is not a country, so any team representing it should not be flying the Union flag. 

Ed goes on from there to talk about flags and our coming super-councils:

“The obvious compromise is to apply the Stormont protocol of designated days across Northern Ireland. It is hardly asking too much for standards of flag-flying on public buildings to be agreed in the Office of the First and deputy First Minister and applied to the reorganisation of the new council districts.”

Mmm again. I know that’s a compromise was reached in Belfast City Hall and Stormont but I’m less sure that it’s a true compromise. Where half the population sees its loyalty as lying with Britain and half sees its loyalties residing in Ireland, a true compromise would clearly be one of two things: no flags or both flags.  Or is it that some loyalties are more important than others - that the croppies can consider themselves lucky their flag doesn’t end up flown on top of a huge bonfire? ...But wait a minute...Um...Right.  

The police, the MLAs and a little old thing called trust.

“Contemplate the wider betrayal of the trust that is indispensable in a functioning democracy, the trust between citizen and state that rests on the belief that security measures are always justified and proportionate”.

A quoted comment on Friday’s  PSNI work that sent one Sinn Féin MLA to hospital and endangered the life of another?  No, this is actually from a recent editorial in the Guardian, talking about the now-revealed attempts of the Metropolitian Police to discredit the family of Stephen Lawrence, a young black boy stabbed to death. 

It’d be good if the editorial were made compulsory reading for all PSNI personnel. Particularly the bit about trust between citizen and state. When you’ve got people on your side - effectively doing your work for you by striving to maintain public order -  it’s not smart to lie to them or to put their lives at risk. The PSNI  are on a very sticky wicket this summer. Matt Baggott’s softly-softly tactics with the flag protestors seemed to have paid off, and he deservedly got some plaudits for it. But if he now approaches protestors in North Belfast with  people-ramming police vehicles followed by justification from unionist politicians, it’s putting at risk not just those involved, but public trust in the police themselves.

Maybe all PSNI personnel might also be given a brief history of the RUC so they can learn what bad policing does to civil order. Let’s hope Matt Baggott’s attendance at a Sinn Féin conference hasn’t left  him thinking all hearts and minds have now been won. The weather could turn out bad but we could still be facing into a long, hot summer.

Sunday Sequence discussion

I should have put this up and skipped the labour of the last blog.

Sunday Sequence this morning discussing President Obama's speech on Raidio Uladh/Radio Ulster's 'Sunday Sequence'   - from   33.25 -1.01.25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b030vp2k

A word, Mr President, in your ear.

As the yelps of outrage about the Nigella thing are still pouring in I’m tempted to discuss the topic yet again. But to be honest, if I have to write about the two multi-millionaires and their quarrel again, I don’t know if I’ll have the will to live afterwards. (And don't say you can help me on that front - join the queue),

So instead let me write briefly about a topic I was discussing on BBC Raidio Uladh/Radio Ulster this morning with two people for whom I have a high regard: Nick Garbutt (even though he once was editor of the VO) and Catherine Clinton, ex-staff member at Harvard and currently at Queen’s. Both of them are delightful people and I think we disagreed on nearly everything. 

The topic was Obama’s Waterfront speech. I desperately wanted to like it but it was too full of ‘hope’ s  and ‘dream’ s  and other such for me. Ten out of ten for form, three out of ten for content.  

What was wrong with it? Where to start. Take education: he told us that we had a choice - go with integrated education and make for real peace and a cohesive society, stay with separate schools and go downhill. Well thanks, Barack, but I know the schools here. I spent my working life in and out of them.  They don’t promote sectarianism or division or any other such. Quite the reverse. In our discussion, Nick Garbutt pointed out that it wasn’t the teaching of sectarianism that was the problem, it was the separateness. A good point, except of course you’d have to think about all-girls’ or all-boys’ schools, you’d certainly have to think about secondary and grammar school education, you’d even have to think about streaming classes within a school. You’d also have to say that parents who send their children to a Catholic school (or a Protestant one, or a Jewish or Muslim or whatever faith) were doing those children a disservice. I disagree. If a religious faith is real it’s an extremely important part of people’s lives, and naturally they’d want to hand that important thing on to their children. Does bunging kids into one school out-balance that? Not in my book.

Besides which, most of us didn’t go to integrated school. Most of us here went to a Catholic or state (effectively Protestant) school: so do we consider ourselves bigots? I think not. It’s always somebody else we see being made more bigoted by separate education, not us. 

Last point (I have to clear out the garage): are we a client state of the US? There’s no doubt the Americans, especially Bill Clinton, were vital to the success of the peace talks leading to the Good Friday Agreement. Plus there’s always been a very strong emotional and even financial tie between Ireland and the US. That said, is this how the deal works  -  that they help us and that gives them the right to come in and explain what’s wrong with the way we’re doing things and tell us how we should do them?  Imagine that on a personal basis.  Your friend helps you out when you’re in trouble and you’re truly grateful. But then the friend drops in  from time to time and tells you and your family how to organise your lives. EH? 

Or put the boot on the other foot: Peter Robinson /Martin McGuinness pop over to the States, say a few funny things about the weather there, then tell the assembled Americans they’ll really have to stop torturing and detaining without trial people in Guantanamo Bay. And those drone-bombs that kill fifty innocent people for every suspected ‘terrorist’ it blows up: you really should stop that, guys. Uncivilized. And by the way,  what about the proportion of blacks and Hispanics in jail in the US  (51%) compared to the proportion of blacks and Hispanics in the general population (25%)?  Not good enough, guys.

Can you see it? Can you imagine the onslaught of the American media if Robinson or McGuinness tried any such thing? So what gives Obama the right to come and lecture us on morality?  The answer is simple: power. If you’re big and powerful enough, you can tell anyone you choose what they should do. You can even force them to do it, kill their leader and put in place ‘regime change’ in the name of democracy or some suchlike hypocrisy. 

I’m told Obama’s done good things in his domestic policy. Terrific. About time US citizens got a  decent healthcare system. But there’s little doubt that Obama’s foreign policy has been a huge disappointment to many people. And even at home, as someone pointed out, Obama presides over a US society that is more divided now that ever it was. And this is the man who’s come to tell us how to get social integration? Pull the other one, Barack, would you? There’s bells on it. 

A call from the VO

Two days ago my phone rang. Guess what? It was the VO. Well, you could have knocked me down with a bag of spuds. It’s not every day I get a VO call.  My first over-heated thought was, it must be The Editor, speaking for some reason in a falsetto voice, come on bended knee to beg me to come back and raise the tone of his organ once again. But then I stopped being hysterical and realised it wasn’t The Editor but one of his reporters, wanting to talk to me about that blog I’d done on the multi-millionaires at the fashionable restaurant.  That’s right - the one that ended in   a woman on the Nolan show  telling me I was  “a very, very, very rude and stupid man!”. Which goes to show, you can deceive all of the people some of the time”, etc, etc.

Anyway, back to the interview. Maybe you saw it in the VO. I broke a habit and bought a copy myself, and yes,  I’m afraid I’m going to have to sue,  Not because it quoted me as saying that Nigella goaded Charles into his physical assault ( later, more accurately, it modified that to ‘could well have goaded’,  which is different). Not even because it referred to me as “Mr Collins”. No,  the High Court trial will centre on the fact that they published a photograph of me wearing a moustache -  one of those tight-trimmed jobs, much-loved at one time by RUC personnel. One glance at that photo  has dented my self-esteem to the point where I may never be the same again. And it’s not just me; there are all those innocent VO readers out there, thousands of them, who may have glanced at the image and exposed themselves to deep and permanent emotional damage.  

My people will be in touch with your people, VO. Public health and safety is at risk here and a line must be drawn.

I get a kicking

listen to ‘Jude Collins says Charles Saatchi could well have been goaded into gripping Nigella Lawson's throat ’ on Audioboo

John O'Dowd and ideology

Yesterday I blogged on the Charles-Nigella contretemps at that fancy London restaurant. For several days before that I blogged on the G8 and partifularly on Obama and his drone-bomb-driven foreign policy which is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocents, including women and children. Guess which blog attracted between three and four times as many pageviews? You got it: the multi-millionaires nose tweak/throat grab.  In the words of that compassionate and loving British PM, Margaret Thatcher: it’s a funny old world. 

Let us move on. This morning on BBC Raidio Uladh/Radio Ulster, I heard Education Minister John O’Dowd accused of having an educational policy that was ‘ideology-driven’. O’Dowd is one man who’s capable of looking after himself and noted - quite rightly -  that his accuser had his own ideology. 

When did the notion of having an ideology become something shameful? Maybe from the idea that, if we try to see the world constructed in a certain way, or of being in need to be constructed in a certain way, we’re being naive. The real world demands either bits of a range of ideologies or no ideology at all.  The second of those two is impossible: everyone has an ideology. It might be “Responding to events as they happen, without forethought or any system of beliefs, is best” or “I decide what to do in the light of how many votes it’ll bring me, nothing else”. But it’s still an ideology - a belief that this is the best way in which to conduct political business/personal affairs. The second of the two - that you form a ragbag of different philosophies and approach the world with its eclectic reach is equally daft, if for no other reason than  that some ideologies directly contradict other ideologies.

What those who denigrate ideology want you to believe is that anyone who sees society and politics through the lens of a thought-out system of beliefs is offering pie-in-the-sky and is out of touch with the real world. They also want you to believe that their way of doing things is the natural, only sensible way of working. They want to present their approach as the way that’s unwarped by any of these sinister ideologies. 

There’s a word that’s similar to ‘ideology’ which could be used about such people. It’s ‘idiots’.