Peter Robinson and the GAA

Good news. Peter Robinson is to attend a big dinner at Queen’s University tonight. It’s organised by Co-operation Ireland and it’s to give public recognition to the GAA’s efforts to forge better community relations.(The EU beat them to the punch, so to speak, when they yesterday recognised the exemplary role of the GAA in Irish society). Last Friday Martin McGuinness and Robinson sat together at Ravenhill to watch Ulster defeat Leicester in rugby.  So you could say tonight is a tit for tat.

But is there any point to these tittings and tattings, these shoulder-to-shoulders? Not in practical terms. They don’t change the fact that Peter Robinson weaseled out of his agreement regarding a peace centre at the Maze/Long Kesh. It doesn’t change that Gregory Campbell is using the cover of the House of Commons to make all sorts of unsubstantiated charges about sexual abuse and what was it, a hundred republicans?  It doesn’t provide jobs for those who are jobless or help those struggling to find the money to pay the mortgage. 

But it’s better than a  sneer and a turned back. That’s what the DUP used to offer, when it refused to sit in the same studio as Sinn Féin, let alone meet with them or converse. So to that extent tonight is highly desirable.

 Unfortunately, for a people who pride themselves on being practical and hard-headed, we seem to attach more importance to meetings and symbols and gestures than we do to building on those in practical ways to effect real change. Just one personal example: I took part in a debate last summer with some Young Unionists from the UUP. It was good for them and me to see that we actually were human beings rather than some sort of two-horned, cloven-hoofed anti-Christ. But the unhappy truth is that neither party left the discussion with any shift in their thinking - and yes, Virginia, I do include myself in that.  Let’s not dismiss the importance of the symbolic but for God’s sake let’s not kid ourselves that it’s worthwhile in the absence of substance. As a wise unionist once said: “It’s deeds, not words, that count”. 

Caitriona takes a kicking

Caitriona Ruane is taking a pummelling, this time from the SDLP and the unionist representatives on the Assembly Commission. It seems Ms Ruane wanted to provide answers to MLAs’ questions in both Irish and English. The Assembly Commission voted her down, the SDLP representative voting with the unionists on the Commission and only the Alliance member siding with Ms Ruane.

I find myself mildly conflicted by this. On the one hand, Caitriona Ruane will have to accept that the ruling has been made by a democratic vote - just like the flags issue in Belfast City Council. On the other hand, the Assembly Commission is wrong.

If you check the St Andrew’s Agreement  of 2006 you’ll find that it committed the British government to work with the incoming Executive to protect and enhance the development of the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages.

If you check the Good Friday Agreement, you’ll find that amendments to it commit  all hands to ‘recognise the importance, respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland the Irish language, Ulster Scots and the languages of the various ethnic minority communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland’.

I wonder how those in the Assembly Commission who voted down Caitriona Ruane’s wish to speak in Irish as well as English square that with their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement?  I suspect they can’t. When Caitriona Ruane wanted to get her complaint included in the Assembly Commission’s annual report to the Equality Commission, she got another thumb’s-down. 

Maybe the Assembly Committee, as well as re-reading the Good Friday Agreement, might want to check out the system in a place like Canada. There, the English-speaking majority make a genuine effort, in terms of public documents, speeches and the like to support the minority French language.  They might also want to remember the late Monsignor Denis Faul’s contention: ‘There’s nothing like a touch persecution to energize the faithful’.

The police, 1987 and Áine Adams: the gorilla in the toilet

It’s sort of fun being a blogger. You get compliments from some people, more often you get brickbats from others. The most common brickbat I get fired my way is that I’m an unthinking mouthpiece for republicanism. Especially the IRA.  If you took these kind of charges seriously you’d be heading either for your solicitor or a mental hospital. Fortunately I don’t take them seriously. I openly concede that I approach the political world from a nationalist/republican perspective but I like to think my brain isn’t totally addled.

At the same time there’s a background implications that goes with the brickbats. It is that the mainstream media are balanced, objective, conveyors of the whole truth. If pressed, there’ll be the concession that some - say the Indo -  are, how shall we put it, not totally cheerleaders for republicanism. But a broadcaster like RTÉ or a newspaper like The Irish Times is free from such selective bias. 

Which makes an article in this morning’s paper a bit disruptive of that  take on our media. It’s by Gerry Moriarty, and it tells how Gerry Adams is “under pressure” over the Liam Adams case. It tells how Adams has always escaped from tight political corners but this one is different. And its concluding paragraph tells the reader about “claims that Adams acted in a calculated self-interested fashion to avoid charges of with-holding information about child sexual abuse and to save his ‘political skin’ ”. 

You’ve heard it all before. And you know that there are people in the media who, if they found evidence that Gerry Adams had picked his nose in 1962 would use that as a weapon to demand his removal as president of Sinn Féin. What makes the article interesting - and so many other articles like it - is the failure to mention the role of the police in all of this.

Surprising, isn’t it? Clearly it’s vital to everyone living in the jurisdiction - and beyond - that the police act in an even-handed and lawful way. Everyone by now knows that the police in 1987, instead of responding to the complaints of sexual abuse reported to them by Áine Adams and her mother, tried instead to turn her into an informer. Who were these police people? Was there much of it around? Are any of the people involved still working in the PSNI? These are surely matters of greater importance than who leads Sinn Féin.

Because if there’s another story of public interest attached to the Liam Adams case, the conduct of the police must be it. They were in possession of the crucial facts of the case in 1987 but ignored them and pursued their own tout-creating concerns. You’d think that an impartial, high-minded media would have latched onto that immediately and pursued the trail as far as possible. Nah - doesn’t fit the narrative, that. So much more fun trying to nail the top Shinners man.

Liking Enda Kenny

 

It’s hard not to like Enda Kenny. Even admire him. There he was on Saturday night, at a specially-convened Fine Gael conference that was supposed to be celebrating their victory in the referendum on the Seanad. But was he embarrassed about ending up with a referendum defeat on his hands? No chance. ‘Fine Gael - Getting Ireland Working’ the big banner behind him said, and you’d be forgiven for believing that that was just what had happened. Or was happening. Or was going to happen. Maybe. 

Two moments stood out, I thought. One where the Taoiseach referred to the Seanad and how, having accepted the democratic will (as distinct from ignoring it and mounting a coup d’état), his government was now (big pause here for effect)...going to extend Seanad voting powers to all graduates!  Woo-hoo, yippee, long live democracy. 

The other part was where he talked about the good shape the ‘country’ was in. “Ireland is on-track to exit the IMF-EU bail-out in December 2013!”  Thunderous applause, even from the woman doing the deaf sign-language.  Mind you, the budget on Tuesday will be tough, but Ireland is on-track to exit the IMF-EU bail-out! Great stuff...Um, does that mean the southern state is going to be - whisper it - debt-free in December 2013? Yerrah man, debt-free, have a bit of sense would you? It means that the south will be able to go back to the markets, that’s what it means! Yippee, hooray...Um, what will they do when they get there? To the markets I mean. Well, it means that, er ah diddly-dee, it means that  the state will be able to go to the markets and borrow there!  Now, great news or what? 

It really is hard not to like Enda Kenny. It must be the way he tells them. 

Reasons for ringing the Ombudsman

So now three DUP MLAs have requested the Ombudsman to look into Gerry Adams's role in the Liam Adams saga. I wonder why.

It could be that they feel it's important to be part of the great battle against child sexual abuse and this is their contribution. Or it could be that they feel the PPS  isn't doing its job the way they'd like to see it done. Or it could be that they believe Gerry Adams is a very bad leader of Sinn Féin and they hope in this way to have him replaced by someone better. Or it could be (and I'm putting my money on this one) that they have their eye on elections next May and are limbering up to appeal to the backwoodsmen. Adams-bashing is big with the backwoodsmen.

Whatever the reason, from a DUP point of view it must seem logical that they take every opportunity to...I was going to say 'chip away' but that's copyrighted...to weaken the leader of the main party you're in government with. Yes I know that sounds nuts but it would almost certainly resonate with the bwm. But in doing so, the three DUP amigos have forgotten something rather important.

With each blow  they aim at Gerry Adams's reputation, they are strengthening Sinn Féin. Sounds counter-intuitive, as they say nowadays? Well, it's just that patently opportunistic actions against Sinn Féin only stiffens the support of those who are Sinn Féin voters and possibly adds to their number. If the DUP truly wanted to weaken Sinn Féin at the polls, they should start saying they think Gerry Adams is a very fine person, they admire the work he's done to bring about and maintain peace, and that he leads a party they are happy to be in government with. If they did that, Sinn Féin voters would begin to think Sinn Féin must have abandoned every republican value, seeing as how the DUP were now so fond of them.

Worth a try, guys.  Although if you do, there's one big catch: your backwoodsmen  will almost certainly have a collective heart-attack. Still, you can't make a political omelette without breaking backwoods hearts.

Remembering Thomas Begley

Once again the subject of the Shankill bombing comes centre stage. Plans have been announced for a commemoration of Thomas Begley, one of the two young men who carried the bomb into the Shankill fish-shop and who was himself killed in the explosion. Now a commemoration is planned for him later this month, a few days before the anniversary of the bombing.

As I’ve said elsewhere, there are trigger words here which drive people into paroxysms of outrage, and ‘the Shankill bomb’ is one of them. To the people of the Shankill Begley was a murderer, the essence of evil, a man who helped bring about the deaths of nine people. To republicans, he was an IRA volunteer who was involved in a military operation in which he lost his life. Everything else - the assertion that a postponed meeting of the UDA was the intended target, the premature explosion which took the life of one of the bombers - is shaped by these two contrasting views. 

Alan McBride, whose wife and father-in-law were killed in the explosion, was on TV recently and I thought he spoke honestly and with understanding. He said that when he heard a band playing in the Ardoyne on the first anniversary of the explosion, he felt deeply hurt. He acknowledges that Thomas Begley was some mother’s son, but that his commemoration should not be thrust in the faces of those who suffered through his actions. 

That seems a fair and in the circumstances noble reading of what happened then and what should happen now. An acceptance that, for whatever reason, the relatives of those killed in our conflict have been hurt to a depth most of us can only wonder at; and an acceptance that those actively involved in the conflict, while reviled by one side, are seen as courageous and worthy of commemoration by the other. 

We can only hope that the note struck by Alan McBride will be echoed by others commenting on the event. Commemorations don't have to be marched up to the door of those who've suffered  to the sound of yelled slogans.

The truth or the whole truth?

As time passes, I’m finding myself drawn more and more to the how-about-if-it-happened-to-you school of thought. That’s to say, if an action is proposed by unionists,  they should first ask themselves “How would we feel if this were done to us?” And vice versa - republicans should consider how they would be affected if unionist were to do what they’re considering. 

I find this notion pressing in on me this morning after reading an article in The Irish Times by Margaret Urwin.  In it she notes an article in that newspaper last month by Prof Henry Patterson, titled ‘Could Dublin have done more to defeat the IRA?’  Ms Urwin’s point is simple and worthy of consideration: “He [Prof Patterson] omitted to mention the critical point that the Border was porous in both directions."

She concedes that some IRA people did flee south and find refuge, but she notes that 50 people were killed in the south as a result of loyalist attacks in the other direction, and hundreds more injured. “Yet not a single loyalist was convicted for any of these murders”.

She notes how released documents show that from September 1974,  four specialist panels of RUC and Garda officers were set up and met on a monthly basis, co-ordinating counter-paramilitary actions: “What is striking about the record of the September meeting is the total absence of any reference to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings only four months earlier, in which 34 people lost their lives. Nor was there any mention of possible future forays into the Republic by loyalists. The discussions concentrated entirely on IRA violence”. In fact, the commander of the British army in the north expressed the view that “any action designed to put pressure on people north of the Border would be the wrong response to the situation."  In short, a decision not to arrest loyalist paramilitaries was taken. 

Maybe the work of academics like Prof Patterson should be more comprehensive. 

Here’s the link to the article: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/both-uk-and-ireland-failed-to-focus-on-loyalist-violence-1.1552977#.UlUVIWG2JXg.gmail