Sein Fein parades itself

In the Newsletter and in my local papers, it was reported that a parade, which took place in Fermanagh on New Years Day, was illegal. The parade was said to be illegal because no request had been made to the Parades Commission to hold it.

Last year, as the Policing and Justice devolution wrangle was at its height, Sinn Fein vigorously opposed any proposed scrapping of the Parades commission. Both Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams stated that DUP proposals to scrap the commission as a pre-condition of the transfer of Police and Justice was totally unacceptable. What is “sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander,” as they say. Sinn Fein will not be able to find a political excuse for breaking the law, if that is what has happened.

This particular parade is an annual event. Normally, it would not be in the news. Sinn Fein attracted criticism about it because, in furtherance of their politics, they published a report about the parade on their website.

I have been to numerous 12^th July parades and St. Patrick’s Day parades. This was the first time that I had witnessed a purely republican parade. I had been invited to it by a friend of mine, himself a republican. I decided to go, with a view to learning from the experience.

The location of the procession was in a remote area of the Fermanagh countryside, known as Moane’s cross, near Roslea. It is highly unlikely that there would have been any bystanders.

The story of the failed attack by the IRA on an RUC barracks more than 54 years ago is legendary within the republican movement. It formed part of the IRA border campaign of 1956-1962. Two of the attackers, Sean South and Fergal O’Hanlon, were killed in the incident. There is a well known song about the incident called “Sean South from Garryowen.”

South was from Limerick. When I was in my teens, I lived with my family in Limerick. I have sung the song many times. It was not until I came to live in Fermanagh that, years later, I became aware that the song referred to an incident within living memory.

At the site where South and O’Hanlon were killed, located by the side of a road, is a monument. The procession began from a distance of about 150 yards and ended at the monument. When the procession ended, the commemoration continued in front of the memorial. The ceremony included the playing of Amhrán na bhFiann (the Irish national anthem) by a solo flautist, a speech by Sinn Fein Councillor, Sean Lynch and another speaker saying the Rosary. The use of the Rosary on such an occasion would have offended many who are of the Catholic faith. It also provided a stark illustration of how Sinn Fein uses sectarianism to promote its politics.

The concluding speech by Sean Lynch began with a mention of previous IRA campaigns. The results of those campaigns were presented as a triumph. There were no surprises there. Then the “Elephant” (the dissident IRA) swam into my mind. As you would expect, the dissidents were not mentioned in any of the speeches. However, they must have been in the thoughts of some of those present. Even the most tongue-artful republican would find it very difficult to distinguish the current dissident IRA campaign from previous IRA campaigns.

The last part of Lynch’s speech was about Sinn Fein’s future political prospects.  Lynch discussed the general election on the horizon in the Republic of Ireland and the Assembly Elections in Northern Ireland, emphasising his party’s credentials as the only “All-Ireland” political party. He finished with a plea to young and intelligent people to come forward to join Sinn Fein.

After the ceremony, we went to the local hall where tea and food were waiting. In the hall were exhibited three old weapons of the sort used at the time of the 1957 attack. These included a Bren light machine Gun and a Thompson Sub-machine gun

It was an enjoyable and insightful afternoon.

The GAA, Nationalist Identity and Sectarianism

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who, in 2007, felt compelled to give up playing GAA sports.  He later returned to his club after receiving an apology from the Fermanagh GAA Board. 

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.

There is nothing British about this lot

I was not able to watch Question time on the BBC live last week.  However, I did listen to it on the radio in my car. 

Nick Griffin

There have been a number of issues raised about the BNP.  Should they be allowed air time?  One of the parallels I can think of is the during the late 1980s when the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher made it illegal for the television and radio media to broadcast the voices of members of Sinn Fein.  Mrs. Thatcher is famously remembered for this quote

“starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Unfortunately, the attempt to block out Sinn Fein was ineffective.  Broadcasters were still allowed to show members of Sinn Fein being interviewed.  What they could not do was broadcast their voices.  Broadcasters got around this, firstly, by introducing subtitles.  Later, broadcasters switched to dubbing.  Sinn Fein members’ voices were replaced with those of actors.  The whole clampdown ended in farce.

Of course, the Government could have taken further measures to prevent imitation broadcasting of terrorists.  They did not. 

Fast forward to 2009.  Peter Hain and others have criticised the BBC for allowing Nick Griffin a platform on Question time.  Let us forget the 1980s and suppose that refusal of access to air time on radio and TV was actually effective in limiting the BNP’s political interests.  Would it have been right?

The BNP has 2  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”2 “>MEPs and 56 councillors.  Whether we like it or not, the BNP represent a certain section of the electorate.  However, it can also be argued that by the time they were proscribed, Sinn Fein also had elected representatives. 

The BNP may be a group of thugs and fascists but they are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation.  There is no provable link between what they say over broadcast media and terrorism.  Peter Hain is perhaps still emotionally driven by the anti-fascist and anti racist passion of his youth.  During the late 1960s, he (then as leader of the Young Liberals) led protests against sports links with South Africa.  However, he is an experienced politician and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  He should, at this stage of his career, have a more mature and rounded view about the balance of the Public Interest. 

On the programme itself, Griffin was made to look ridiculous.  Two incidents stand out.  One was his attempt to justify his change of opinion about the Holocaust.  The other was his attempt to be an apologist for the Ku Klux Clan.  I don’t believe the broadcast will have advanced the interests of the BNP at all.  If anything, I think it will diminish them.  The BBC is to be congratulated for taking its difficult and controversial decision.

The overwhelming majority of decent people abhor everything the BNP stand for.  Perhaps one of the worst aspects of their existence is their name.  Lets be absolutely clear.  There is nothing British about this lot.

Victim’s lawsuits against Adams and McGuinness could make legal history

Yesterday, it was reported in the Belfast Telegraph that victims of IRA violence during the 1970s were to sue Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

The action, if it goes to a trial will be almost as interesting from a legal point of view as it will be from a political view.  The following is my partially informed view of the case, wearing my lawyer’s hat.

The first obstacle to be faced by the victims is the laws on limitation of actions, which prevent claims being brought if the incidents giving rise to the claim happened more than a certain length of time before a legal action is launched.  These laws, as they apply to Northern Ireland, are set out in the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (“the Order”). 

The action brought by the victims will be in Tort for Assault.  Most actions in Tort are subject to Article 6.  Where Article 6 applies, the time limit for bringing an action is 6 years from when the cause of action accrued (i.e. when the incident happened).  Where a personal injury occurs, Article 7  applies and the time limit is 3 years from when the cause of action accrued or the PLaintiff’s (victim’s) date of knowledge, whichever is the later.  

An initial look at the law suggests that the victims are more than 20 years late from bringing an action but their claim can still succeed if they can use one of the exceptions set out in the Order. 

One of those exceptions relates to the Plaintiff’s “date of knowledge”  referred to in Article 7(4)(b)  of the Order.  Another is the Court’s discretion to allow an action to be brought out of time under Article 50 of the Order.   The provisions relating to “date of knowledge” and the Court’s discretion under Article 50 are connected in the sense that they only apply to personal injury cases. 

Before last year, it was thought that neither the “date of knowledge” provision, nor the Court’s discretion under Article 50 could be used where a claim arose out of non-accidental injury.   Putting it another way, it was thought that if the personal injury arose as a result of an an assault, the limitation period was 6 years under article 6 but if it was a negligence claim, the limitation period was 3 years from the Plaintiff’s date of knowledge which could be a very long time after the event.  In the case of Stubbings –v-Webb [1993] AC 498 which was about child sexual abuse,  the House of Lords held that term “negligence, nuisance or breach of duty” under Article 7(1) only referred to non-intentional torts such as negligence. 

Last year, in the case of A –v- Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, the House of Lords overruled its earlier decision in Stubbings v Webb.   Now, the term “breach of duty” does apply to personal injury resulting from assault. 

From my reading of the Belfast Telegraph report, the victims may be able to say that they did not have the requisite knowledge to bring a claim because they did not have knowledge of the evidence linking the attacks to Messrs.  McGuinness and Adams.   Part of the victim’s case could well be that until papers were released  from the Foreign Office to the Public Records Office they did not have the knowledge which would have caused the 3 year period to begin running.    

There is one other exception under the Order which the victims might rely upon.  That is in respect of concealment.  Article 71 of the Order can apply if any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.  If there has been deliberate concealment, time (the 3 – year period) does not start to run until the concealment has been discovered or if it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. 

Of course, without knowledge of everything which is in the victims’ solicitors file, it is not possible to know exactly which of those exceptions in the Limitation Order they will rely upon.  One thing is for certain.  The Limitation law will be very carefully considered by both sides.

Those interesting legal aspects do not necessarily end there.   Lawyers will be familiar with the term “vicarious liability.”  This is liability which can be fixed against a defendant because of an association which exists in law linking the person who carried out the act with the Defendant.   The doctrine requires the Defendant to have some sort of responsibility or control over the third party who committed the wrong.  Normally, vicarious liability is associated with Employers and Business Partners but what about being an official in an organisation which is responsible for the Act?  The victims might be able to prove conclusively that the attacks were carried out by the IRA but may not have any evidence to link them either to Adams or McGuinness.  If they can prove, however, that McGuinness and Adams were members of the IRA (perhaps this will be no problem in relation to McGuinness but trickier in relation to Adams) they may then be able to ask the Court to invoke the doctrine of vicarious liability.  It is not as easy a point as it looks.  In normal kinds of vicarious liability, the relationship between third party and defendant is a legal one. 

One thing is for certain.  These lawsuits will make news like few others.

PSNI using the Irish Language to strengthen community relations

It was reported in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday that a policing board meeting taking place in Londonderry/Derry was conducted in the Irish Language.  That did not go down too well with Jim Allister (more about that below) but it was an historic occasion.

There is no suggestion that every meeting will of the Policing Board will be held in Irish. I suspect, without actually knowing the reason for holding the meeting in Irish, that one of the reasons would have been promotion of the Irish Language.  I also believe that another reason for this development was to reinforce the fact that the Police force is a service for all law-abiding citizens.  It was a smart move by both the members of the Board and the PSNI.

 Now about the comments by Jim Allister.  He said this about the meeting:

“Tonight’s meeting in Londonderry will mark yet another important concession to Republicans and serve to further alienate Unionists. Irish is not just a language but a political and cultural weapon. A booklet published by Sinn Fein/IRA in 1982 entitled Learning Irish included a speech by Padrig O’Maoicraibhe, a Sinn Fein cultural officer, who said that “every phrase you learn [in Irish] is a bullet in the freedom struggle”.

“Far from Sinn Fein/IRA abandoning their campaign against all things British in Northern Ireland they have merely changed their tactics. Tonight’s meeting will serve to further illustrate just how they are working to undermine Northern Ireland’s constitutional position through the positions they occupy courtesy of the DUP”.

He has chosen to emphasise that the Irish Language is being used as a political and cultural weapon.  It certainly is being used that way by Sinn Fein.  However, it is also noteworthy that many unionists are hostile to the language as a result of political and cultural bigotry.  Jim Allister has so far done nothing to suggest that he is more open-minded.

If Allister wants shake off the presumption that he is using the “weapon” argument to conceal his own prejudice, he ought to acknowledge that the Irish Language does hold an important place in Northern Ireland’s cultural heritage.  He also might like to consider the broader view of community policing.   

Building stronger community relations is official Conservative Party policy in England, Wales and Scotland.  Building bonds between the Police and the Community is entirely consistent with that.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part I

Some weeks ago, I pledged that I would write a post about whether we should have an Irish Language Act.  It is, actually, a much more interesting topic than appears at first sight.

As a Conservative who wants to pull down the sectarian wall which exists in our society, I regard this subject as one of utmost importance. However, the case has not been made either for or against an Irish Language Act by any of the politicians in Northern Ireland.  This is because the Irish Language itself has become a political football. The more that the Nationalists and Republicans try to push for an Irish Language Act, the more likely they are to entrench the position of Unionists, who are against it. 

The Nationalists and Republicans are guilty of alienating many people in Northern Ireland from the idea of learning Irish, or wanting Irish to be taught in non-Catholic schools.  In part, this is because they portray it as a nationalist (rather than an Irish) Identity symbol. 

On both sides of the argument, there is considerable bigotry.  There are Unionists who think that the Irish Language is something that “does not belong in Northern Ireland.”  Eighteen months or so ago, David McNarry, MLA of the UUP put forward a motion that Irish should be banned from being spoken in the Assembly.  His invection did not go unnoticed.

“What was striking about David McNarry’s demeanour when proposing his motion asking that Irish should be banned from within the assembly was the visceral hatred that the UUP member felt toward the language,” said Robert McNillen of the Irish News.

Part of Sinn Fein’s strategy for preserving the sectarian wall is to demonise the Orange Order. The reason for this is perfectly simple.  At the moment, it is mostly Orangemen that control the positions of power within the unionist parties. Maintain antipathy towards Orangemen and they maintain antipathy towards unionism.  The prejudices against Orangemen exist within the Catholic community as a result of past history.  All that Sinn Fein has to do in order to maintain that prejudice is to voice a little story here and there.  In the days of Drumcree, that was an easy task for them.  Now, they have to watch and listen to the Orangemen from behind the bushes, as they did at the 12^th July celebrations last year.  The example that I have selected is a piece from last year in An phoblach.  How triumphant that piece is.  They caught the Orangemen attacking the Irish Language.  Because the nature of Orange criticism of Irish is so vituperative, it enables Sinn Fein to sound ever so reasonable and even handed when they make their counter-attack.

“Exercising the right to learn and speak Irish has nothing to do with “the intended application of cultural apartheid” or “an Irish-language onslaught to strangle” Orangemen’s “sense of Britishness,” said Laura Friel of Sinn Fein. 

Sinn Fein carries on as though it owns the Irish Language.  That is part of the problem.  They are the wrong political party to champion the promotion of Irish and all other aspects of Irish culture.  Their continued existence in politics is a constant reminder of the violence of the past.  I would go as far as to say that Sinn Fein’s continued existence on the political scene in Northern Ireland contributes to a sustained reluctance of many Protestants in Northern Ireland to admit that they are Irish. 

Debate about the Irish Language requires cool tolerant heads. Perhaps it will take a cross-community political party like the Conservatives to provide a detached analysis and opinion on this issue, which will gain the trust and respect of both communities.  

The next post in this series sets out the history of the Irish language up to the 20th century.

Are Martin McGuinness’s words too potent for their own supporters?

Imagine the world of a former provisional IRA terrorist (I call him “John X”). 

He is somebody who is likely to be middle-aged.  Following the ceasefire of 1994, he has not committed an actual terrorist attack.  He may have still have been involved in some illegal activity, including some local vigilante action against drug suppliers but he will probably not have fired a shot in anger for 15 years or more.  In the intervening 15 years, he has assimilated into normal life.  He has become a tradesman, married and raised a family.  His republican activities are now as a Sinn Féin activist carrying on voluntary work which helps to keep the party machine running and win elections. 

John X is happy with the Good Friday agreement.  When he was a terrorist, he did not think that democracy was the way forward.  Now, he believes the propaganda which has been handed down by his leaders that one day, there will be a United Ireland because Catholics in Northern Ireland will become the majority religious community.

John X is happy with Sinn Féin’s electoral progress as it climbs higher and higher in the polls.  He was uncomfortable with the fact that Sinn Féin finally came around to supporting the PSNI.  His doubts were put to rest when he saw his party do so well in the Assembly elections of March 2007. 

John X has a republican friend called Peter Y who also fought with the Provos.  Every now and again, he meets up with Peter Y for a few pints.  Peter Y never agreed with the Good Friday Agreement.  Peter Y keeps telling John X that Sinn Féin “have sold out the memory of the hunger strikers”

“They sold out to give Adams & McGuinness a nice fat pension from politics”, says Peter Y.  John X thinks Peter Y is an “asshole” but he respects his views and they remain friends.  John X knows from sources inside Sinn Féin that Peter Y is an active member of the RIRA but John X does not let on to Peter Y that he knows this.

In May 2007, there is a general election in the Republic of Ireland. John X is very annoyed with the result.  Sinn Féin went into it with 5 seats in the Dáil Éireann.  They expected to be returned with 12 and only ended up with 4.  He is re-assured when “Grizzly” (Gerry Adams) comes on the telly and tells the public “We will just have to up our game”.  And John X knows that he will because there is nobody greater or cleverer than Grizzly.

By the summer of 2008, the Executive is has stopped its weekly meetings because the DUP is procrastinating on Police and Justice.  John X is happy.  Grizzly plays politics like a game of chess.  There can only be one winner.  

In the Autumn of 2008, John X gets a shock.  A Sinn Féin activist tells him that he has to persuade Peter Y to stop what he is doing “otherwise he will soon be caught”.

It is the beginning of November 2008 and at last, John X is able to meet up with Peter Y for a drink.  By this time, both men are aware of rumours that the DUP and Sinn Féin are on the verge of striking a deal to get the Executive back again.  “The DUP have Sinn Féin by the balls” says Peter Y.   “Sinn Féin have played their last card in the peace process.  They know they’ll be unpopular if they dont get back to work soon.   Look at stupid bitch Ruane?  Do you think she’ll win votes for you”

John X is annoyed with Peter Y’s taunts.  John X raises the subject of Peter Y’s involvement with the RIRA and tries to persuade him to get out of it “for your own sake”, John X tells him sincerely.

“Feck you. You’ve been brainwashed”

Peter Y downs his pint, slams the beer glass on the bar and walks out without looking at John X or saying goodbye.  John X is amazed by Peter Y’s reaction. 

A fortnight later, the John X watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness announce their agreement to re-instate executive meetings.  Very little information emerges about when Police and Justice will be devolved.  John X is perplexed.  Later he hears from another activist, to his dismay, that SF had no choice but to cave in otherwise they would lose popularity.  At this point, John X is dismayed.  ‘Surely they dont think they’ll lose votes to the SDLP?’  He thought that party was a ‘dead duck’.   For the first time, John X is made to doubt his party’s supreme position within the Catholic community. 

Over the Christmas period, Mrs. X invites Peter Y and his family to John X’s house.  John X is surprised by this and even more surprised when he sees Peter Y full of smiles as if their last meeting did not happen.  As has happened often, the drink begins to talk and Peter Y is back to his taunting of Sinn Féin having sold out.  As usual, John X tells him that the position is legitimated by everybody in Ireland voting in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. 

“The will of the whole Irish people should be respected”, says John X but Peter Y has an argument for this point as well. 

“the men of 1916 did not have a mandate from the Irish people at the time either.  They got theirs later.  We’ll get ours later” 

The two men finished that day as friends again but it was the last time they met.  

It is February 18th, 2009 and John X is at Sinn Féin’s Ard Feis (party conference) in Dublin.  John X always enjoys the trip to Dublin.  It is time for some backslapping with old comrades.  The only thing John X doesn’t want is that they ask about Peter Y.  His old comrades dont ask him anything.  However, one party official singles out John X and pumps him with questions. 

“Haven’t heard from him for months”, says John X who is, by this time, irritated by the man’s interest in his friend. On his way back from Dublin the following day, questions swirl around his mind about his friend Peter Y  

On March 7th 2009, the news hit the television screens.  On the previous day, Martin McGuinness angrily criticised Sir Hugh Orde for his decision to deploy special army intelligence forces.  Now, two soldiers form the Massereene Barracks in Antrim were killed by gunmen.  John X’s head is swirling.  Pennies are dropping like the jackpot in the fruit machine.  “So that’s why they were so anxious to find out about Peter Y”, thought John X.  By this time, he is in fear that Peter Y will be killed by somebody within his own political organisation.  

Wednesday March 9th and the man who was John X’s former high commander in Derry booms out his words “THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE ISLAND OR IRELAND”  With those words ringing in his ears, he walks to the bathroom and looks in the mirror.  Hot  tears pour down his cheeks.   

John X could hardly sleep that night. McGuinness’s voice kept ringing in his ears

“THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE ISLAND OR IRELAND”.  In the middle of the night he goes to a store cupboard and seeks out a shoe box.  He pulls down the box and opens it.  He pulls out the revolver and feels it.  Old urges come back to him ….

 ********************

That is where I end this (entirely fictitious) narrative.  The fear I have is that there are real John X’s out there who could be lured back into terrorism if things do not go right for them politically.  It has already happened with one of them one report reveals in the Sunday Times.  Times are very dangerous at the moment.  Of one thing I am sure.  This is an extremely difficult time for Sinn Féin.  Many of their supporters will indeed be troubled by what Martin McGuinness said.  Does this mean it is a good time or a bad time to make a dash for normal politics?  

In the next few weeks, Conservatives in Northern Ireland will be asking themselves that question.  At the moment, I do not profess to know the answer.

Spare a thought for Jim Allister and the TUV

Spare a thought for the leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister. 

Having left the DUP following the St. Andrews agreement, which he maintained was a “u” turn by them after they promised not to go into government with terrorists, he is now scratching his head as he watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness stand shoulder to shoulder condemning the terrorists.

The head-scratching becomes more furious as he reads that unionist supporters are praising Martin McGuiness.  Shock horror, one unionist supporter even said he was proud of Mr. McGuinness.  They have not only forgiven the godfather of yesterday’s terror, they have made him into a hero.  Can this really be part of God’s plan?

Not surprisingly, the TUV is doing its utmost to persuade potential supporters that there is no difference (in terms of evil wrong-doing) between what has just happened and what happened in the past.

“the murder of David Johnston by the IRA in June 1997 was just as wrong as these recent killings. This is a point which Martin McGuinness will not be making”

One political point which the TUV is trying to exploit is Sinn Fein’s opposition to the stepping up of security with the use of the Army.  Jim Allister says this

“Sadly, I fear, the political expediency of not offending IRA/Sinn Fein sensitivities will fetter such an essential response and, therefore, more brave policemen and soldiers will be sacrificed.”

That point is slightly inaccurate.  There probably will be more murders but that will have been nothing to do with Sinn Fein’s opposition to the use of troops.  Sinn Fein does not make any decisions on security.  So long as that remains the case, Sinn Fein’s anomalous view of security is unlikely to have any political impact.  

Whatever happened to the puritanical protestant community?  It is still there but it has now become much more adaptable.  Political views have been reconciled with moral consciousness.  There are now very few who have not come to terms with the trade off that was necessary to obtain peace.  

Most DUP supporters are quite content to draw the line under the distinction that today, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein are no longer part of an organisation which conducts terror.  As long as no evidence turns up to the contrary, Jim Allister and the TUV will not be able to gain any political capital out of the recent atrocities.

McGuinness use of the word “evil” a political own-goal

On Friday, 23rd January, Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister, speaking in Derry/Londonderry where he attended a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council said “There are a number of tremendous evils in society. One is racism, the other is sectarianism, and I think an evil also is partitionism”. His comments caused outrage amongst unionists.” 

Many complaints were directed towards him for calling partitionism “evil” but it was his use of the word “evil” itself which caused most of the controversy.  

“Evil” is a word that should be used sparingly by politicians.  Provided it is used to describe man’s worst inhumanity to man, it is not controversial and the overwhelming majority of society can buy into a politician’s comment.  For example, last year, when the story emerged about a father (Fritzl) in Austria who abused and imprisoned his daughter and grandchildren, none of us would have battered an eyelid had any politician reached for that adjective.  However, once an atrocity is scaled down from those sorts of levels, any demonizing by politicians doesn’t sound right.  You would not expect the Home Secretary, when announcing crime statistics to describe it as the latest litany of “evil”.  

The real problem with using words like “good” and “evil” in politics is that they are part of the language of morality.  Politicians are elected to provide political analysis and solutions rather than make moral judgment.  When they take up their political office , they bring into the job their own personal moral values but they are not the final determinant of good political judgment.  They are only a starting point. A politician’s job often involves making a choice between the better of two alternative “goods” or the lesser of two alternative “evils”.  In the end, it is pragmatism which drives the best political decisions.  Politics and morality never fit properly together all of the time and they rarely mix at any time.  How, then are people likely to view the remarks made by Martin McGuiness?  

Looking at it from one angle, he was using a new way to express his well-known political viewpoint.  On the other hand, his remarks were at best inappropriate for the reasons outlined above.  At worst, his remarks were offensive.  Since he entered politics, voters of his political party have turned a blind eye to his past.  However, by using the language of morality, McGuinness has strayed onto territory where he has not previously set foot.  He may not have intended it but he has fused, in the minds of  in many people, including republicans, a link between the adjective “evil” and the fact that he was once one of the leaders of the IRA at the height of the troubles who planned killing and probably killed people by his own hand.  Mr. McGuiness has scored a political own-goal.