Bits and pieces – The Inquiries Referendum, Peace Processes home and away, Blogging and the view of Iraq held by some on the US right October 25, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left, US Politics.trackback
I have to admit I like the Kangaroo Court Inquiries referendum posters. They’re neat and effective and the reference to Kangaroo Courts is clever. Who though is responsible for putting them up around town? The ICCL. Meanwhile bad news for Alan Shatter with the communication from eight, count ‘em – eight, former attorneys general against the referendum. They’re all pretty orthodox, which probably adds to his ire..
Mr [Peter] Sutherland was attorney general to the FitzGerald-led Fine Gael/ Labour coalition in 1981; Mr [Patrick] Connolly to the Haughey-led Fianna Fáil government in 1982; Mr [John] Rogers to the Fine Gael/Labour coalition from 1984-1987; Mr [Harry] Whelehan to the short-lived Fianna Fáil/Labour coalition in 1992; Mr [Dermot] Gleeson to the Bruton-led coalition from 1994-1997; Mr [David] Byrne to the Fianna Fáil/PD coalition in 1997; Mr [Michael] McDowell to a similar coalition from 1999 to 2002, and Mr [Paul] Gallagher to the last government, the Fianna Fáil/PD/Green coalition.
And God knows if some of them are agin it I’d be tempted to go for it. But what’s interesting about the whole affair is the head of steam building up in opposition to the Government. I’d bet they didn’t think this would be situation when they first mooted the referendum but it’s an useful reminder, if reminder is needed, of how unpredictable political processes actually are. I’d think, from the most recent polling data that it will be passed, but…
There’s something just a little ironic about the news that:
A public appeal from Annan and fellow mediators, including the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, for Eta to embrace peace will provide the group with an excuse for declaring its readiness to abandon arms, according to sources. Radical Basque separatist political leaders would then imitate moves by Adams during the Ulster peace process when, in 2005, he appealed directly for the IRA to lay down its weapons.
… at least it seems ironic contextualised with the events closer to home.
Meanwhile, I couldn’t ignore Seán Farren of the SDLP, who contributed a piece to the Irish Times last week. He made some interesting assertions, including the following:
Unlike in 1919-1920, there was a viable, widely supported constitutional and peaceful alternative in the North in the form of the civil rights movement and the SDLP under the leadership of men like John Hume and Séamus Mallon, and by successive Irish governments.
The equivalence that some, among them Martin McGuinness, have drawn between violence and the constitutional approach is patently false. There was no equivalence, a fact the overwhelming majority of Irish people recognised in every test of popular opinion throughout the Troubles.
It was this constitutional alternative that ensured the achievement of the civil rights agenda, from “one person, one vote”, to fair housing, to equality of opportunity in the workplace. The political achievements of 1973, culminating in Sunningdale, were forerunners by 25 years of the Good Friday agreement.
And…
Those agreements contained all of the essentials of the 1998 agreement: powersharing, a Council of Ireland and human rights reforms. Yet those who negotiated these agreements, the SDLP and the Irish government in particular, were roundly denounced as traitors to the cause of Irish unity by the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin. SDLP public representatives were subjected to violent attacks while being described by Martin McGuinness as “cringing and crawling” for negotiating with the British and unionists. More ominously, McGuinness vowed the Provos would continue their “war” until a British withdrawal had been declared.
I won’t for a moment disagree with his point about the attacks by some Republicans upon SDLP members, and there was no honour in that. But Farren glosses over three very important aspects of the situation. Firstly that it was not the IRA in either of its variants which brought down Sunningdale [which while similar to the structures established under the GFA/BA was not identical] but instead Unionism and Loyalism. Secondly that Unionism and Loyalism balked at every turn at the very prospect of sharing power with moderate nationalism as exemplified by the SDLP throughout the decades of the conflict, indeed were hugely antagonistic to the very idea of powersharing regarding it as undemocratic. Thirdly that the current round of attacks on McGuinness echo in no small way those directed against the leader of his own party, John Hume, during the early and mid-period of the Peace Process. I won’t pretend that there is an understandable bitterness on the part of some nationalists about the rise of Sinn Féin [and I suspect many in the SDLP instinctively knew that this was a possibility during the peace process] but what precisely did those who supported the process expect? Were they so naive as to think Republicanism would make shift away from armed struggle to simply leave the stage? None of which is to understate the pool of hurt that Republicanism added to across that history, but simply to point out that there were no easy options at any point and nothing happened in isolation.
Then there’s the slow wending of its way by the Smithwick Tribunal which is seeing a range of unlikely faces appear before it.
Consider Kevin Myers contribution to the Tribunal about his assertion that there were two IRA moles and an IRA cell in Dundalk Garda Station in the 1980s. Remember he made the claim in 2000.
He acknowledged he was incorrect on some details in relation to some of the murders. He told Mr O’Callaghan the column was based on his opinions and assertions. He said a column was “a different factual plane” than a news article or editorial comment. “All we can do is tell the truth as sincerely and as impartially as possible,” he said.
Mr O’Callaghan asked: “Do you think that article told the truth in a fair and impartial manner?” Mr Myers said: “No, I don’t believe it did.” He said he was inspired to write the piece because “there was too many cross-Border operations going wrong without something systemically wrong”.
Hmmm… he acknowledges now that the term ‘cell’ ‘suggests a coherence that might not have existed’. So that’s okay then.
A lot has changed since the CLR started up some five and more years ago. It’s different in some hardly quantifiable way to how it was. Actually some of that is quantifiable. There’s a lot of competition out there, most of it from non-blogging platforms. But that hasn’t impacted as much as might have once been thought.
And blogging goes through phases. A few weeks ago I tried to prune the blogroll in the right hand column and it was kind of depressing to see which sites had shut up shop – for the present at least. Take Hugh Green at the Punishment of Sloth. I’d kind of hoped he was going to be back soonish on his own site, but nope, not so far.
Yet simultaneously there are new blogs and the return of old ones. Splintered Sunrise has been posting on a reasonably regular basis since the New Year and it’s great to read a voice which has been very much missed across the past year or so.
So, gains and losses.
I can’t quite work out in my own head whether blogging will continue that far into the future or will become nestled within other social media as a long form process. I’d be interested in what people think or how they use those media and blogs.
Finally, for now, what of William Saletan’s piece in slate which neatly considers the attitude of US conservatism, or at least one part of it, to the issue of Iraqi sovereignty, not least in relation to the US troops stationed there and their exposure to prosecution by Iraqi authorities.
The response from Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann – amongst others? Let’s just say they’re not fans and close with this quote from the latter…
We’ve put a lot of deposit into this situation with Iraq. And to think that we are so disrespected and they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this … We are there as the nation that liberated these people. And that’s the thanks that the United States is getting after 4,400 lives were expended and over $800 billion? And so on the way out, we’re being kicked out of the country? I think this is absolutely outrageous.
Take Hugh Green at the Punishment of Sloth. I’d kind of hoped he was going to be back soonish on his own site, but nope, not so far.
There is a new blog at http://knaves.posterous.com/ which covers many of the same topics that Hugh used to do.
The disappearance of “Hugh Green” may not be as final as you think it is…
“Mr O’Callaghan asked: “Do you think that article told the truth in a fair and impartial manner?” Mr Myers said: “No, I don’t believe it did.” He said he was inspired to write the piece because “there was too many cross-Border operations going wrong without something systemically wrong”.”
Well we’ve heard it from the fuckers mouth in a court of law.
He’s a compulsive little liar.
Apologies about the swearing. It’s just lovely seeing him admit he’s a tit. Though something more delicious would be him perjuring himself and subsequently being convicted.
Re: Sean Farren. The 1919-1920 bit is similar to justifications some members of FF gave (is that merger still being discussed?) during the troubles.
Some of the more bitter ones in the SDLP used to say that Sunningdale was the same as the GFA. Were onto forerunners now.
Speaking of liars, kind of odd that the newspaper that purports to be the newspaper of record would not even check his articles for accuracy.
Then again it employed at one stage the Right Honourable Colonel Myarse.
Kudos on your style in tying these different topics together.
‘He’s a compulsive little liar.
Apologies about the swearing. It’s just lovely seeing him admit he’s a tit. Though something more delicious would be him perjuring himself and subsequently being convicted.’
Be careful what you wish for. While holding no brief for Colonel Myers, if telling porkies gets on your goat than you may want to consider a TD for Louth who joined an entirely unarmed branch of the republican movement in 1964 and has striven for peace ever since then. Or a close comrade, who angered as he was by the massacre of his fellow citizens in his home city, left the IRA a couple of years after Bloody Sunday. But bullshit detectors only ever function on our enemies don’t they?
Shay I’m not sure theyre entirely cOmparable and I’m far frOm an uncritical booster of SF. There are good reasons why a degree of ambiguity as regards the backgrounds of those in SF etc might be projected for political and legal reasons. In fairness they’ve never thrown the RM under a bus. Whether Myers is precisely the same I’m dubious.
Btw…Sutherland’s name up there makes me almost certain to vote yes to that bit of the referendum.
Yes, it’s a bit troubling that.
And McDowell. And Gleeson.
And Patrick Connolly.
The left voting ‘no’: GUBU?
On Primetime McDowell cited the ULA as among those who care about the constitution! Strange alright.
When Sutherland, McDowell et al talk about the rights of the ‘individual’ they have in mind a tightly circumscribed concept derived from the right wing of liberalism shading into conservatism. An ‘individual’ to them is white, male, upper class, wealthy and a member of the elite. Their concern for the ‘individual’ does not or will not extend to the ordinary worker resisting unfair double taxation or occupying their workplace to defend their jobs. The Courts will continue to dispense with us in double quick time – with as little regard to our individuality as is usually shown by the courts in a capitalist society.
It’s a double edged sword, but not one without its uses. A Dáil with 25+ socialists in it could find it a powerful tool.
Firstly, the kangaroo court posters are class.
Secondly, I’m surprised that Michael McDowell hasn’t cited his own record as a PD Justice Minister as a convincing reason why Joe Citizen should not trust politicians and should vote no on the Inquiries Referendum.
25+ socialists is still 25+ politicians. Let them do the job they’re supposed to do.
It’s not easy being on the same side as the Dark knights on this one. They know they are the last people who will be tried and especially in public. We will be waiting a long time for the kind of executive that will change that but it’s that change they are hedging against. In the meantime it’s us who are stuck with this crowd and the ever looming possibility of FF returning.
There is a Geraldine Kennedy interview from Monday night on RTE player. She talks about being advised to stay away from the FF Ard Fheis, her safety could not be guaranteed, phone tapping and finding notes saying she is being watched. That is an extreme example but lets not give any politician a constitutional way to deal with irritants.
Unlike the politicians those white, male, upper class, wealthy members of the elite are playing the long game and so should we. This is Howlin and Shatter’s baby if they want it badly enough let them come back with a popper proposal, not sneaking in this open ended business with three other ballots and nothing but contempt for us.
I’m finding the whole inquiries referendum debate, both here and elsewhere, baffling.
We’re not supposed to trust politicians to inquire into things, because they could be biased. And because the kindly misters Sutherland and McDowell tell us too.
No, we should trust the judiciary who, of course, are completely unbiased in any respect. This is a judiciary every one of whose members is a political appointee. And they don’t get that appointment unless they can show utility and fidelity to their political sponsors and an ability to unobtrusively and below the radar protect the interests of those sponsors. The judiciary is drawn exclusively from a profession – the Bar – which actively, openly and brazenly practices some of the most groteseque and obnoxious forms of social exclusion in modern Ireland (devilling?), so that the leading elements of this profession who progress to be members of the judiciary are drawn from an infintisimally narrow segment of the population. From a section where wealth, privilege and political connections are concentrated and transmitted through the generations, and where the realities of life for the vast majority of Irish citizens are completely unknown. These are the people I should trust to guard my interests more than Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barret, Gerry Adams, Peadar Toibin, Seamus Healy etc?
The circularity at work in holding that judges are the best defence our interests is interesting. For a judge to get a position he/she must spend years stewing in some political party, picking up on the way the culture of that party, the ways its members think, the broad outlook of that party, ingratiating him or herself into the party, socialising with its members (marrying leading members in may cases), and we’re supposed to believe that none of that influences their decision making processes once they get to occupy the bench? Anyone with a nodding acqaintance with Irish jurisprudence will know that there are areas where judges can justify X or Y decision on policy grounds (i.e. it might please the political elite, of all parties). That there are areas where judicial discretion and interpretation favours the powerful.
No-one is going to be put against a wall and shot or sent to a labour camp because of the inquiries referendum, but life might get considerably more uncomfortable for the Sean Fitzpatrick’s and Denis O’Brien’s of this world. I want TD’s hunting answers out of these people, given that we’re going to be paying for their corruption for decades. But, hey, some on the Left would appear to prefer oligarch’s clogging up the courts with judicial review cases rather than having to answer to democratically elected politicians. A strange world, indeed.
A final word, McDowell in particular is exposing his cynical hypocrisy for the umpteenth time. If he had even an iota of concern for the rights of individuals he’d be advocating free legal aid to take judicial review cases for those without means. Of course, he’d never do that, but many the left are willing to fall in behind him and his perverted interpretation of individual rights.
I agree with CMK. Particularly because we probably won’t see any more tribunals given the cost factor. I’d prefer to see Joe Higgins hunting down Seanie Fitzpatrick than some barrister whose main interest is in prolonging the proceedings indefinitely so he can enrich himself.
All valid points CMK. I’m well aware judicial independence is a laugh and the justice system is far from perfect but it’s better then the politicians doing it in the way proposed. Shatter isn’t fighting for this so Joe Higgins can start turning over rocks in the IFSC. I want to see the outsiders asking the questions the rest wont but the Executive will frame any inquiry and they won’t be embarrassing anyone. It’s all about ego and politics they don’t give a hoot about savings or justice.
I want accountability but I want to be told how they plan on getting it before I give them the nod. The Executive is already too powerful. Vote No now and let them come back with some substance at the promised constitutional convention. It’s all about ego so they will.
Nice to learn you’ve been missing me, WbS
Major respect to Cedar Lounge as always. Apart from that: what Paddy and EWI said….
Splintered Sunrise has been posting on a reasonably regular basis since the New Year and it’s great to read a voice which has been very much missed across the past year or so.
An alternative view would be that that particular voice disappeared into contrarianism too long ago, and too far ito the project of writing to provoke, for it to be either believable or even entertaining any longer.
CMK, I have to say I agree with your heresy and you have argued for it more eloquently than I. The other side, the judiciary, has received little attention, in particular their history. Have we forgotten the Nicky Kelly case? An innocent person jailed by a bench of judges. When one was seen to be asleep during the trial it was denied by the court. The man was actually very ill and died shortly afterwards.
Cheers D_D and others. I’m glad to see that some people agree with my points on the Inquiries referendum. We’ve often told of ‘the majesty of the law’, but there’s also the ‘ferocity of the law’. And if you on the Left in a capitalist society you’ll be more familiar with the latter than the former. I trust judges to make impartial decisions in criminal trials, family law, land law, succession etc – no problems there; but where law and the legal system intersects with political economy and its inherent political and class struggles impartiality goes out the window. The judiciary know they have a duty to hold the line for the ruling class, and it’s a duty they’ll discharge with no quibbles. A judiciary whose members jails hundreds of vulnerable, unlucky and poor people every year for non-payment of trivial fines, is not fit to protect the individual rights of citizens. A judiciary that throws the book at workers trying to protect their jobs through strikes and sit-ins (Thomas Cook?) is supposed to simultaneously be the same workers’ best friends on the extreme hypothetical that this worker may be the subject of a Dáil inquiry that might make a finding of fact that they were a bollix at some point in time.
The DPP’s comments at the weekend were a good a example of the degree to which the legal system’s prime aim is the maintanance of the ruling class. He stated that ordinary juries might not have the capability to try the complex cases that might arise from the banking collapse. But that a constitutional referendum could provide for specialist juries to try such cases. But if the latter were to transpire it would be a cakewalk for an SC to argue in the Supreme Court that such legislation could not apply retrospectively (i.e. to Seanie and his pals) and, under the circumstances, the decision would likely be made that in the public interest given the complexity of any criminal cases that might arise from the banking collapse it would be better all round if no prosecutions were brought forward. Cue champagne corks popping among the elite and an immense sense of relief.
I’ve argued that the inquiry legislation will be a double-edged sword that could, I agree, be used against the Left, but it could also be used by the Left. Leaving enquiries exclusively in the hands of hand picked ‘safe’ lawyers forever and ever will only solidfy the grip that Gombeen elite has on this state and society.
I’ll be voting yes and yes in those referendums.
Speaking of blogs with a somewhat… eh… relaxed… publishing schedule, there’s a very interesting new piece up on Circumlimina about the Occupy Dame Street protests.
http://circumlimina.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/preoccupied-on-dame-street/
Excellent post by DD there, thanks Mark P for linking.