apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (11/17/85)
In article <620@sftig.UUCP> jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes: a great deal. Before I take up some of his/her individual points, let me give an overall reaction. Firstly, there are several references to Irish history. Whether they're accurate or not, they don't describe the present reality. Maybe a unified, independent Ireland should have been created in the 1920s: it doesn't follow that the two parts of the island can or should be unified now. As for the various atrocities committed by Britons over the previous eight centuries, I can only assume they're dragged in to avoid rational thought about the present situation. Secondly, there's a claim - which I believe to be quite spurious -that Sinn Fein is an organisation with democratic goals and aspirations, and a concomitant contempt for the democratic institutions and politicians of Britain and of Ireland. Thirdly, there's a strange ambiguity in J.McGhee's attitude to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, they are supposed to be Irishmen oppressed by Britain,who would happily live within a unified Irish state. On the other hand, their repression of Catholics causes many of his grievances. Anyway, on with the response. Talking about the Maze prison, we have: >Aside from that, it and other "prisons" in northern Ireland bear a strong >physical resemblance to Auswitz or Buchenwald. There are no gas chambers or >ovens there that we know of, but if loyalists like George Seawright have their >way it won't be long before they're installed. The physical resemblance perhaps lies in the eye of the beholder. You seem somehow to want to associate the idea of Nazi-style concentration camps with Britain, without actually saying they exist. Why "no(ne)... that we know of"? There are no gas chambers or ovens there at all. Would it have harmed the cause of Irish unity so much if you'd said so? George Seawright (a Protestant bigot who suggested the incineration of Catholics) is completely unrepresentative of loyalist opinion. If you don't think so, I fail to understand your optimism regarding the peaceful incorporation of loyalists in a unified Ireland. If you do think so, then why did you associate loyalism with him (what's wrong with "if George Seawright has his way"?) and why did you mention him at all in this context? > >>> The world has come a long way since the time when a bill was >>> introduced in the "mother of parliaments" in London calling for the >>> **> CASTRATION <** of all Catholic priests, but we still have a long way >>> to go. > >> Yes, we have come a long way since this time, if it ever existed. Did it? > > Yes, according to the BBC-TV documentary entitled "The Troubles" it >did. You find it on page 23 of the transcript of that program which can be >obtained by writing to BBC-TV. It also describes a portable gallows which >was the size of a small cart and could be set up in less than a minute for >instant hangings. These were typically used for British Army lynchings of >any person who showed any sign of resistance to British Rule. Many other >hangings were carried out by the loyalist "yeomanry" (i.e. loyalist subjects). > It was also a "crime" for a Catholic priest to celebrate the Mass. >The penalty for that "crime" was that the "criminal" was hanged, drawn and >quartered. (description and case history follows) Fine. Now when was this? and the earlier question still stands .... >> Does it have any relevance at all to Ireland in 1985? > > Yes, it is only a single thread of the fabric of British Rule in >Ireland, but it demonstrates that the British Army and government were the >original terrorists in Ireland; that their history of terror extends over >centuries and over many countries which they colonized and still continues >today in spite of what historical revisionists and media controllers may say. >This use of terror and genocide is one of the chief reasons why the Irish >people cannot accept a British Rule - the Irish people are literally fighting >for their own self-preservation. It's a remarkable historical method that "demonstrates" those conclusions from the evidence you gave. The Irish people are not literally fighting for their self-preservation. A small number of the Irish people are literally fighting for various political motives with which you may sympathise. Another small number are literally fighting for other political motives with which you apparently don't sympathise. A much larger number of the Irish people are not fighting for anything. I'm rather suspicious of your 'fabric of British Rule', which seems to be a tapestry of relentless oppression. How does the period 1922-68 fit in, for instance? Or the Catholics civil rights marchers' appeals for British troops to be sent to N.I. in 1969? Is it just possible that things are a little more complicated than you want to admit? >> I don't want to suggest that all is well with the RUC - in particular they >> are certainly overwhelmingly (not completely) sectarian (Protestant). Would >> you agree that one reason - not by any means the only one - for this is that >> the Irish Republican Army (military wing of Sinn Fein) make a special point >> of killing Catholics who join the R.U.C.? > > I don't want to suggest that only Catholics can police other >Catholics. There are many Protestants who do not agree with the actions of >the RUC and the British Army who wouldn't dare to state it to their own people. >A few years ago, a loyalist leader was dragged down off a speaking platform >and beaten to death in front of his wife and literally thousands of people >for suggesting that the people of northern Ireland should live together in >peace. There were no witnesses to that murder, none would say what they saw. > The IRA makes a special point of killing any RUC or British Army >personnel, whether Catholic or Protestant, who are involved in torturing >and killing Irish people in order to perpetuate British Rule. One Catholic >RUC man who was recently killed by the IRA had tortured prisoners, according >to victims interviewed by Sinn Fein. Who was the leader? When? I'm a little surprised that his wife wasn't willing to say what she saw. There are an awful lot of propaganda stories about N.Ireland, and this sounds like one of the clumsier ones. You don't meet the question about the I.R.A. killing Catholic R.U.C. members - it's a deliberate policy to intimidate them from joining. They may also declare a separate policy of killing torturers. I know of no independent evidence that the RUC or Army have practiced torture in the last nine years. (It is greatly to Britain's shame that inhuman interrogation methods were used in the early seventies.) >> Firstly, can we agree on a few basic facts about Ireland: >> Northern Ireland - the part which is presently part of the United Kingdom - >> has a population which is sharply divided on religious lines. > > Northern Ireland is sharply divided over the question of whether >it will be governed by the English system of The Ascendancy in which, as >George Orwell stated in the "Animal Farm": - "some animals are more equal >than others" or whether it will be an egalitarian community in which every >person is born with the same rights and privileges and every person is judged >by their actions and accomplishments. What exactly do you mean by "The Ascendancy"? Is your division supposed to be between capitalists and communists, conservatives and socialists, bigots and non-bigots, or what? Is it supposed to coincide with the Protestant- Catholic division, or not? > >> The majority ( roughly 60% ) are Protestant, the minority Catholic. > > The loyalist "majority" was artificially created by the most contrived >gerrymandering the world has ever seen. Not only are towns cut by the border, >but even individual farms are cut by it, so that half a farmer's land is under >British control and half is under the control of the Dublin government. > This loyalist "majority" can only be maintained by constant pressure >of violence and denial of rights to drive out members of the "minority" to >preclude them from becoming becoming a "majority" even in that contrived >gerrymandered artificial state as they most certainly will be if they are >ever left in peace. The border was certainly artificial. The political reality is that most of the people on one side of the border have different aspirations from most of the people on the other side. Do you have any estimate for the emigration rates among Protestants and Catholics from N.I.? I don't have the impression that the difference (if any) is a significant factor in the demography, and I thought the Catholic proportion of the population was gradually increasing because of a higher birthrate. >> Sinn Fein recognises neither the British nor the Irish parliaments, > > Sinn Fein recognizes both of these governing bodies to the extent >that it participates in elections and now accounts for about 98 elected >representatives both north and south. It considers both governments >fundamentally flawed by their structure and operating procedures. > By American standards, the Prime Ministers of both of these states >are chosen in a "smoke-filled room" of professional politicians rather than >being elected by direct choice of the people through primary elections and >the runoff national elections as we have in the U.S. > Neither of these states has implemented the principal of "one-man, >one-vote" (i.e., proportional representation) nor have they implemented the >independent drawing of electoral district boundaries which make gerrymandering >practically impossible. This really is extraordinary. Britain and Ireland both have parliamentary systems, in which the leader of the party with the largest number of seats tends to become Prime Minister (or Taioseach - I apologise for my Gaelic spelling). Voters choose between candidates of different parties; one factor in this choice is the difference between the potential Prime Ministers. Most democracies use some version of this system (France and the U.S. are exceptions which come to mind). It is not at all clear that the presidential model favored by the U.S. is more representative or otherwise superior. Both Britain and Ireland use a "one-man, one-vote" system, which is a basic element of a democracy, and nothing to do with proportional representation. Ireland does use a form of proportional representation. Britain does not, nor does the U.S.. Britain has an independent electoral boundary commission, which is separate from the political process. It periodically reviews the parliamentary constituencies and alters them so as to balance the demands of geographic naturality with roughly equal representation. I would imagine that Ireland has a similar body, though gerrymandering would anyway be rather ineffective in their proportional system. > On the national level Sinn Fein does not participate in the London >or Dublin governments. This matter was the subject of long debate at the >Sinn Fein convention in Dublin in the past few weeks. Those voting for the >abstentionist principle won out over those favoring participation by a narrow >margin. As Sinn Fein strength continues to grow in elections, this will >probably be discarded. > >> and in particular aims to overthrow the Dublin parliament and establish >> a socialist state governing all Ireland. > > This is totally untrue if by "overthrow" you mean an armed coup >or military seizure of the reins of government. They actually intend to >"overthrow" the Dublin government by gaining the support of the majority >of Irish voters or at least by becoming an indispensible minority in a >coalition government and forcing the Dublin government to make reforms. > By "overthrow" I mean precisely that. If Sinn Fein intends to be democratically elected by Irish voters, they could make a start by standing for elections to the Dublin parliament and by taking any seats they might win. These seem like fairly basic elements in a democratic political strategy. By your own admission, a majority in Sinn Fein is opposed to this strategy. (Despite your earlier claim, Sinn Fein has stood for few, if any, seats in the Dublin parliament, and of course taken up none. As I understand it, the present debate in Sinn Fein reflects no conversion to Western-style democracy, but is simply a question of tactics. Antidemocratic organisations have used democracy before now.) I could go on, but if I haven't made any impression yet I guess it's not worth it. I personally welcome the Anglo-Irish agreement on N.I.. I hope it will eventually reduce the tension in the province, which probably ought to evolve towards some form of largely self-governing condominium. It seems the only sort of future which has a chance of ending the violence. And that, to me, is the priority. a.k.