Advertising Ulster-Scots

It was announced during the week that £3 million has been set aside to promote unionist culture in an advertising campaign which aims to attract more tourists to Northern Ireland. At the time of writing, there is no press release on the Department of Arts, Culture and Leisure’s website and the, very short, BBC report is vague. Simply put, there has been a small increase in tourists to the North: Tourism Ireland are responsible for promoting Ireland in ad campaigns; unionist politicians have criticised those for not reflecting unionist culture and there is now a move to “an island of Ireland brand” which will include Ulster-Scots culture.

You can see the problem straight away. What is Ulster-Scots culture? If it is a language – which I would dispute – then how do you represent that visually? Then, of course, if you accept there is a language, does speaking it make you an Ulster-Scot or a unionist? No, would be the answer from many from the Catholic/nationalist background in north Antrim who speak the remnants of Scots in Ulster.

Is Ulster-Scots defined by religion? Many of its unionists supporters seem to think that to be Ulster-Scots and to be Protestant are one and the same. (Who, I wonder, might be the Ulster-Scots’ Douglas Hyde?) Yet there are many unionists who do not see themselves as Ulster-Scots and many nationalists from an Ulster-Scots background (my mother is a McDonald) who do not regard themselves as unionists. So, how does portraying Ulster-Scots reflect unionist culture?

What symbol or symbols then would best represent unionism to tourism? The UUP once ran an election ad – if memory serves me right – of fish and chips with the tag “Simply British”. It was not a success. Tourism Ireland has ruled out Orange parades and the Eleventh Night which removes the Lambeg from the equation. Sword dancing could qualify but it might make visitors think they are visiting Scotland. There are many fine novelists, poets and playwrights from a unionist/Protestant background in the North but I am not sure that all the living ones would welcome the tag ‘Ulster-Scots’ or that the term ‘unionist’ would best describe some who have gone to their eternal reward.

The problem seems to me that the idea of unionist culture is one that is being defined by the DUP, a party that has a very narrow, impoverished understanding of culture and unionism. Remember, for example, that many other Protestant churches are all-Ireland bodies and hold all-Ireland synods: the Church of Ireland; the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; the Methodist Church in Ireland. (No mention of the ‘island’ of Ireland.) These organisations predate partition and, while many of their members in the North may have unionist views, not all members in the South do. (The most famous example of that is Fianna Fáil’s Martin Mansergh who is CoI but no unionist.)

All aspects of local culture and all languages in the North should be reflected in tourism ads. If we want to attract tourists, we need to offer something unique and different – if only to distract them from the bad weather and food. No political party or grouping has exclusive rights to culture, be it language, sport or music. We are mongrels and should be proud of it. Our tourism ads should reflect the fact that we share more than the DUP or Sinn Féin would like to pretend – and more than we perhaps always realise.

There is, of course, another issue which needs to be addressed in the tourist debate. Many visitors to Ireland, north and south, the island, come from the US and mainland Europe. It, Ireland, north and south, the island, is a small place but they need two currencies: euro and Stirling. It would make much more sense if they could do everything – from buying their pastie supper to visiting Carrickfergus castle – with just one. Ulster-Scots for euro, anyone?

Quinn Campaign Gathers Momentum

On a cold, wet night in November, you would expect most people in Ireland to be tucked up at home in front of the TV with the fire blazing. But that wasn't the case last night in Cullyhanna in south Armagh, where there was a massive turn-out of local people to back the family of Paul Quinn's campaign for justice. There quite literally was standing room only in the community centre.

This was a gathering of ordinary, decent people who have simply come together to agree that they've had enough. A number of people in the crowd spoke of the years of intimidation they have received at the hands of paramilitaries. They talked about how they kept quiet about the beatings that their family members had received for fear of further reprisals. They spoke about the fact that they were sick of living in fear of getting on the wrong side of the paramilitary kingpins and their families, lest they too should end up on the receiving end of an attack.

These people have no political axe to grind- they just want to live in peace.

Perhaps one of the most telling comments came from the floor when one person noted that bad and all as the Brits were, they never did to anyone what the gang of paramilitary thugs did to young Paul Quinn a few short weeks back.

It has been interesting to note how the Sinn Féin propaganda machine has been operating since Paul Quinn's bloody demise. Initially they tried to claim that Paul had died as a result of some sort of fall-out between criminals. When that lie was completely discredited by the fact that Paul had hardly two halfpennies to rub together, never mind being some sort of criminal mastermind, they resorted to attacking those involved in the Quinn Support Group, most notably Jim McAllister. Now it's perfectly true that Jim McAllister is opposed to his erstwhile colleagues in the provisional movement, but aside from the fact that the commitee is also composed of people of other political persuasions and none, McAllister's personal opinions in no way affect the credibility of the campaign- this is a democracy we live in after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Indeed McAllister himself has expressed his personal shame that he didn't speak out earlier, particularly given his own past. That's more than Sinn Féin have done.

Another line being taken by the provos is to blame the Quinn Support Group for a broken window sustained at the house of a man named in the House of Lords by Lord Laird as having been linked to Paul's killing. The Quinn Support Group do not sit in the House of Lords- they have no control over what people such as Laird say. Apart from that, the group has made as clear as is humanly possible their view that no one should seeks reprisals for the murder of Paul and that all that they want is for the police and courts to deal with those who committed the crime.

It is interesting though that the provos seem more concerned about a broken plate of glass than the broken body of a young man.

The fact that the provos have gone into spin-overdrive to try to undermine and discredit this righteous and worthy campaign for justice simply proves that the people of south Armagh who oppose this killing have touched a nerve. The massive turn-out of people, young and old, in the heart of south Armagh to oppose provo violence is bound to rattle their cage. And the numbers backing the campaign are only going to grow as people gain the confidence to speak out.

One only has to look into the eyes of Paul's heartbroken mother to realise that the family and their friends are completely genuine. The Quinns aren't stupid and they aren't being used by others for political reasons- they are simply standing up and opposing the killing of their son and the lies that were spread by the provos in the aftermath of his murder.

There is a palpable sense of change in the people of south Armagh. In years gone by, many simply accepted punishment attacks as part of life. One person present noted the first one he remembers which took place in the early 1950s. However, the brutal slaughter of Paul Quinn has crystalised opinion against the paramilitary thugs who have cast a cloud over the lives of the people of south Armagh for too long.

No longer will people accept this rubbish.

A number of people at last night's meeting expressed concern that the British and southern Irish governments may try to turn a blind eye to this killing, lest it may damage the peace process. Seeing Shaun Woodward on Newsnight last night doing just about everything in his power to avoid facing up to the reality of the situation would seem to bear out their fears. But there is no point in a 'peace process' if it means that people are not actually living in peace, and thugs are continually given the green light to kill at will.

Bertie may wish to preserve his place in history for delivering the DUP and Sinn Féin into government. The British may want to rid themselves of the headache of the Troubles. But this cannot be at the expense of justice for murder victims like Paul Quinn.

The Quinn Support Group is quite clear in its aims- it wants justice for Paul and an end to violence and intimidation against the people of south Armagh.

Is that too much to ask?

Eoin seeks an alternative

Eoin Ó Broin, one time Sinn Féin councillor in Belfast and big wig in that party’s European office, has a column in today’s Irish News as Jim Gibney is away. Ó Broin’s article concerns finding an alternative to neo-liberalism whose three main pillars are, he writes, privatisation, deregulation and cuts in tax and spending. Ó Broin writes that: “Nationalism of strategic economic interests, generous social security and welfare provisions, progressive taxation and political control of fiscal policy were key elements of the post-war social democratic consensus, implemented by left and right-wing governments alike. The success of this model rested on its ability to generate economic growth and a significant level of wealth redistribution. Since 1970 this model has been in crisis.”

Ó Broin argues that the Celtic Tiger shows that neo-liberalism “can achieve significant growth but at great social cost. The southern economy has high levels of growth yet 18.5 per cent of the population live in relative poverty and 22.6 per cent are functionally illiterate.” He asks whether the North “in our rush towards so-called normality, will we join the economic consensus? Or, will we pause and ask ourselves the great question of our time? Can we create an economy that promotes both growth and equality? Is an alternative to neo-liberalism possible?”

Ó Broin asks a good question but can his own party give him a good answer ? Sinn Féin’s socialist credentials are looking very thread bare in the North where many of the party hierarchy are doing very well out of the peace process, thank you very much, a chara, and are not too worried about rocking Peter Robinson’s fiscal boat. In the Republic, Sinn Féin is in disarray after the last general election and they do seem to be split along partitionist lines with many of the southern members wanting to pay more than lip service to socialism. (Sinn Féin members will hardly need reminding of the way in which the ‘s’ word disappeared during that campaign.)

So who will provide the alternative to neo-liberalism? Answers on a postcard to el blogador.

Problem Parties? The Only Problem Is The DUP And Sinn Féin's Misunderstanding Of Democracy

You've got to hand it to Martin McGuinness- for someone without RADA training it must have taken some skill to keep a straight face yesterday when he described the SDLP and UUP as the "problem parties". Clap, clap, clap. Bravo.

Perhaps Mr McGuinness suffers from amnesia (probably useful given his past), but if he casts his mind back just a decade, then he will see what real problem parties were, including his own- on one side we had Sinn Féin advocating the resurrected campaign of terror being waged by the IRA and refusing to condemn provo killings, and on the other we saw the DUP refusing to entertain the idea of sharing power with nationalists and displaying just about every sectarian cliché in the book. The only problem with the SDLP and UUP for Sinn Féin and the DUP in the current administration is that they won't roll over and do what they're told by the right-wing axis at the centre of the Executive.

I know Sinn Féin and the DUP are fairly new to this whole democracy thing, but they really could have done their homework and tried to understand how it works. Unlike the internal operation of their parties, democracy involves freedom of thought and expression and emphasis being placed on accountability. They also seem to misunderstand that unlike voluntary coalitions such as the one currently in power in the south, members of the Stormont Executive are not bound into speaking with the one voice and operating within an agreed agenda. Under the consociational model, ministers are there as of right- their mandate affords them the right to take an independent approach to government if they wish, and stand by their principles and manifesto promises- their only responsibility is to their voters and the people of the north. The SDLP and UUP are not duty-bound to dance to the DUP/SF axis' tune. And it's a good thing too.

The SDLP and UUP are doing nothing other than working the system that they created- it has nothing to do with being an 'opposition within the Executive'- it's about holding the axis to account and providing checks and balances. If Sinn Féin and DUP want a more positive response from the SDLP and UUP, then perhaps they should be more constructive rather than squeezing their budgets. Margaret Ritchie has stated that she has not been given enough cash to build the necessary social housing- it is her duty to point this out, but the axis seem to think that she should just shut up and accept whatever they dish out. Tough- that's not going to happen. And the more the axis attacks the SDLP and UUP, the more they will react adversely to such bully-boy tactics- when you force a dog into a corner, it will bite.

It's good to see the SDLP and UUP acting as the voice of reason in the Executive- the fact that the DUP/ SF axis is pumping out nasty and personal statements against those two parties' ministers merely shows that they are rattled.

Message to Margaret, Reg and Michael- keep up the good work!

US troop surge in Iraq 'a success'

There were two articles on Iraq in the Irish Times (Saturday 24th and Monday 26th Nov) which carried the same message – the US has all but won the war in Iraq. Rory Miller, a lecturer on Mediterranean Studies in London is cautiously gleeful, writing that the recent US troop surge “has been a success”. There is a drop in Iraqi civilian casualties, US casualties and suicide bombings have fallen. Al-Qaeda are broken, he writes, and their “humiliating defeat is Iraq’s opportunity and there is now … a “breathing space” for the country to get back on its feet.” Miller notes – but does not pay much credence, to the suggestion of some analysts that the drop in violence owes more to a decision by Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, to freeze sectarian attacks on Sunnis rather than the troop surge.

Charles Krauthammer in his weekly Monday column was a lot bullish than Miller. He lays into critics of the war, accusing them of ignoring the realities on the ground: “Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shia militants quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because [the Iraqi] parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?”

Monday’s Irish Times also carried a letter from five members of staff at NUI, Galway, criticising a recent visit by the US ambassador to Ireland, Thomas C. Foley, to the university. They criticise the ambassador’s role in implementing privatisation in Iraq: “In that capacity, he assisted in a war in which it is now estimated that over one million Iraqis have been killed, the majority women and children. Of course many more have died as a result of the occupation, from food shortages, pollution from uranium and other toxic weapons, lack of clean drinking water and medicines.”

Can those who supported the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of WMD – remember them? – really claim ‘victory’ in the light of what has happened since the invasion? Is there really a lessening of violence or simply a lull while the US and Iran spar over the nuclear issue?

No Need For Irish Honours System

The idea has been knocking around recently that an honours system could be introduced in the south- last week over on O'Conall Street they mentioned that Bertie Ahern had backed such a plan. As yet details have not been published on what form this scheme would take, but in principle I would be dead against it. How can a republic, which supposedly is the epitome of egalistarianism, reconcile itself with a honours system which elevates some citizens above others?

Now I've no problem with medals or awards being granted for specific reasons, for instance if a member of the armed forces went beyond the call of duty to save civilians in a war situation, but granting someone a title which permanently elevates them above the rest of society smacks of monarchism. If someone does a good job in their chosen field, then surely the approval of their peers should be enough- why do they need additional adulation?

If we look at the British honours system, the scales are tipped dramatically in favour of the rich and famous. How many people have been made 'Sir' or 'Dame' by virtue of their bank balance or the fact that they happened to perform well at a sporting occasion? There are tens-of-thousands of people across the UK who dedicate their lives to helping others, often at great personal sacrifice, yet they would be lucky to get an OBE. Is this the way Ireland wants to go?

The 1916 proclamation, which the southern system claims to uphold, guarantees "equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens... cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

Can there be anything more unequal and divisive than a system which elevates some citizens above others?

We've already seen with issues such as the health service in the south that people are far from treated equally in 2007, but an honours system which slaps the back of the rich merely adds salt to the wounds of those who face a daily grind just to keep going and support their families.

The whole idea of a republic as far as I'm concerned is to ensure equality, democracy and the primacy of the will of the people. The Lords-like Seanad and the anachronistic way in which its membership is decided is in itself bad enough, but additional provision for wealthy party backers or famous celebrities to get government-endorsed honorific gifts is a step too far.

Woman in a field

There is a woman working in a field in Armagh. I have been passing her all week as I take the children to school. She is the only woman in a crew of men from foreign parts; they are slowly but surely harvesting a field of celery. I have noticed her more than the men because she is wearing a headscarf, white and orange. It looks like a scene from the Ukraine but there is nothing romantic about the work. It’s freezing; it’s manual labour; low wages, and yet, day after day, they cover the ground, earning their money the hard way.

I am a city boy and the extent of my farm work has been to help with bringing in the silage – and even then I am only asked as a last resort. I have to wear gloves as the twine on the bails hurts my hands, so soft and delicate they are. I could not make my living doing what they do. I see eastern European workers, men and women, first thing in the morning going to work in the abattoirs of mid-Ulster; doing the jobs the locals do not want. I hear mothers and fathers talking Polish and Portuguese to their children as they drop them off at school. The children barely speak English. The teachers are doing their best to help them. Some of the Irish children have learnt “good morning” and “hello” in Polish. It is not much but more than nothing. Certainly, it is a case of sink or swim for the young scholars.

And then in the post office, a local woman, is giving off to the postmistress: “Why can’t I cash this cheque here? The bru said I could cash it here.” The postmistress is apologetic; there isn’t the right code on the cheque; she can’t cash it and will have to go to another post office. The woman, about the same age as the woman in the field, leaves in a bad mood. Could be worse; she could be working in the fields – and the postmistress might not understand English.

The Importance Of Being Bilingual

With the ongoing debate and needless politicisation of the Irish language issue by the DUP, I hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree by showing this video as a lighthearted example of how an ability to speak both English and Irish is a good thing. There's nothing fishy about the idea of an Irish Language Act- it will help secure and enhance a linguistic heritage that belongs to everyone on this island, and will promote a greater understanding of where we have come from as we look at where we are going. The DUP and other politicians such as David McNarry may throw dog's abuse at the Irish language and its supporters, but that will not deter those who believe that an act is necessary. Enjoy!

Update: This is what might just happen without an Irish Language Act. Clearly this bird was monolingual. Better not taking any chances, eh..?

Queen Hillary?

The feminist critic or the critical feminist – not sure which – Camille Paglia is no stranger to the rigours of American public debate. She is not shy in giving an opinion. In her regular column on the internet magazine, Salon (http://www.salon.com/) Paglia lays into Hillary Clinton who is battling to gain the Democratic nomination for the US presidency. There are few in Ireland who are not grateful to President Bill Clinton and all he did for the peace process. Alas for Hillary, those good wishes will not necessarily translate into support in her own party. She now faces a very serious challenge from Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Paglia writes: “Hillary's stonewalling evasions and mercurial, soulless self-positionings have been going on since her first run for the U.S. Senate from New York, a state she had never lived in and knew virtually nothing about. The liberal Northeastern media were criminally complicit in enabling her queenlike, content-free “listening tour,” where she took no hard questions and where her staff and security people (including her government-supplied Secret Service detail) staged events stocked with vetted sympathizers, and where they ensured that no protesters would ever come within camera range.

“That compulsive micromanagement, ultimately emanating from Hillary herself, has come back to haunt her in her dismaying inability to field complex unscripted questions in a public forum. The presidential sweepstakes are too harsh an arena for tenderfoot novices. Hillary's much-vaunted “experience” has evidently not extended to the dynamic give-and-take of authentic debate. The mild challenges she has faced would be pitiful indeed by British standards, which favor a caustic style of witty put-downs that draw applause and gales of laughter in the House of Commons. Women had better toughen up if they aspire to be commander in chief.”

Don’t hold back, Camille. Tell us what you really think!

By the way, Salon is an interesting site and surely the model for anyone who wishes to motivate and energise (did I just write ‘energise’? Oh my gawd!) their constituents on the web. It is a pro-Democratic site but unafraid, as Paglia’s article shows, of asking hard questions of Democrat representatives and their party structures when the need arises. It also has a wide-range of intelligent articles on politics, the arts, culture, television and movies. In short, it’s the complete mag and one that is always worth browsing through. Yes, Salon is partisan but, oddly, it provides a more nuanced view of US politics than you might suspect.

Congratulations to Cross

Freezing one’s nuts off in Newry in November is not to be recommended. Luckily, this afternoon’s Ulster Senior Club Football Final between Saint Gall’s and Crossmaglen Rangers in Páirc Esler provided a spectacle worth braving the cold for. The first half was superb with both teams going toe-to-toe and hitting some great scores. The second half was, unfortunately, not so good as Cross handed St Gall’s a master class in championship football. Cross seemed to have an extra gear while St Gall’s left their shooting boots and guile in the dressing room at half time.

Man of the match was undoubtedly Rangers’ Oisín McConville who landed 1-5. His goal was excellent but some of the points from play and from the sideline were simply unbelievable. It is a pity that he has not shown that kind of form in the county jersey over the last two years but here’s hoping the Gambler might have one more big year in him for the county. He certainly will be pivotal to his club’s efforts in the all-Ireland semi-final.

Anyway, Cross won in the end (1-9 to 1-6) and controlled the game as only they can. They will be formidable opponents and are certainly playing better than the last time I saw them in the Armagh county final. I would love to write a longer report but if I don’t get a hot bath soon my blogging career could well come to a frost-bitten end!

Conamara stories

Máirtín Ó Cadhain, a native speaker of Irish from the Conamara Gaeltacht, enjoys the distinction of being one of those Irish-language writers who are also known (though probably not read) by English speakers. His novel, Cré na Cille, is well-known (though not well read) and his journalism with the Irish Times gave him a public profile that has stood the test of time. His politics – republican, socialist, communal – have ensured that he has had followers amongst his own Conamara community and on the left while the excellence of his writing has meant that he was never far from a university syllabus. (Declan Kiberd devoted a chapter to him in Irish Classics.)

Ó Cadhain’s creative work was through the medium of Irish and he enjoys the (unwanted) distinction of being one of many writers of Irish from the 20th century whose work is not available in English. (It is not always available in Irish either but that is another story.) This book, Dhá Scéal - Two Stories by Máirtín Ó Cadhain, consists of Ciumhais an Chriathraigh/The Edge of the Bog and An Strainséara/The Stranger; taken from Ó Cadhain’s collection of short stories, Cois Caoláire (1953).

The original Irish versions and the translations are not published side-by-side. This is an unusual decision but the correct one. The mania for bilingual Irish/English texts, cheek to cheek, has not always provided a creative space in which the reader can let the literature take hold, rather the emphasis has been to duck and dive between versions in a hope of improving one’s Irish or, perhaps, one’s English!

In this case, for the Irish speaker, there is the very real pleasure in re-acquainting oneself with two very moving pieces, written in very fine and evocative Irish. The accomplished fiction and use of language serve as a reminder to would-be writers of Ó Cadhain’s ability. Here is the measure of what good literature is: perception; empathy; narrative ability; emotive voices and no false sentiment.

And for the English speaker? The use of Irish will have to remain a mystery but the translations offered are masterful. They are free from any Hiberno influence – to be sure, to be sure – and, sensibly the translators have opted to leave personal and place names in the original Irish with the result that the English versions have a more authentic feeling. Certainly, two stories is not a lot given the breadth of Ó Cadhain’s work and it is disappointing that a lengthy introduction was not included to provide first-time readers with a better idea of the man and his moods.

That said, the work here does give a good idea of what drove Ó Cadhain’s artistic processes. As the translators note in their foreword: “Both stories contain unmistakeable traces of Ó Cadhain’s signature, in style, form and content: the powerful sense of empathy with female characters in extreme circumstances, the dissatisfaction with the neat and tidy limits of the classic short story…”

Extreme indeed. These stories remind us of where we came from. For all the huff and puff about the Celtic Tiger, the people of Ireland – and most assuredly of the Gaeltacht – have known deprivations that would flatten many of us. A small extract should suffice to make the point: “But Nóra could say nothing. That was what tormented her most – that she had to remain silent forever about the cairn and the five children. She could say nothing to Micil, or he’d lose his temper; nothing to Cite Thómais, to Cáit or Muiréad; not a word while they went on about their own dead children: how long they lasted, what killed them, how well they looked after them; the year, the day, the time they died, the graveyard where they were buried; how they grieved for them; how they went to the cemetery to say a prayer for them; how they never forgot to ask God’s blessing for them during the Rosary every night…”

The loss of children is something that still affects women but not in such savage numbers and the sentiment which Ó Cadhain describes belongs to another age. Such suffering now would be the stuff of legal proceedings and of the television soap confessional. This is the Ireland we rush to forget. This is the Ireland of true pain, the Vale of Tears in which many generations walked. Their bones lie beneath our feet whether we acknowledge them or not.

Ó Cadhain at his best achieved what every true writer aims for: the perfect balance between the emotional and the intellectual, that is to say, writing that interrogates and illuminates the heart and the head simultaneously. In these days in which so much literature in Ireland is noisy, narcissistic and, ultimately, unenlightening, it is heartening to be reminded of the value of true writing.

Another Gaeltacht author, Seosamh Mac Grianna, once wrote (I translate): “To put twenty words into one, literature is the soul of language.” Here then is literature, soul and language.

Dhá Scéal - Two Stories by Máirtín Ó Cadhain (Arlen House). Translations by Louis de Paor, Mike McCormack and Lochlainn Ó Tuairisg. This review first appeared in Studies.

Spider-man boxer shorts and Irish culture

Lisburn is not a place that springs to mind in connection with the Irish language. However, I spent an enjoyable evening in Lisburn City Library last night giving a talk on “My Family and the World Wars”. (We did not start either, by the way.) The talk was one of the events celebrating the Great Book of Gaelic, a modern Book of Kells, in which visual art and poetry in Irish and Scots Gaelic from the ancient to the modern era is mixed together. Lisburn City Library is very modern; it is a wonderful space and they certainly did the artwork and poetry proud with their display.

I have a poem in the Great Book of Gaelic. It is certainly something to see a poem of your own matched with its own exclusive piece of art. The poem is called D-Day and was inspired by an uncle of mine, Marvin Nebbin, who was based here with the US army during the second world war. I also spoke about my great uncle James Murray who was in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and who was killed on the Somme and about whom RTÉ television made a documentary in Irish a few years ago.

I talked too about the Scots Gaelic connection and the second world war. One of the finest European poets of the last century was Sorley MacLean. He wrote in Scots Gaelic and was wounded while serving with the British army during the North African campaign. MacLean, like our own John Hewitt, was a man of the left and opposed fascism. Then there is Donald John MacDonald who was captured with the Highland Division as the Nazis drove towards Dunkirk. He wrote about his wartime experiences as a POW in Scots Gaelic. Both are marvellous poets and both provide a better literary role model for Irish speakers than many an English-speaking republican.

There was another aspect to the evening that struck me. Lisburn may not be connected with the Irish language for many people, yet it is connected even less with Czech, Polish and Lithuanian. However, the library boasts a very wide selection of books in eastern European languages. Dan Brown is there with his Da Vinci Kodas and Ian McEwan’s Atonement is available in Lithuanian. And it is not just the languages of eastern Europe, there are also a good range of books in Chinese, both Mandarin and Cantonese. It says much about our changing – or should that be ‘changed’? – society that a small place like Lisburn should boast such a wide range of languages on its library shelves.

There were two other little moments worth mentioning. After the talk, my hosts brought me for a coffee in a little bistro/bar. It was the sort of cafe that would not be out of place in Paris. Quiet, very pleasant, nice coffee and a selection of good beers and wine. I found myself doing a double take as I sipped my coffee – drinking latte in Lisburn after nine o’clock at night and talking about Irish and art. What is the world coming to?!

And the final moment of revelation. A young man in his 20s at the bar, his trousers half way down his arse and his Spider-man boxer shorts on show for all the world to see. That’s fashion, that is. That’s contemporary culture. I hope to get a poem out of it all sometime.

The SDLP: A Republican Party?

I’ve recently been having an argument debate on Wikipedia over whether the SDLP is an Irish republican party- I say it is; others disagree. I pointed out that the SDLP has described itself as a republican party, but others seem to think that it depends on the perception which people have of a party which counts (an altogether less tangible measurement).

So what is the definition of ‘republican’? Well, as an adjective one tends to find explanations such as “a person who favours a republican form of government” and “having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them or characteristic of such government.” As a noun, we find “One who favours a republic as the best form of government.” Clearly the SDLP adheres to these definitions- it favours a republican form of government, as it has stated many times, and believes in a system in which the citizens have the ultimate say in who governs.

So what exactly is the problem? It seems that for some, an organisation can only be Irish republican if it does, or has, advocated the use of violence as a means of achieving its goals. Clearly this is rubbish. The use of violence is wholly irrelevant- it is a means rather than an end goal.

And to say that it ought to be based on people’s perception rather than the political outlook of the respective party is also rubbish. This brings it entirely within the field of subjectivity, which is clearly going to spark opinions based on personal political beliefs and outlooks rather than cold, hard facts. If I were to go on the UUP’s Wikipedia page and state that they are a unionist party, would it be legitimate for someone to block this because they believe the UUP has attempted to sell the union down the river by signing-up to the Good Friday Agreement? Clearly not. Whatever one’s opinion of the UUP’s tactics and competence are, it has publicly stated that it favours the union and wishes to maintain it- therefore it is a unionist party. That is a fact.

And the facts are that the SDLP, in terms of its manifesto commitments and track record, is republican in the truest sense- it has described itself thus and believes in a republican form of government in a united Ireland. Regardless of how the SDLP is perceived, in this circumstance a party can only be judged on its record and ideological outlook, and even the briefest of analyses reveals the simple truth that by definition the SDLP falls into the category- it is an Irish republican party.

The SDLP may not bear arms. The SDLP may not shove the tricolour in people’s faces. The SDLP may not parade around in berets. But that does not reduce its legitimacy as a republican organisation- in fact, given its history of success in achieving its goals and advancing the primacy of citizen power, it may even be the most republican of all.

'What was it all about?'

Last night’s Spotlight on IRA leader turned Sinn Féin politician, Martin Meehan, Meehan’s war and peace, was a snap shot of a man and his movement which was long enough to point out the contradictions within republicanism but too short to explore them all. Meehan (62), who was buried last week, was undoubtedly a hard man and had spent 20 years in prison for IRA activities. Those years had taken their toll; Meehan looked to me like a man in his 70s. It was hard to credit that Meehan and the well-groomed Gerry Adams were of the same vintage.

The toll that Meehan’s IRA years took on others was also examined. The IRA’s campaign against Protestants was reflected on by UUP politician, Chris McGimpsey, and he offered a very robust assessment of what Meehan and the IRA had done to people on the Shankill. A former British officer who had given Meehan a hiding agreed to meet up with him and Meehan was visibly moved by the occasion. He was also moved when talking about his own son’s imprisonment and the time they spent together in jail.

There was one guest missing, however, no one spoke for those Catholics and nationalists who were killed by the IRA during their campaign. Meehan was comfortable telling stories about how the IRA took on the British army but the effects of that violence on ordinary working-class nationalists, the Catholic collateral damage, was not explicitly addressed.

The journalist, Éamonn McCann, came closest to teasing out those issues when he wondered, given the political settlement that has been reached, “what on earth was the armed struggle about? Now that is a question that is too early to answer but it is a question which demands an answer and which the republican movement in particular, sooner or later, is going to have to face up to. What was it all about? What justifies all that death, death of their own people, pain endured as well as pain inflicted? What justifies all this?”

Executive junior minister and senior Sinn Féin member, Gerry Kelly, reckoned that the IRA’s campaign had brought a united Ireland much closer; McGimpsey was happy that the union jack was still flying over Belfast city hall. It was angels dancing on pin heads. The Northern Ireland that will develop will not be the one which Craig envisaged; nor will it be the independent land of Pearse.

What emerges remains to be seen but the signs are not good. There is little industry; fishing is disappearing fast; farming faces huge difficulties; sectarianism is rife and pensioners are assaulted in their homes by thugs from their ‘own’ communities. John Hume once said that you can’t eat a flag; he didn’t, I believe, specify the colours. Green, white and orange is no more nutritious than red, white and blue.

What was it all about? Vicious, murderous stupidity.

What should it all be about? Good jobs for good people.

Shameless self-promotion

I am indulging in some shameless self-promotion here. (Well, if i don't, who will?) I will be giving a talk/poetry reading – “Pól Ó Muirí: My Family and the World Wars” – at Lisburn City Library, Linenhall Street, this Thursday, 22th November, at 7.30pm. The event is to celebrate the Great Book of Gaelic, a collection of Gaelic poetry and art from Ireland and Scotland, which is on display in the library (until the 28th of November) and in which I have a poem. Admission is free. Fáilte is fiche romhaibh. All welcome.

Left, centre, left...

Conall McDevitt on O’Conall Street has an article on the Irish Labour Party’s conference held over the weekend (We’ll keep the red flag flying here? 18th Nov). He writes: “As the SDLP working party members, the Labour Party commission and Fianna Fail’s northern committee sit down to begin their respective deliberations, the question facing them is not simply to organise or not. They need to consider the impact of debates about unity, the challenges presented by two jurisdictions, the opportunities of greater economic and social integration and the fact that no matter what they may believe, anything coming from the south will be perceived as nationalist by the one million or so British people who live on this island. Gilmore [Labour party leader] hit the nail on the head when he said it's not just about tomorrow, it's about the next generation.

“Real Irish republicanism and Irish labour share common roots, they look back to 1798 and have shared political platforms since. They could ignore each other as they look into the glare of twenty first century Ireland alone but I think that would be short sighted indeed. The issue is not simply that we keep the red flag flying but that we recast Irish politics and Irish republicanism in language and polices that really can take us to a new Ireland.”

Simon Rowe in the Oct/Nov issue of Magill still available, just about, in the shops has an article on Labour, written well in advance of the conference. He believes that Labour need to take the centre ground in the Republic if they are to have any chance of success. The left/right divide is gone and what people really want is “a dream, a vision. Voters are aspirational. To be successful, Labour must tie its message to the future, and make it positive. Too long it has tied its future to the past.”

Younger voters, he argues, have no interest in or understanding of left/right splits: “This new generation of voters is an unknown quantity. They are consumers not comrades. They are idealists not ideologues. They are undecided not doctrinaire.”

Rowe thinks that building a political party around a protest vote is not viable; voters want to know what parties are for and against: “Arguments concerning how best the economy is run have been decided: the free market rules. Arguments concerning which political system is best have been decided too: pragmatism has won out over principle. But what has yet to be decided, and is up for grabs politically, is how governments can best run a society. This is the new political battleground. The simple clarity of ‘left’ and ‘right’ no longer has the ability to match the complexity of people’s lives.”

Plenty to mull over for Labour and social democrats.

The bully boys are back in town

The first ever District Policing Partnership meeting in the Markets area of Belfast was cancelled last night due to verbal abuse by local residents. It is front page news in the News Letter and bottom of page four in the Irish News. The News Letter is laying the blame for the disruption at the feet of dissident republicans while the Irish News simply talks of “heckling and intimidation”. SDLP councillor Pat McCarthy says in the News Letter that he and two Sinn Féin councillors were verbally abused. Sinn Féin’s Alex Maskey, MLA, who was there, is in more forgiving mood, saying that everyone has a right to peaceful protest.

The News Letter’s reporter, Patrice Dougan, was at the meeting and reports that more than 30 members of the public had gathered, including men, women and children: “When the police and board members entered the hall everything kicked off. A few protestors went right up to the table shouting and pointing at members at close range. Others held up posters, and anti -“RUC” chants went round the room.” The meeting was called off after 15 minutes and the police officers left “to cheers and clapping from the residents”.

The tactics are familiar and, no doubt, the people responsible for disrupting the meeting feel they have had a victory. There is certainly a build-up of activity amongst dissidents. The RIRA have ‘blooded’ their members against SDLP members of the DPPs and have now stepped up their campaign by shooting and wounding two police officers in recent weeks. Aside from that, last night’s events mark a very public cheeking of Sinn Féin representatives.

If it looks like a campaign, walks like a campaign, squawks like a campaign…

Enter the Social Democratic Dragon

Tom Kelly is the Irish News’ best columnist and the Irish News has some very good columnists. In terms of the social democratic/republican mix of political commentators in the North, Kelly is Bruce Lee – Enter the Social Democratic Dragon – to the republican Rambo. Kelly has had a very lonely stand over the last few years, fighting the corner for his party, the SDLP. There must have been times when even someone of his undoubted courage felt like throwing the towel in.

Yet Kelly’s example proves that standing your ground is the first step in gaining respect for your position. People may not agree with you all the time but an intelligent opinion expressed honestly wins a listening. Kelly offers a very simple lesson in putting forward your message – be honest, be passionate, think for yourself and of others. He is the ultimate angry moderate, a social democrat with attitude.

I am guessing that Kelly’s occasional and constructive criticism of the SDLP has not always gone down well amongst all party members. (I am not a member of the SDLP). But it strikes me that Kelly provides a valuable role in reminding voters of the values of social democracy while not hitting them over the head with a party political broadcast.

Kelly is in melancholic and sombre form this morning writing about the death of John Fee and the murder of Paul Quinn. He believes that nationalists still know “the stark reality of living in the darkness of IRA shadow-land”. He welcomes Sinn Féin’s condemnation of the killing but takes issue with “some Sinn Féin representatives apparently besmirching the character of the late Mr Quinn…” Nor is he happy with the DUP’s response to Quinn’s killing and asks: “But can anyone seriously suggest that justice and policing should be devolved to a northern administration while the mindset of ‘qualified murder’ remains fully commissioned within the two main parties?”

Gut. Sehr Gut.

The film, The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) was released last year. I recently bought it on DVD as I did not get a chance to see it in the cinema and I could not wait for Santa any longer. Oddly enough, a German-language film with English subtitles is not the sort of fare that is shown in my local multiplex. More is the pity because The Lives of Others is a first-class thriller.

The story is simple enough. It is set in East Germany during 1984. Wiesler is an officer in the secret police, the Stasi, who is given the task of spying on the writer, Dreyman, a government-sponsored playwright in favour with the regime. However, even this is not enough to protect him from surveillance, especially as the minister for culture covets Dreyman’s lover, a successful actress. Wiesler is set the task of finding out if Dreyman is really as loyal as he seems. Bit by bit, however, Wiesler is changed by his subject; the conversations that Dreyman have with fellow artists begin to affect Wiesler unexpectedly and the film moves to a startling and moving conclusion (which I will not spoil).

The film is excellent in the way it portrays the oppressive nature of the German Democratic regime. The regime controls every aspect of their lives and holds the power of promotion or demotion over them in all walks of life. It is a film that is well worth watching and, if you don’t want to buy it, I saw that my local Extravision had it in stock. Do not be put off by the fact that it is in German and sub-titled. It is as good a thriller as you are ever likely to see; tense, engaging, moving and not a shot fired!

The Politics of Good and Evil

The current Bush administration would have us believe that geopolitics can be explained in a black and white, 'you're either for us or you're against us' manner. This has the effect of branding everyone opposing their 'War on Terror' as supporters of terrorism which is unhelpful in a number of ways; firstly, it creates a false dilemma in which countries are forced into agreeing with the widely-despised Bush foreign policy (or at least appearing to) which often has a disastrous effect on those countries' domestic politics; secondly, it sets up the US as a moral arbiter who, when judged against their own standards, are often to be found wanting. I must make it clear that I do not want to write a lazy anti-American rant because America are by no means the worst human rights violators in the world (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea and Iran!) but I wish to challenge the thinking behind the neo-con approach to foreign policy and wish to clarify the charge of hypocrisy that the US have left themselves wide open to (consolidated in no small part by America's support for at least one of the aforesaid human rights violators).

On the first point, regimes in the Middle East who have supported the war on terror such as Musharraf's military dictatorship in Pakistan have had their domestic politics marked my a rise in support for Islamism by disillusioned, angry, mostly young and often poor citizens. The Taliban have been able to move from Afghanistan to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas such as Waziristan in Pakistan and have set up a formidable stronghold on the outer reaches of a major nuclear power. In Saudi Arabia wahhabism is actively encouraged and propagated (some imans in Britain are funded by Saudi extremists) and the country even produced the Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The UK and Spain too have not escaped. Putting it simply, the more the US and others fight terrorism in a military sense the more it flourishes.

On the second point, America has set herself and her allies against an 'Axis of Evil' dictatorships and regimes which harbour terrorism that is a threat to the US. This in itself is logical (whatever you think of it in other respects) when explained in terms of securing US interests around the world. What is not logical nor acceptable is the wrapping of this agenda in the language of human rights, democracy and that wonderfully malleable and subjective political ideal 'freedom'. America conveniently ignores, as it has in the past, rogue regimes which follow its line and protect its interest. Why was Pinochet's Chile in which 11,000 people were "disappeared" by Argentina’s military dictatorship (human rights groups put the death toll at 30,000) fine when Castro's Cuba is abominable? Why has General Musharraf's nuclear-armed Pakistan (currently in the throes of a 'state of emergency' during which prominent 'terrorists' like the former Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan have been detained) been supported by the US for so long while not-quite nuclear-armed Iran is international enemy number-one? Why is theocratic hell-hole Saudi Arabia labelled as 'moderate' and an 'ally in the region' and why is Palestinian-occupying, Lebanon-obliterating, militarist Israel kosher? The answer is a simple one; it is in the interests of the US and capital. America has no real concern for the principle democracy if it returns anti-American governments like in Venezuela or Bolivia and it cares little for the human rights it tramples on in Guantanamo Bay. America are merely using the cosy language of human rights to further their own agenda. Even Alan Greenspan has come out and said Iraq was partly about oil!  All of this simply feeds the fire of anti-Americanism and plays into the terrorists' hand.

So, what can be done about this? America is the only real global superpower at present but this will not always be the case (America's economy and currency are weakening and China and India are on the rise). Those of us who say, "Well, better America than [other power]" have a point but we must work towards creating an international system that prevents unilateral actions by one power against another and the domination of the weak by the strong so that when, for example, China is the superpower there are checks and balances to counterweight her hegemony. That is, of course, presuming that the power will lie predominately with one power (we could see a more multi-polar world in the future and changing of the balance of power frequently like in 19th century Europe. They, at least, had the Congress system). We need a system therefore that is consistent no matter who has the most power and how power is destributed in real terms. Reform of the UN would be a start, at present it is dominated by the 5 permanent Security Council countries who can veto all change and are in their positions by virtue of an historical accident, and it is often ignored. However, what we need is a global system with teeth that gives ALL countries a say and that is truly representative in its composition. A strong power should not be able to ride over the wishes of smaller, weaker states. The institution needed should truly reflect the small states' collective bargaining power over areas of mutual interest, it should empower each and every state in a variety of circumstances to create a balance of power. This is not an easy system to create and I am sure there will be many problems with it but I believe something resembling it is vital for the future security of the world. Otherwise, the rise of a power not so conducive to us or to other areas of the world may be free to wreak havoc or we will have no way of managing the inevitable power-struggles of a world of many major powers. This prospect is frightening.

FitzGerald says no to FF/SDLP merger

Former Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader, Garret FitzGerald, has a piece on a possible Fianna Fáil/SDLP merger in today’s Irish Times. He is not taken with the idea and believes that such a merger would compromise the chances of the UUP and SDLP working together as an opposition against Sinn Féin/DUP.

He writes: “Northern Ireland is probably unique in today’s Europe in being governed by a coalition of two basically working-class parties, the DUP and Sinn Féin. But the experience of recent decades throughout Europe suggests that in Northern Ireland the future may lie rather with parties more sensitive to and reflective of middle-class interests – so that over time the SDLP/UUP vote could grow at the expense of the DUP/Sinn Féin Axis.

“The involvement of a party or parties from the Republic in Northern Ireland politics might make it much more difficult for the UUP to ally itself with the SDLP – an alliance that offers what may be the only prospect of the emergence in Northern Ireland of a cross-community political system and the end of sectarian politics.

“Given that the whole history of the SDLP testifies to the value of that party remaining aloof from involvement in the party politics of the Republic, it would be surprising if these considerations did not weigh strongly with many members of that party.”

FitzGerald says “no” then.

Exiled in Amsterdam

Dubravka Ugresic is an independently-minded woman writer from the former Yugoslavia who now lives in voluntary exile in Amsterdam. She left Croatia when the late president of that state, Franjo Tudjman, declared his country to be “paradise on earth”. She was also targeted by the ultra-nationalist Croatian press and described as a “witch” for having the temerity to question her country’s values.

Ugresic, who writes both fiction and prose, is one of those authors who has earned the unwanted title of being “one of the best writers you have never heard of”. Her collections of essays The Culture of Lies and Thank You For Not Reading are must-reads for anyone with an interest in seeing European and western culture (they are not the same) from an original perspective. Nobody’s Home (Telegram) is her latest collection of essays in which she continues those investigations. It is a work full of wondrous, intelligent and provocative insights. She writes about identity, nationalism, communism, city life, feminism and religion in a voice which is both conversational and critical.

Ugresic is the product of Tito’s Yugoslavia and her world view is coloured accordingly. (We have had Stalinist and Maoist writers but Ugresic may be the first Titoist, though I should use a lower case “t”; she is slave to no one.) That is not to say that she laments the passing of the political system in the former Yugoslavia but rather a certain kind of comradeship which glued the state together.

The new nationalism in the region brings with it a flood of chancers and charlatans: “The leaders of the change were fierce nationalists, even though they had been communists before. Former anti-fascists became brand new fascists, atheists became passionate believers, murderers became heroes, thugs and thieves became prosperous businessmen, and ignoramuses became arrogant public thinkers.” (Is any of this familiar?)

She writes of the way in which the break-up of the country resulted in history being rewritten. Fascists who fought with the Nazis and who were persona non grata under Tito have been rehabilitated and are now heroes. The communist partisans who fought Hitler are now cast aside with contempt. The language of the former Yugoslavia was recognisably one single tongue. No longer. Croats and Serbs exaggerate and manufacture linguistic differences to ensure that they have ‘their’ own separate, sacred language. (Is any of this familiar?)

She visits the prison of Goli Otok where Tito held Yugoslavs he suspected of being pro-Stalinist. Ugresic is part of a tour group and, on the day of their arrival, a porn shoot is in full swing. One visitor complains to the ‘star’ of the shoot that she is “making porn movies in a place where the bones of sufferers are buried”. The actress replies: “Not porn, art!” (Perhaps we have discovered a use for the Maze?)

Nobody’s Home is full of these little moments when history and reality collide together in a surreal crash of ideas, indignation and imagination. Nothing is sacred: “Everyone can and usually does extract a profit from the past. Except the victims.” (Is any of this familiar?)

Moderate is not a dirty word

When did the word ‘moderate’ become a dirty word? In the North, calling someone a moderate is akin to spitting on them. To be a rebel is something to boast about. Rebels are cool; they wear (or at least used to wear) Ché Guevara type-berets. Yet some of my best friends are moderates – and more passionate people you could never hope to meet. They are moderate in their religious observance but possess a sense of holiness that the Pope would find hard to beat; they are moderate in their drinking but enjoy what they do drink; they are moderate in their handball skills – like myself – but play every game like it was an all-Ireland final; they are moderate in their reading but are more learned than many a university don; they are moderate Irish speakers but their devotion to the language far exceeds that of the cantankerous, posturing activist; they are moderate in their politics but unbending in their determination to change society for the better.

So why have we let the word ‘moderate’ become synonymous with ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’? To be moderate is neither. Moderation is a virtue; a perfect blend of discipline, passion, belief and pigheadedness. Moderates keep the faith and keep fighting for the cause long after the ‘radicals’ sell out and become the mirror-image of all that they profess to hate. The republican movement's officer class, the men of no property, actually have quite a lot of property. The socialist republicans have become a new caste of businessmen (the officer class are all men), property developers, landlords and robber barons.

Extremists confront a problem with anger and violence; moderates confront the same problem with compassion and intellect, with heart and head. Yet the term ‘moderate’ remains a put-down, a slight. No longer! Say it loud: I’m a moderate and I’m proud.

Truth And Justice For Paul Quinn

I didn’t post on the brutal killing of Paul Quinn as I knew that the issue was liable to descend into petty political point-scoring. As it transpires, that is exactly what has happened, with various sides warping the truth for their own ends. However, having spoken to people on the ground and listened to the rubbish being peddled from a number of directions, I decided it was time to speak out on the killing.

Firstly, Lord Laird’s claims made under parliamentary privilege were wide of the mark- if he’d bothered to talk to people in the area who know the situation on the ground rather than taking advice from a known crank, then perhaps he would have been more accurate in his claims.

However, Laird’s ramblings are nothing compared to the provos’ sickening efforts to blacken the name of Paul. Sinn Féin has claimed that the killing was the result of some sort of criminal fall-out in south Armagh- the only criminals involved here are the ones who tortured and battered the young man to death. Rather than even bother to talk to the family, Gerry Adams and other Sinn Féin politicians claimed that they were satisfied that provos weren’t involved after having consulted with their buddies in the area. Conor Murphy repeated the criminality line without producing a shred of evidence to back it up. Did they ever think to talk to the Quinns to find out the facts?

The provos like to think that they run south Armagh so are they saying that these killers operated completely independently of the PIRA and were able to run a well-oiled criminal organisation without the knowledge of the provos? If Sinn Féin genuinely believes that provos weren’t involved, then why didn’t they leave it at that- why did they feel the need to besmirch the name of the victim? There’s only one organisation that has a track record of this sort of brutality in the south Armagh area, and it ain’t some bunch of non-aligned ordinary decent criminals. It’s not so long ago that people were found in ditches battered with a bullet in the back of the head. This kind of meticulous mission of murder could not take place without the knowledge or involvement of the provos- fact.

Given the circumstances of Paul’s death and the rumours that were pumped out for political reasons before his ravaged body was even cold, friends and family of the Quinns as well as people concerned about public safety in south Armagh have decided to come together to form the Quinn Support Group. Their objective is to support the Quinn family in their quest for justice following the murder of their son.

However, unlike those who decided to dispense their own form of bloody ‘justice’ to Paul, the group has made clear that the only way to deal with this murder is to bring those responsible before the courts. They fully support the gardaí’s investigation and have pledged to support and encourage anyone who comes forward to help with inquiries.

Paul was involved in public disputes about private matters, as a result of which explicit threats were made against him and an exiling order was issued on the authority of a paramilitary organisation. He was lured across the border and beaten to death by a group of masked man acting under command who made reference to the threats. Clearly this killing was linked to the threats made against Paul- it is completely ludicrous to suggest that somehow some criminal element which was completely separate from the PIRA got wind of these threats and decided to batter the young man to death while just happening to mention the fact that he had already been warned. It’s also interesting to note that the ‘Community Safety Group’ in Cullyhanna, one of several in the area which are normally only too happy to get involved, has made no statement on the murder, but it will be asked to publicly state its position and its attitude to the Quinn family campaign.

The bottom line is that Stephen and Briege Quinn want justice for their son. The suggestion that they would try to get one over on the provos to the detriment of efforts to catch Paul’s actual killers is clearly ludicrous, but that seems to be Sinn Féin’s position. The people of Cullyhanna are blaming the provos because the provos are to blame.

It is vital that everyone in the south Armagh, north Monaghan and Greater Newry areas who believes in democracy, justice and the rule of law stands fully behind the Quinns’ campaign and rejects attempts to blacken the name of the victim of this bloody and callous attack.

All the Quinns want is their son’s killers brought before the courts for this vicious crime. Is that too much to ask?

The whiff of sulphur

In the last week two PSNI officers have been shot by what are termed dissident republicans but who might be more accurately be described as non-subscribing Provisionals. Thankfully, though badly wounded, neither officer was killed. The Real IRA claimed responsible for the attack in Derry and a group styling itself the Irish Republican Liberation Army admitted the shooting in Dungannon*. (Where do they get their names? Is there an Irish National Republican Army out there too?) The worrying thing is that these attacks will continue and, worse, escalate.

The RIRA issued a statement about their attack which readers of a certain age will recognise as coming from An Phoblacht circa 1979: “As the Crown forces member travelled along Bishop Street towards the city centre, two IRA volunteers stepped out and the first volunteer opened fire with a shotgun, seriously wounding the target. The second volunteer then approached his vehicle with a handgun. Only through the malfunction of this weapon was the RUC/PSNI man saved from certain death. He might not be so lucky the next time. We call upon the nationalist community not to be taken in by self-serving politicians who are calling for collaboration with the Crown forces and acting as recruiting sergeants for these organisations. Anyone caught supplying information to the Crown forces will be treated as informers.”

The political condemnation was swift and, correctly, across the board: “Anyone with information regarding this shooting or the one last week in Derry should bring it forward to the police. These people have no popular support and no strategy to achieve a united Ireland.” That was Sinn Féin’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness this week and not the SDLP’s John Hume circa 1979.

At this stage it is usual for moderate nationalists to point out the hypocrisy of McGuinness’ statement – and hypocrisy there is. However, is there not the possibility that McGuinness’ (admittedly unconscious) critique will actually do more to undermine his own party than all the weeping and wailing of social democrats? One of the reasons given for Sinn Féin attracting younger voters is the 'whiff of sulphur' that surrounds them. They are the hard men and that appeals to the macho instincts of the young. Yet in dispelling that whiff of sulphur themselves – “Dude! Martin says violence isn’t cool” – Sinn Féin find themselves trying to be more moderate than the moderates and gaining less for it than the SDLP. Sinn Féin will not put manners on the DUP; Margaret Ritchie does.

Youth likes it rivalries to be simple. If you are for Crossmaglen Rangers, you are agin Clann na Gael; if you support Armagh, you loath Tyrone; if you love Liverpool, you hate Man U. Sinn Féin’s graduated approach to violence – ‘necessary’ until the ceasefires, bad after – might yet prove to be too complicated for young people to follow. As the whiff of sulphur fades, a waft of social democracy could be more enticing.

* Clarification 15/11/07: Since posting this, the RIRA have claimed the Dungannon shooting too.

Death of the Gaeltacht

Four hundred years ago the Flight of the Earls took place – or Imeacht na nIarlaí/The Leaving of the Earls as it is in Irish. (They were supposed to come back!) The event is commonly used to mark the end of Gaelic culture in Ireland. Two weeks ago, the government in the Republic published a linguistic study on the use of Irish in the Gaeltacht, Staidéar Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht. The report was carried out by Irish speakers from universities in Maynooth and Galway. It is a detailed and comprehensive piece of research.

The headline of the report is simple: Irish will cease to be the language of family and community within 15-20 years unless radical measures are taken. Those measures include designating Gaeltacht regions into A, B and C categories and concentrating resources on the A areas – the strongest Gaeltacht regions – rather than on the weaker ones. The reports proposes ways in which to improve educational services and to entice younger Irish speakers to keep faith with the language of their forbearers.

One need not agree with all that the report suggests or even its pessimistic tone. The Gaeltacht minister, Éamon Ó Cuív, when launching the study was more optimistic in his assessment of the durability of the Gaeltacht. It is understandable that he offers hope – though I happen to think that the authors of the report are closer to the truth. I can’t see the Gaeltacht surviving as a recognisable linguistic entity unless serious remedial action is taken and quickly.

The paradox of the Irish language today is that there has never been a time when there was so much money available – be it from the Gaeltacht development body, Údarás na Gaeltachta; the cross-border body Foras na Gaeilge; the Department of the Gaeltacht or from the various television production funds. There has never been a time when there were so many good jobs available through Irish; there has never been a time when you could simultaneously read an on-line Irish-language magazine, Beo! (http://www.beo.ie/); listen to Irish on Raidió na Gaeltachta; watch Irish programmes on TG4 or read Irish in newspapers. (Spoilt for choice would not be in it.) There has never been a time when there were so many graduates, in so many disciplines, who speak Irish. In many ways, this is a Golden Age.

And yet… And yet… the Gaeltacht and native Irish, in all its richness and rigour, continues to decline. Should the Gaeltacht shrink even more than it already has – and that is the likelihood – the integrity of the language movement as a national undertaking will be fatally wounded. No Gaeltacht. No movement. It is that simple.

The end of the Gaeltacht would be a cultural calamity. The most disheartening thing is that so few people seem to be worried about the impending destruction of this unique area.

Pól Ó Muirí And Nineteensixtyseven Join El Blogador

Readers may have noticed that recently there have been a couple of additions to El Blogador in the form of new contributors- Pól Ó Muirí and nineteensixtyseven.

As most of you will know, Pól is a long-established commentator, and is probably best known in the north for his weekly column in the Belfast Telegraph. We are delighted to have him on board, and no doubt his experience and insight will produce some excellent posts on El Blogador.

Meanwhile, the site has also recently benefited from the arrival of nineteensixtyseven as a contributor, and already their indepth understanding of current affairs and the issues affecting people both at home and abroad has added an extra dimension to El Blogador's output.

More than two years after its launch, the future of El Blogador looks bright and I look forward to working with my two new colleagues.

They have overcome. Finally.

I waited up until midnight on Sunday for the UFF disbandment. At one minute past twelve, I thought: “Bye, bye, you bastards.” People are right to be cautious, even cynical, about the UDA’s intentions. We have been here before. The “true and abject remorse” of a few years ago was not as true and as abject as had been hoped. Words will not suffice.

But the announcement is a victory, a cause for muted hope. It is a victory above all for the Catholic working class who, for 40 years, have held the line for decency against loyalist terrorism. (And let us hope that it signals the end of the nightmare for those in Protestant working-class areas who are tortured by paramilitaries.) It is a victory for all the unsung heroes – the milkman, the breadman, the office and factory workers – who refused to be intimidated, who said their prayers, went to work and crossed those invisible borders of country lanes and city streets from one area to another, in order to feed, clothe, educate and protect their children. They buried their martyred dead; mourned them but refused to hate or retaliate. They carried – and carry – their losses with dignity. Not because they are weak but because they are strong.

It is a victory for those who voted for Fitt, Devlin, Hume, Mallon, Rodgers and McGrady. And when the UDA/UFF stirred the pot of civil unrest through riot and murder, they stood firm – by voting for unarmed social democracy. Again. They defied the hate mongers of green and orange and their paramilitary ‘war’. Their vote, year after year, had one simple message: “Not In My Name.”

This is their victory. We shall overcome? They have. Finally. Hopefully.

John Fee RIP

News came today that former SDLP MLA and councillor John Fee has died. John had been sick for a while, but nonetheless the announcement of his passing will come as a blow to the people of south Armagh and his party colleagues.

John stood up for his principles, despite being under serious threat from those who happened to disagree with his position. Indeed, John suffered a serious physical beating in the early 1990s after he dared to criticise an IRA attack. Despite this, he continued to work for the people of his area and fight for a better, more peaceful Ireland.

John may be gone, but his legacy lives on in the form of an Ireland where the peaceful route is recognised as the only road to progress.

Rest In Peace.

Martin and the green-eyed monster

Interviewed after six months as Deputy First Minister, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, made some curious remarks. He commented that there were members of the SDLP who walked past him in the corridors of Stormont “as if I didn’t exist”. McGuinness is not bovvered though; he believes that they and the UUP are just jealous that Paisley and himself get along so well. They have not had as much as a cross word during their time in office, according to McGuinness.

Of the many surreal moments that the peace process has thrown up, this must rank as one of the oddest. After all, we were constantly told in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement and all that followed that McGuinness was “the volunteers’ volunteer”, the hard man who was needed to persuade other hard men that he would keep an eye on Gerry Adams, a dangerous intellectual. (His books have not gone away, you know.)

Yet it seems strange that the cold shoulder would cause McGuinness such annoyance and his explanation for the cause of that coldness – the green-eyed monster of jealousy of a stable DUP/Sinn Féin marriage – is thin. It is an argument that has all the sophistication of a schoolboy turning up for P.E. in his brand new football boots while his classmates have to make do with old gutties. (The problem for McGuinness is, of course, that the boots are hand-me-downs from Seamus Mallon and Mark Durkan.)

The bombast is understandable. McGuinness has simultaneously reached both the top and the end of his political career. He will never be Sinn Féin president, a job that Adams will continue to hold, and McGuinness has no political future in the Republic where he has a much lower profile amongst the electorate than Adams. Being Deputy First Minister is McGuinness’ be all and end all; this is as good as it gets for him; as good as it will ever get. But he obviously feels the slight to his dignity and the need to bare his soul to all. Let us hope that he follows Gerry Adams’ example and pens a memoir. ‘From Cold Cell to Cold Shoulder’ would be an apt title.

An SDLP Fortnight

November’s issue of Fortnight magazine – yes, it is still going – has the usual mixture of articles on politics and the arts: pieces on Welsh and Scottish nationalism rub shoulders with book reviews and analysis of unionism and Fianna Fáil. Margaret Ritchie is mentioned in dispatches and the magazine also carries a measured critique by QUB law lecturer, Phil Larkin, of the SDLP, “What future for the SDLP?” – and yes, this is another article on that particular topic. Larkin believes that the SDLP can “rise again from its present position to become a real and lasting force in Irish politics”. To do so, Larkin argues, it will have to confront demons inside and outside the party, do battle with Sinn Fein on a number of fronts and build alliances with unionists.

Larkin thinks the SDLP is not sure of its message to the nationalist electorate and that the party needs to elaborate on what they mean by a united Ireland. However, their greatest chance of success is: “Only by drawing Sinn Féin onto the grounds of moderate social democracy and modern economic reality can the SDLP make any real headway.” Larkin argues that the SDLP need “an articulate, intellectual bruiser on the field of economic policy in the Brian Cowen or Gordon Brown mould, and a political strategist on the level of Tony Blair or Bertie Ahern…”

For Larkin, the most pressing message politics has for the community is: “enrich yourselves, enjoy it, and for God’s sake, get to know and respect one another.”

That’s not a lot to ask, is it?

(Regrettably, the November issue is not on-line. So, you will just have to go to Eason’s and buy a copy. How old fashioned is that?)

Sinn Féin: Full Circle On Policing

I would like to send my hearty congratulations to Newry Sinn Féin Numero Uno Brendan Curran who has finally reached the top of the greasy pole by becoming Chair of the area's District Policing Partnership. Maith thú, Breandán- another strike for the republic, eh?

Of course, the provo press release hailing Brendan's great achievement doesn't quite explain why he and his colleagues couldn't have done all this six years ago when the SDLP got involved in the new Patten policing arrangements.

What Brendan does say though is: "Policing with the community needs to be the core function of any civic policing service and we want to ensure that will happen. Sinn Féin local elected representatives sitting on the DPPs is another step along that road... The District Policing Partnership is charged with holding the PSNI to account and to ensuring a full and effective delivery of service to the community."

I agree, but Brendan's new-found support of both the DPP and involvement in it by politicians in the Newry area starkly contrasts with his position a few years back, as the Newry Democrat reported: 'Mr Curran said nothing had changed within RUC structures to demonstrate that a new policing service is now available: "The Patten report stopped short of everything that Sinn Féin believes necessary to bring about an acceptable policing service... I am challenging the SDLP in Newry and asking them is that the force they want our young people to be joining"'.

So what has changed? We still have the same system that was proposed by Patten, so how come it is acceptable now for Sinn Féin? The mechanisms, endorsed and worked by the SDLP, have seen a massive rise in Catholic representation within the ranks of the PSNI. And now the SDLP, so vilified and attacked by Sinn Féin for making Patten work, are now joined by none other than... Sinn Féin!

Has there been a massive change in the delivery of Patten or extra concessions provided by the British? Or could it be that as usual Sinn Féin completely misread the situation and has had to fall in behind the SDLP as it tends to do on most issues? Ok, I'll hand it to the provos that they did a great job of attracting publicity for their 'extraordinary ard fheis' earlier this year (not that it was particularly 'extraordinary' as it transpired- Gerry had already done his homework and was sure to win univeral support as usual), but surely the fact that they have had to u-turn without gaining any concessions is the hallmark of failure. Not only that, but in the process they agreed to the axing of the Police Ombudsman's power to investigate national security matters.

I look forward to watching how the newcomers from Sinn Féin perform on the District Policing Partnerships across the north. Better late than never, as they say.

Politics not 'fit for purpose'

There was something darkly ironic about the fact that Chinese businessmen and local officials allegedly paid $500,000 to hear Tony Blair speak at a luxury estate in Guangdong only to be severely disappointed at the excess of 'pleasantries and clichés' and lack of 'any insight'. As someone who has had to suffer Blair's insincerity for free pretty much every day of the last 10 years up until May I can safely say that his vacuous rhetoric is not worth spending any money on at all.

Politics has degenerated into dispatch box slagging matches every Wednesday afternoon with rafts of 'initiatives' and 'consultations.' With the 3 main parties in Britain 'fighting for the centre ground' they ignore those to the left and to the right who have principles (whether or not we agree with those principles is irrelevant) and voting turnout is at an all-time low. This is not to say we have become apolitical or wholly apathetic however. More and more of us are worried about single issues such as climate change or immigration and many young people are joining groups like Amnesty International for example. It is just that the bland homogenisation of political opinion among our politicians has turned us from the belief that parliamentary politics will ever bring great change.

This is an unfortunate state of affairs and a great effort must be made to re-engage the populus with the political process. A major first step that the government could take with their new constitutional reform programme is the introduction of a more proportional voting system. Perhaps if people know that their vote will not be wasted on candidates with no hope of winning in FPTP or on shoring up the majorities of candidates that are sure to win then they will exercise their franchise. It will also give the minor parties a greater voice and will create a more pluralist parliament. With all the parties huddling around the centre there is a clear space on both sides of the political spectrum for parties to give a voice to those who feel unrepresented at present.

In itself a change in the electoral system is not enough. Local communities must be empowered to take control of their lives in tangible ways. This does not mean that the state should back off, just the opposite. I am always suspicious of Tory slogans such as "involve the third sector" and "people must take responsibility" because it usually means cuts in services and a more minimalist approach to government. This suits some people fine but not those who rely on state childcare programmes and similar initiatives. It also leaves such provisions subject to a postcode lottery with people in one area benefiting from a programme and those in another with nothing. I feel that far from taking a 'hands off' approach when involving the third sector and local communities, the government should actively pump money into these initiatives to encourage people to work with one another. If schemes are successful they should be promoted and helped on a national basis. In this way the state can be both a primary provider and a secondary helper, providing the superstructure to nurture our collective strengths as communities. It would involve local people in what goes on in their area without people having to rely on a patchwork of private and non-profit organisations.

We have to find a balance between the state doing everything and the state doing nothing and which is fair and which allows people to feel their voices are being heard. Not only that, their voices have to be heard. For too long decentralisation has meant postcode lottery and privatisation and statism has left people feeling ignored by what can seem like a faceless and complex bureaucracy (which can often be the case in the private sector too). Can we not have the best of both worlds?  

Time For An All-Ireland Football Team

As the dispute between the Irish Football Association, the Football Association of Ireland and FIFA continues, there is still no escaping the fact that the two teams from this country are rubbish!

In the north we have a situation whereby most nationalists find it very difficult to stomach the fact that at the start of matches God Save The Queen is played. Now there is no disputing that the IFA has invested a lot of time and effort to rid its stands of sectarianism, but the pro-British trappings which still accompany the northern game result in many people in this part of the country finding natural allegiance with the southern team. But of course that's also a problem- apart from the ongoing wranglings over whether players from the north ought to be allowed to turn-out for the Republic, the fact is that it is a southern 'partitionist' team and only represents 13/16s of the island.

If the two associations merged to create a unitary organisation like we have in rugby, it would pretty much solve most of the problems faced by football on this island- the question of what side footballers should play for, the issue of who northern nationalists support, and the fact that neither Irish side can qualify for anything. A united association which is able to pick the best players and call on the allegiance of every football supporter on this island is clearly the most logical solution to the current impasse.

A person wearing an Irish rugby shirt can just as easily walk up the Shankill in Belfast or through Shankhill in Dublin unhindered. Surely it's time for football supporters to enjoy the same luxury by being offered the chance to support an all-Ireland football team. After all, the IFA used to be an all-Ireland organisation, so surely a merger with the FAI to return it to this status is a natural progression.

The SDLP Moving Forward: It's Business As Usual

After weeks of unfounded media speculation, the record has been set straight on the future of the SDLP by its own membership- an all-Ireland working group will be established to look at all the options available to the party. And then, once all the issues have been teased out, the membership will decide on the best way forward based on the evidence they will have at their disposal. The party will be engaging with all of the main southern parties and anyone else whom it deems necessary.

The private debate at yesterday's conference session saw many salient points being made by members from across the island. I was extremely hungover after having argued with southerners until nearly five o'clock in the morning, fuelled by Guinness, but thankfully I didn't have to take to the stage as there was overwhelming agreement on the forward strategy.

The SDLP was set up to promote social justice, democracy and equality- that is still its goal. Whatever lies ahead, all decisions will be made with the best interests of the people of the north and of Ireland in general at heart. The party has a strong and proud history and as it moves forward, its past will not be forgotten.

Looking back over the past 37 years of its history, it is clear to see that the SDLP project has been the most successful political movement in modern Irish history. It has set the agenda and won every mainstream party on both sides of the border over to its way of thinking: powersharing, an agreed Ireland, equality- these are all central tenets of the SDLP's philosophy, and now form the cornerstones of the political system.

Electorally the SDLP has been hurt recently, but in terms of principles and goals, it has been overwhelmingly successful. Whatever the future holds, the SDLP will hold its head high and continue its ongoing crusade.

The message is clear- the SDLP is here to do a job, and it is business as usual as it continues to fight for the rights of every man, woman and child on this island.

Well Done, Nuala O'Loan

It would be remiss of me to not post on the departure of Nuala O'Loan from the post of Police Ombudsman. For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, the police service was held to account upon her taking up her position. The job of Police Ombudsman left in the hands of a lesser person may have proved ineffective, but Nuala faced down personal insult and downright ignorance from unionist politicians and certain members of the PSNI to help bring us to a position now where people from all sides of the community feel that they can have at least some faith in the system.

Let us hope that Al Hutchinson has even some of the balls of Nuala.

Giuliani's healthcare comments are making me feel ill.

Rudy Guiliani has sparked a row by using the UK's National Health Service as a stick with which to beat on the head the Democrat's support for 'socialised medicine'. In a remark which has prompted a swift rebuttal from Health Secretary Alan Johnson, Guiliani said “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and, thank God, I was cured of it – in the United States? 82 per cent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 per cent under socialised medicine."

Putting aside the fact that Guiliani's figures are outdated, misleading and inaccurate, this remark highlights the often irrational fears of bureaucracy and government in the United States, especially with regard to healthcare provision, and the lows that some American politicians will stoop to in order to stoke these fears. We all remember the Republican scaremongering that accompanied Hillary Clinton's rather modest proposals to bring in some sort of universal health insurance in the mid-1990s and the issue seems to be raising its head once more with the main Democratic Presidential candidates making it part of their campaigns.

Some American politicians, it appears, would rather place the health of their people in the hands in private monopolies who make large profits by denying insurance payouts on often rather spurious grounds, rather that in the hands of a body over which they have a degree of control. According to a 2006 Save the Children Report, America is ranked number 32 in the infant mortality rates (Sweden with its large welfare state is at number one in the list and has the lowest rate). According to the World Health Organization the US is number 37 on the Healthcare Quality Index. For such a powerful and wealthy country it seems absurd that healthcare is of such a low standard to so many Americans. An estimated 45-47 million Americans have no health insurance at all.

Of course, there are good reasons for this reluctance to introduce a decent healthcare system in the US. The private healthcare lobby exercises influence on a massive scale and many Senators move from the Senate straight into cosy Executive positions in healthcare companies. There is also the fear of federal government that has been present in the US since the very beginning. The Constitution understandably wished to protect the Americans from the tyranny they had suffered under the English and utilised such restraints on government as Montesquieu's 'separation of powers' but to non-Americans it almost feels that the political culture of the US is, as a result, inherently suspicious of the power of the State to do any good at all. I fear that this suspicion often inhibits the US government from doing good with regards to health and other social issues and it has given private companies massive scope for running services which in most societies are considered the domain of central government. This is often at a cost to the poorest in society who can ill afford (no pun intended) to pay for healthcare. While the Republicans attack the Democrats for proposals considered tame by European standards the people who need healthcare the most are left to fall in between the cracks.