Sinn Fein and the Belfast agreement
national |
miscellaneous |
news report
Thursday December 19, 2002 16:15
by Jim Monaghan
Developments with Sinn Fein and the Belfast agreement, A socialist Democracy view.
Message
Thursday, December 19, 2002 02:50:48 PM
From: [email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: [FI-P] IV347Ireland (again)
To: [email protected]
Bcc: Jim Monaghan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FI-press-l Fourth International Press List
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this article was inadvertently sent out yesterday with an article on
Germany attached - to avoid confusion, here it is as intended
Ireland: Goodbye to Good Friday
John McAnulty
The history books will undoubtedly list the collapse of the current version
of the Good Friday agreement as stemming from the British raid on Sinn
Fein's Stormont offices on 4th October. The history books will be wrong.
The collapse occurred on September 16th with the decision of the Ulster
Unionist Party to pull the plug on a number of the institutions of the Good
Friday agreement and force Sinn Fein out of office. The raid brings much
worse news for Sinn Fein. The pipe dream that the British would reward
them and punish unionism for the crisis is just as false as their other
illusion that the forces of Irish capital would stand shoulder to shoulder
with them in their hour of need. To add insult to injury big brother, in
the shape of George Bush, immediately endorsed the call by the British for
the IRA to disarm
The Stormont raid has however a significance all of its own. The police
raid had all the symbolism of jackboot rule. It was a travesty of
democracy, indicating the harsh reality of British rule behind all the
pretences of the Stormont assembly. It's only purpose was to pull the plug
on the assembly, while making it clear that the republicans will have to
concede even more to earn a return of their ministerial seats. Howls about
background IRA activity are neither here or there. The disbandment of the
Ira was not a condition of the Good Friday agreement - now for the
unionists, British, and Sinn Fein's erstwhile friends in Dublin - it is.
This time it's for real. After a whole string of crises which have in fact
been a permanent feature of the unstable settlement in Ireland the
reactionary offensive by the unionists has guaranteed that the Good Friday
agreement, in its present form, will not survive into 2003. In a pattern
repeated over and over again during the many attempts by imperialism to
settle the Irish question, the trickle of unionist opposition has become a
flood, the flood has become a torrent and now the unionist leadership has
effectively changed. Following the victory of dissident Geoffrey Donaldson
at the Unionist council meeting of the 21st September, supporters of the
unionist leader, David Trimble, are being deselected at constituency
meetings and it was quite clear that the unionists would pull the plug on
major structural elements of the Good Friday agreement in January. At the
September meeting the party agreed to withdraw from the Stormont executive
if the IRA had not effectively disbanded by January. This may not be
enough to save the unionist leadership. Polls indicate that Ian Paisley's
Democratic Unionist Party are likely to overtake the Ulster Unionists in
2003 and become the major unionist party.
The standard model
There is a standard explanation for this pattern within unionist politics.
That is that unionism is split into reactionaries and progressives. Fear
spread by the reactionaries or 'provocation' from nationalists tilts the
issue under discussion towards the reactionaries. All the other forces in
society, from the British Government in Sinn Fein, must join together to
support the progressives.
Sinn Fein holds a left version of this theory. They demand that the
Unionists find a leader - a De Klerk - who will represent their true
interests and fully support the Good Friday deal. They accuse
'securocrats' in the state forces and civil service of blocking the real
interests of Britain - to bring peace to Ireland. The nationalist family
and US imperialism must ensure that there is no backsliding by the
unionists and British.
The truth is rather more complex. There has never been a moderate wing to
unionism in this process. The so-called moderates were led by David
Trimble, formerly a leader of the semi-fascist 'Vanguard' organisation,
'hero' of Drumcree after leading a triumphal march through the Nationalist
Geravaghy Rd a few years ago. More recently he was strutting his stuff in
East Belfast, standing in front of a beseiged Short Strand and accusing the
nationalists within of responsibility for the sectarian attacks launched
upon them. Trimbles' favourite tactic when under attack from the right is
to immediately throw himself in front of the reactionaries, adopt their
demands and lead them forward.
This tactic has led the Trimble wing, already composed of sectarians and
reactionaries, to move steadily to the right and become more strident and
absolutist in their demands for an unconditional Republican surrender.
However at the same time the opposition has moderated its demands.
Trimble's arch-rival, Donaldson, has never demanded the scrapping of the
Good Friday agreement and has on occasions stressed his support for it.
The DUP, once committed to the smashing of the deal, now want it amended to
exclude Sinn Fein.
Goodbye to Sinn Fein
This can all be predicted from the deal. What the Good Friday agreement
offered in effect is a sectarian structure in which each group is given
equal sectarian rights. Following its publication an academic think tank
that advises the British government pointed out that it could not possibly
work. There would be no point in equality of sectarian rights. One group
would have to be dominant to ensure stability.
The unionists agree and have mounted a vicious and violent campaign, on and
off the streets, to ensure that the agreement is modified to recognise
their dominant sectarian privilege.
Holy Cross
Perhaps the key event in that offensive was the raw intimidation of
Catholic schoolchildren by loyalist paramilitaries at the Holy Cross
primary school in Ardoyne. Rather than meeting with the condemnation of
'moderate' unionism the unionist political organizations were quick to
justify the attacks and advance the sectarian demands for apartheid - with
Catholic families to be locked in ghettoes and refused homes in
'Protestant' areas. A loyalist commission was set up involving the
sectarian gangsters and leading advisors to the Unionist leader Trimble.
Although the loyalist campaign involved a constant barrage of armed attacks
and a number of brutal sectarian killings the politicians felt no need to
keep their distance. One of its more striking statements from the
commission was a 'no first strike' statement - this meant that the random
sectarian killing of Catholics could be justified as long as the killers
could point to some imagined provocation that preceded it.
In fact the unionist politicians now openly bid to outdo each other in
their open support for raw sectarianism. David Trimble issued a statement
in September accusing the nationalist victims of the loyalist violence of
responsibility for the violence. He was quickly outdone by Peter Robinson,
a government minister representing the Paisleyite Democratic unionist
party. Robinson was interviewed by police after stopping traffic on the
main road into East Belfast while the loyalist sectarians gathered for a
street party to celebrate the imprisoning of the nationalist population
behind a series of 'peace' walls. Needless to say, the walls were built by
the British.
'Progressive' unionism
The sectarian unionist offensive knocks away one major element of the peace
process - the assumption that there was within unionism a 'progressive'
wing anxious to build a new society in the North of Ireland. In reality
the unionists have behaved as any sober analysis would have suggested -
pocketing the massive gains for them built into the Good Friday agreement
and pushing constantly to move it to the right and make it more sectarian.
The difference between Trimble and his critics has been that he has been
anxious to retain all the structures of the agreement while forcing the
British to amend it, while his opponents are happy to collapse the
executive in the expectation that what will emerge will be more to their
liking.
It is Trimble's opponents who had it right. Again it was the Holy Cross
attacks that clarified British policy. Initial horror at the Loyalist
bombing of schoolchildren was instantly replaced by a definition of the
situation as 'community conflict'. The role of the 'reformed' RUC/PSNI was
to force the parents and children to run a gauntlet of sectarian hate and
demand that the parents negotiate with their tormentors. The eventual
outcome of this policy of managing 'community conflict' is that the
unionist demands for apartheid were met and Holy Cross school faces
closure, under siege and without any genuine protection from state forces.
Appeasement
The desire to appease loyalism was far from local. In a major speech
following Holy Cross British secretary of state Reid announced that the
Good Friday Agreement had made the North of Ireland 'a cold house for
Unionists'. The intent was clear. The agreement had to be bent further to
the right and the republicans had to make further concessions. British
Prime minister Blair issued a statement blaming Sinn Fein for the violence.
Reid's speech was followed by a wave of sectarian attack and killings from
the loyalist gangs. Wave after wave of sectarians openly attacked Catholic
areas while the RUC/PSNI looked on. The new Chief constable, Hugh Orde,
announced blandly that the police were unable to act without the full
support of the community - in other words, if Sinn Fein wanted protection
they would have to sign up to the new police boards. Days later the Chief
constable announced that the level of violence was such that he would have
to retain the almost exclusively Protestant RUC reserve that was slated for
disbandment under the Patten proposals on the police. At the same time the
British intensified a long-standing policy of encouraging moderates within
the loyalist sectarian gangs. Unfortunately the gangs had moved so far to
the right that the moderates were now 'Mad Dog' Johnny Adair and his
henchmen. Not only did they keep up sectarian killings while talking to
the British, they followed up with a full-scale loyalist feud.
Torrent of reaction
By this stage the wave of reaction had become a torrent. Preparations were
made by the Sinn Fein leadership to sign up to the new police boards, with
a statement from leading figure Mitchell McLoughlin that the British had
accepted many of their demands for reform but, given the level of police
involvement in the sectarian attacks, this was leading to fist-fights at
local Sinn Fein meetings. The leadership split the difference yet again -
announcing that the main problem with the policing boards was that many of
their members were unable to join because of convictions they had gained
during their period of struggle against the British.
It was far too late. Trimbles' policy of squeezing them until they bled
inside the agreement was replaced at the September meeting of the Unionist
council with a decision to collapse elements of the Good Friday structure
and force them out.
Analysis
Sinn Fein's analysis of the October 4th raid at Stormont is quite accurate.
The arrival of an army of RUC members at their Stormont offices and the
arrest of chief administrator Denis Donaldson was not an investigation into
allegations that they spied on the British administration - something that
the unionists have done routinely throughout the troubles - it was a stunt
to establish that it was they, Sinn Fein, who are to blame for the British
suspension of elements of the local government and it is they who will have
to make further concessions in the next round of discussions.
The problem for Sinn Fein is that it is not possible to blame this on
low-level servants of the British state acting against the British
interest. This is the state itself declaring its interest in the
preservation of the sectarian unionist organisations as the basis for its
rule in Ireland. The nationalist family, in Sinn Fein's eyes the bulwark
against any backsliding by the British, stood alongside the British and the
US in effectively demanding the disbandment of the IRA and the local
representatives of Irish capital, the SDLP, supported the proposals to
abandon the Patten reforms of the RUC. The fact that Dublin widely
publicised the charge that a group, arrested in Bray and claimed to be
planning a robbery were IRA members is a strong indication of the pressure
the republicans are under and the total failure of their analysis.
The next period will be grim. Tony Blair set the tone in a major speech in
which he demanded the absolute surrender of the IRA. What was even more
interesting than the threats to the republicans was the carrot he held out
to their leadership. Capitulation would ensure a stable Northern Ireland -
precisely what the Provisional IRA was set up to prevent! The British and
the Unionists are now able to bank all the gains that they have made from
the Good Friday agreement. Some of the sectarian structures set up will be
preserved. The current hysteria by Dublin and the SDLP is an
acknowledgement that only the immediate disbandment of the IRA would be
enough to prevent the complete collapse of the existing agreement. This is
an impossible demand for the Sinn Fein leadership to meet, at least on any
short time-scale. The upshot will be a re-negotiation of the agreement
either explicitly or implicitly around the core demands of unionism. These
have nothing to do with the IRA. The main demand is for superior sectarian
rights - a demand that can be achieved either by the exclusion of Sinn Fein
and the retention of an SDLP rump within the existing structures or by
changing the structures to retain an inner core of government for Unionism
alone. In either case the RUC must remain their private army and any
pretence that at some time in the future it will be made up of equal
numbers of Catholics and Protestants must be brought quickly to an end.
The response of the Sinn Fein leadership has been pathetic. They can
describe what is happening easily enough - they are simply unable to
acknowledge who is doing it. They call upon the unionists to be the
unionists of their imagination rather than the unionists of reality. They
call on the British to protect the agreement as the British tear it up in
front of their eyes. Mitchell McLoughlin announces that the way forward is
nationalist unity - as nationalist Ireland turns as one to demand the
disbandment of the IRA. RUC chief Hugh Orde and Secretary of state Reid
explain that the nature of the Stormont raid was a terrible mistake - and
Gerry Adams thanks them for their gracious response! He responds to
demands for IRA disbandment by saying that he supports the call! In
statement after statement the Republican leadership made it clear that
nothing will break them from the Good Friday agreement - plan B is to do
plan A all over again even while plan A is in tatters!
The republican response indicates the extent to which the British remain in
command of the situation. However in the long run this is a major setback.
The Good Friday agreement involved the complete capitulation of the
republican resistance. The British and their allies had massive popular
support. They failed to capitalise on this and an attempt to put together
a more reactionary version of the current settlement will have a weaker
base and be even less stable. Even now there is a sharp taste of
dissatisfaction in the republicans working-class base in the North of
Ireland. It will take some time for the working class supporters of Sinn
Fein to walk away. It will take longer for them to leave behind the
republican opposition who simply want to roll back the film to the
situation that led to republican defeat. However long it takes there is
nowhere else to go. There is nothing in the Good Friday agreement - Mark I
or Mark II - for the working class but imprisonment in a sectarian hell.
However unpalatable the vision that faces the workers, it is at least a
vision of the real world - not a republican pipe dream where Irish
capitalism and British and US imperialism combine to bring justice and
peace to Ireland!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to subscribe to this list, send a message
"SUBSCRIBE FI-press-l" to , not to the list itself.
If you want to leave this list, send a message "UNSUBSCRIBE FI-press-l"
to , not to the list itself.
Any comments should be sent to
or , not to the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (30 of 30)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30If you absolutely have to send us stuff that's already somewhere else on the web, couldn't you at least do us the courtesy of stripping out the mailing list information? Adds a whole new dimension to 'laziness'...
Or I will ram a icepick up your arse you dumb Trotskyist bastard.
That's someone impersonating me. You can tell because
1) I don't threaten to attack people with icepicks
2) If I did, I would say 'AN icepick'
'An icepick' ???
"a HANDBAG?!?" is from The Importance of Being Earnest
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wilde+%22importance+of+being+earnest%22&meta=
but originally I was pointing out the fact that the guy pretending to me said "a icepick", when it should be "AN icepick", because 'icepick' starts with a vowel.
This is yet another sectarian attack on Protestants; just what we have come to expect from the Republican Social Democracy.
They exaggerate the attacks on Catholics; in particular the Holy Cross School. The parents there could have brought the children in through the rear entrance. They deliberately chose to antagonise local Protestants by insisting on using the front gates.
Most of what happens in East Belfast is local people responding to Provo provocations.
The N in AN should have been n; as in 'an icepick'.
The elders of today...
(The Elders of the IMC? Another conspiracy uncovered!)
Getting to the rear entrance of the school involved a major detour, and was completely unsuitable for parents with young children.
Tell me this is someone stirring shit by pretending to be from the SY.
I put the whole thing in caps for emphasis.
You were in error.
I wonder about the SY member(?) as well. But s/he has commented previously in a doctrinaire CWI style manner. Another SY agreed with most of Joffes contribution on Colombia and Venezuela.
I stand over my comments. Provos always look for an excuse to stir up sectarian hatred. The rear entrance was actually closer for most.
FARC are narco terrorists just like the IRA and INLA.
I remember that raid very clearly.
By devilish co-incidence I was stopped at 01h30 that morning and asked for indetification by members of the Policia nacional de España as I enjoyed my nightly stroll around my area passing in front of the Catalan government buildings.
This routine occurence is known as "handle with care", I refused to show my identification papers and cajoled the officers with what is known as "cheek". The next day, I returned to government buildings to make a documentary with a NYC activist friend. The spanish and catalan newspapers had Stormont on the front page with the Pope (great man) who had said "War is very bad", the Catalan´s were building a wall in front of their government buildings which still stands today, and we interviewed the Catalan police "super" about it.
MR O´as-if: "is this a defensive wall?"
Catalan garda: "yes"...."well no it´s not"
OASIF: "but is it a psychological defensive wall?"
Catalan guard: "yes it is"
OASIF: "against Madrid" [who were then flying the biggest spanish flag in history]
Catalan guard: "maybe"
we still have the video tape which makes hilarious viewing and the interview was carried out in Catalan, thereafter we asked the Catalan police officer who had witnessed me being handled with care the night before to repeat his thoughts in Castillian Spanish.
And most interestingly he said he couldn´t remember the crucial vocabulary.
Yesterday MR Aznar met Mr Bush.
they spoke about oil and troubled water.
ETA were attributed as wishing to start a xmas and new year bombing campaign as a car bomb exploded and a guardia civil (regiment badge a fasces and axe) was buried killed by two ETA members.
Bush spoke to Aznar thus about terrorism and the Prestige.(which sank a while back)
Mr Bush and I doth qoute said "president Aznar has said nunca mas, and I believe him".
odd.
Nunca mas, as ye know is the name of the campaign here to declare Galicia a disaster zone, stop flags of inconvenience on our seas, end single hull tankers, and generally have a go at fascists and crypto-fascists to which end we in "nunca mas" regularly call for the resignation of Mr Aznar.
Thus to bend the tangent back to the point, it appears to me, that Mr Bush either is very poorly advised or very very stupid.
It seems to me and all my pals and chums and lovers of the past, anarkees, hippees and freakies, that all the peace processes the product of years of hope and work around the world, are in trouble.
If peace is the object of Mr Bush´s war on terrorism, then maybe it shall come tangentially just when we´ve all lost hope.
I shall leave the readers to make up their own minds.
That's a despicable attitude.
Would you tell Rosa Parks that there was plenty of room at the back of the bus?
Children shouldn't be forced to go in through the rear entrance of the school because they've been brought up in the wrong religion, whether that be catholic or protestant. You're not standing up to nationalist sectarianism here - you're giving in to unionist sectarianism.
This has been the most depressingly accurate assessment of the situation in the North I have read in quite some time. Mind you, yet again Taigs in the North are left to themselves to face the bigotry of a rightwing, real honest to god fascistic movement. Mind you, the folks in the South can continue to protest brutality in far away Israel or by the US government in Iraq, however 90 miles away there shall be no protest marches to the Garvaghy Rd, Holy Cross School or any of the other countless places where taigs or croppies are expected to lie down and accept "their place".
Yet again I am ashamed of the people in the South. You will yet again "standing idly by" and yet again you all will continue to justify your non action. Just like so many Americans will continue to justify our own brutality meted upon the people of Iraq, for the simple fact of providing cheap oil for "our" SUV's and extravagant life styles. Or indeed the Israeli populations own acceptance of the bigotry and brutality of "their" troops, the IDF. This is an old story, the brutalized abandoned by others who are "all right Jack". from the world "standing idly by" while the Nazi's rounded up Jews, to the indifference of the Israeli population to the plight of Palestinians to the abandoned catholic people in the North.
Indeed, an old, old story.
I don't know if Joffe if a member of Socialist Youth or not, but the views he is expressing are not those of SY or of the Socialist Party.
We don't call FARC (or for that matter the likes of the IRA) "narco-terrorists". Neither did we advocate his/her solution to the Holy Cross situation.
That said, Ray's crass equation of present day Northern Catholics with Black people in the South of the USA in the 1950s and 1960s is at best foolish and at worst a justification of the kind of pro-Catholic sectarianism which the authors of the original article which started this thread put forward.
The dispute at Holy Cross was at root not a result of discrimination against Catholics but a manifestation of an ongoing war over the redefinition of sectarian territory in North Belfast. Neither sectarian "side" in that bloody and futile squabble over streets and interfaces deserves our support.
For those who are interested the actual view of the Socialist Party on these events can be found below:
----------------------------------------------
The situation outside the Holy Cross primary school has developed into an ugly standoff as community leaders talk about trying to settle the conflict. At root, this conflict is about redefining boundaries between Catholic and Protestant areas, which is further polarising the communities.
THE GRIM and shocking scenes outside Holy Cross girls school are a reminder of the danger of sectarian conflict becoming much more widespread. They also serve notice of how bitter and vicious such a conflict could become. Most people in the north, Catholic and Protestant, have been stunned by the sight of young schoolgirls struggling through a tunnel of riot police, stones and verbal abuse just to get to school.
Even if the situation outside the school dies down for a while this is one of those incidents that will have lasting effects. It has already hardened attitudes and deepened the sectarian polarisation. There is also the possibility that some incident or atrocity, a protester or perhaps a child being killed, could trigger other protests and that the violence could spread. The death of 16-year-old Thomas McDonald, run over by a woman driver who chased him in her car after some sectarian incident at the troubled White City/Longlands interface, is an example of how things could get escalate.
Sectarian attacks
What is happening outside Holy Cross follows a summer of widespread sectarian attacks which by now have touched almost every area across the North. The Ulster Defence Association is behind much of this violence, hiding under flags of convenience like Red Hand Defenders, which fool no one. They are responsible for the pipe and blast bombings, including the bombs thrown outside Holy Cross and ominously for the sectarian killing of two young people, one of whom turned out to be a Protestant.
But the sectarianism is not all one way way, despite the misleading attempts by some nationalists to portray it as such. Sinn Fein recently published a centre page in An Phoblacht listing the attacks on Catholics. This is a deliberately one sided approach ignoring the attacks that have also taken place against Protestants.
This violence is intensifying just as the political process is reaching an impasse. The one-day suspension of the Assembly was to allow another six weeks for the parties to come up with an agreement. Then we had the revelations about IRA involvement with FARC guerrillas in Colombia.
Their arrests may not have damaged Sinn Fein¹s standing in Catholic working-class areas but have made unionists more insistent on decommissioning as a precondition of a restart for the Assembly.
The clock is ticking on the six week deadline for a deal and instead of progress we have had the protests at Holy Cross. As time passes a deal becomes less likely.
Workers solution
All in all, this paints a very gloomy picture. The peace process has never done anything more than bring politicians together at the top. On the ground, in the working class communities, there has been no reconciliation or integration but just the opposite.
Can anything be done to reverse the slide to sectarian conflict? The situation may be difficult but it is by no means lost. The majority of people, Protestant and Catholic, are against a return to conflict and want the paramilitary cease-fires to stay in place or be restored.
While the working class is divided more than ever in terms of where they live, they are still largely united in the workplaces. Where struggles have taken place, for example on wages, conditions, cuts and privatisation, working-class people have stood together and have rocked the sectarians in the Assembly. The victorious struggle by term-time workers is one example.
This unity needs to be built upon so that, instead of being divided, Protestant and Catholic workers can stand together against sectarianism as well as against health cuts, low pay and on other social issues.
That this is not happening is not because working-class people would not be prepared to stand together but because there is no leadership offering them a way to do so. In the past the trade union movement played a key role in challenging sectarianism. Community organisations also helped in this.
Now, instead of offering a lead the present trade union leadership has buried its head in the sand. The unions have joined with the employers, churches and others in the inept and little heard of G7 and play no independent role in fighting sectarianism. Many community organisations are likewise not independent of the conflict but act as covers for various paramilitary interests.
There remain however many genuine activists in the trade unions and in the broad community movement who are repelled by what is taking place and want to find a way out.
These people need to come together to begin to build an alternative to sectarianism. There is an urgent need for a united movement of the working class to oppose all sectarian attacks, to defend workers against intimidation and to combat the poverty that is now common to Protestant and Catholic workers and which is the underlining factor fuelling the conflict.
SOCIALIST YOUTH, the youth section of the Socialist Party in Northern Ireland, has been out in Belfast campaigning for a non-sectarian, working-class resolution of the Holy Cross school conflict.
In its leaflet Socialist Youth argued that if there is no workable agreement reached between both communities then they would be calling on school students throughout the North to come out on a half-day strike to demand that all sides keep schools out of the sectarian conflict.
They also support the call made by some members of the teachers unions for strike action by teachers in Holy Cross and Wheatfield primary schools to make clear that they cannot be expected to work under these conditions, adding that other schools should support them.
Their leaflet concludes by saying: "Instead of standing apart we need to campaign together to halt the creeping privatisation of our schools through PFI, to demand proper resources for the classrooms and to set up a school students union to uphold the rights of all school students.
"Working-class people and young people need to act to stop the slide towards sectarian conflict. Some people are trying to make a comparison with Alabama. The real comparison is not Alabama but Bosnia. No one will win by going down this road. Young people, Catholic and Protestant, will be the biggest losers. We have to act now to stop the sectarian conflict spreading."
Here's the problem Brian.
You say
"Neither sectarian "side" in that bloody and futile squabble over streets and interfaces deserves our support."
But that has little or nothing to do with what I said. I said that kids shouldn't be forced to go in the rear entrance of a school because they were the wrong religion. I _explicitly_ said that it didn't matter whether that 'wrong' religion was catholic or protestant. I'll say it again.
IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHAT RELIGION THEY ARE, ALL KIDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED USE THE FRONT ENTRANCE.
This does not imply support for one side in a war for territory. It does not mean that the front entrance to the school should be a Catholic area.
Its an argument against the whole idea that either community can 'own' a school entrance.
As for the comparison with Rosa Parks, I think its entirely appropriate when somebody says that Holy Cross was the fault of those uppity catholics and their provocative insistence on using the front gates of the school.
That doesn't mean I think there is a direct equation between Belfast and Alabama. (Maybe 30 years ago, but not today) But there is a direct comparison between the kind of racial discrimination that says reserves some seats for white people, and the kind of religious sectarianism that reserves some streets for protestants.
Is there sectarianism on both side? Hell yes. Show me a similar situation involving a catholic community and protestant schoolchildren, and I'll be equally vocal in condemning it.
But sectarianism should be opposed wherever it arises - you shouldn't have to wait until you find an opposing sectarianism, so you can be even-handed in your criticism, before condemning it. And if it turns out that most sectarianism is directed at Catholics, then say so.
Except that it would carry more conviction if SP members weren't opposing the honouring of the memory of Pat Finucane, the murdered Catholic lawyer, (on the grounds that it is sectarian to name a bursary after hime) and facilitating the British Army recruiting in Queens university.
Let's face it, the SP and SY are not going to oppose loyalism if it pisses of their supporters in the area. Wordy articles reproduced here are only more sophisticated apologies for opportunism.
by Ray Thu, Dec 19 2002, 6:00pm
"But sectarianism should be opposed wherever it arises - you shouldn't have to wait until you find an opposing sectarianism, so you can be even-handed in your criticism, before condemning it. And if it turns out that most sectarianism is directed at Catholics, then say so."
Of course sectarianism must be opposed where ever it arises. But the question is - How do you oppose it? Do you oppose sectarianism against Catholics by supporting republicanism. The majority (but most certainly not all) of sectarian attacks are visited on the catholic community, but by emphasising the nature of the sectarianism of one side over the other, you are doing a disservice to the entire working class, catholic and protestant. This is what is implied by your statement "you shouldn't have to wait until you find an opposing sectarianism, so you can be even-handed in your criticism, before condemning it" There is nothing to be even-handed about. Sectarianism is sectarianism, no matter which side it comes from. The Socialist Party is not trying to be "even-handed" just recognising the fact that sectarianism is a reality on both sides of the divide. The Republican movement constantly adopt a sectarian attitude in all its dealings with the protestant community. To suggest anything different is not facing up to reality.
Finally, in relation to Holy Cross. All children have a right to go to school free from fear and intimidation. But there is also a reality that elements within the nationalist community used this issue to fight a sectarian turf war with the protestant community. That is a fact. To suggest that there is a direct comparison with Alabama is wrong. While elements within the protestant community wanted to preserve the streets as protestant, there are also elements within the catholic community that want to change them to catholic streets. That is the nature of sectarianism. Incidentally, I would never place my children in the front line of such a battle under any circumstances.
People constantly talk about rights, but one right that is constantly ignored is the right of the working class to live without the fear of sectarianism. Many contributors on this site (like benjaminio) clearly reject the idea of build support for class politics within the protestant community. The hang on the coat-tails of nationalism and are contributing to the continuation of sectarianism on this island.
Deochaoi of the Socialist Party writes that he would not have his child on the front lines in a battle such as this. My answer to this is simple. Martin Luther Kink did the same tactic during the civil rights struggle here in the United States. Having Loyalists talking of "civil rights" is like the bigots here in the States talk of "white rights". till the ordinary decent Protestants in the north start to deal with the bigotry within their own communities there is no real hope for "working class unity". just like the Unions here did not thrive until white bigotry was dealt with by the rank and file.
Of course, just as most Americans will not deal with the racist nature of the American society because they BENEFIT from it, so it is in the north.
And all the "socialist" talk will not change it. As an aside, facsism can not truley raise it's ugly head till large numbers of working class become part of the movement. Someone has to do the dirty work that the "respectable" middle class will not do. Ala Trimble and the other molevelent forces of loyalism.
"Of course sectarianism must be opposed where ever it arises. But the question is - How do you oppose it? Do you oppose sectarianism against Catholics by supporting republicanism."
No, you don't. Why do you think that's necessary? Is it automatically 'republican' to argue against protestant sectarianism? Is it automatically unionist to argue against catholic sectarianism? Of course not.
" The majority (but most certainly not all) of sectarian attacks are visited on the catholic community, but by emphasising the nature of the sectarianism of one side over the other, you are doing a disservice to the entire working class, catholic and protestant."
I'm not suggesting that you should emphasise the sectarianism of one side over the other. Both must be opposed. But if there is more sectarianism on one side than the other, then you should recognise that. Your political theory may tell you that the two sides are exactly the same as each other, but if they're not you should change your theory rather than ignore the facts.
And that's without even getting into the role that the state has played in all of this...
" This is what is implied by your statement "you shouldn't have to wait until you find an opposing sectarianism, so you can be even-handed in your criticism, before condemning it""
No, it isn't. I oppose all instances of sectarianism equally. But I also recognise that there are more instances of protestant than catholic sectarianism. That doesn't excuse the catholic sectarianism, or make it less important to oppose it.
There is a difference between saying "Both sides are sectarian", and "Both sides are _equally_ sectarian". All the evidence is that one statement is true, the other false.
"Finally, in relation to Holy Cross. All children have a right to go to school free from fear and intimidation. But there is also a reality that elements within the nationalist community used this issue to fight a sectarian turf war with the protestant community. That is a fact. To suggest that there is a direct comparison with Alabama is wrong."
Sorry, but those cases are directly comparable. If there are elements in the black community that try to use anti-segregationist campaigns to extend the areas they control, it doesn't change the fact that the anti-segregationist campaign is in the right.
" While elements within the protestant community wanted to preserve the streets as protestant, there are also elements within the catholic community that want to change them to catholic streets. That is the nature of sectarianism."
The fact that some catholics wanted to extend their turf doesn't mean we should ignore the issue. We should campaign on the issue, putting forward the argument that kids of any and all religions should be allowed to use the front entrance. If some protestants see that as an attack, tough. If some catholics see that as helping them get control of the street, then we'll start the same campaign up again when they start trying to block protestant kids from using the street.
"Incidentally, I would never place my children in the front line of such a battle under any circumstances."
Its a tough call. But I can understand why many parents thought the alternative would teach their children that they were second-class citizens.
"People constantly talk about rights, but one right that is constantly ignored is the right of the working class to live without the fear of sectarianism."
I don't think it is ignored. But I think some people feel that the Socialist Party are too afraid of being seen to 'take sides' that they will only oppose sectarianism in the abstract, by talking about how there's sectarianism on both sides of the divide, and won't oppose something like Holy Cross because that might involve being on the same picket lines as (horrors!) a republican.
"The death of 16-year-old Thomas McDonald, run over by a woman driver who chased him in her car after some sectarian incident at the troubled White City/Longlands interface, is an example of how things could get escalate."
Thomas McDonald was a member of the UDA who was buried with full military honours by that organisation. He was part of a UDA gang who were throwing bricks and metal objects at cars which they identified as belonging to catholics.
This woman was accompanied by a child when these loyalists attempted to murder her. If she had stopped, she would have likely been beaten to death by the mob.
It is shameful the way the SP will lie (they cannot be unaware of McDonalds UDA membership) to avoid having to criticise loyalist violence.
Does the SP recognise that the situation in the North is the product of centuries of British
imperialism? Does the SP deny the historical reality of British imperialism?
Unfortunately the SP have a consistent record of ignoring oppression and raising workers unity as a banner to hide behind without mentioning/taking on the state.
Only recently they have argued that the major problem in the North that arisen in the past couple of years has been 'catholic sectarianism'(sic).
Remember Holy Cross, UDA pipe bombs, Short Strand etc etc. The SP then point the finger at those largely on the receiving end.
I swore I wasn't going to get sucked into another row with the various anti-Protestant punters on this list, but the last few posts have been a catalogue of lies and misrepresentations.
1) As "Irony is Dead" should know, the Socialist Party has never argued that "the problem" is Catholic sectarianism. In fact we have always been quite clear that the majority of sectarian attacks are carried out against Catholics.
What we have argued is that over the last few years the biggest *change* in the situation on the ground has been a relative rise in Catholic sectarianism (from a lower starting point) as the conflict turns into a vicious sectarian squabble for territory.
I won't bother complaining about the lack of accuracy from our resident anonymous SWPer. I expect little better. His/her primary occupation here is to smear the Socialist Party and it seems that any lie will do.
2) Of course the Socialist Party is aware of the role of British Imperialism is creating the conflict. I suggest that our other anonymous critic actually has a look at some of the publications we have produced dealing with the situtation in the North. The best starting point is probably our recent pamphlet "Towards Division Not Peace" or the much older book "Beyond the Troubles". The latter is available for free on the Socialist Party website. www.socialistparty.net
3) On the deliberate running down of a 16 year old boy for throwing a stone at a car, I suggest that Pat C take a long hard look at the poison he is spouting. Not that I think it will do much good.
'Anti-Protestant' - complete bull shit. How the fuck can pointing out the nature of a sectarian STATE be equated with anti-protestant. You use an outrageous slander against others on the left to hide quite a disgusting position on the North.
Sectarianism emanates from the state and its structures, and since its the British establishment that is the glue in keeping that state together - then that is where the source of the problem lies.
It is true to say that the end of the provos campaign together with the wholescale adoption of rotten constitutional politics, means that on the ground in republican areas there has been an amount of depoliticisation. This combined with the sectarianism of the state leads to certain 'reactionary' elements.
Cahill is playing with words - change on the ground my arse.....this is how the SP put it:
'If it were necessary to identify the single feature that most clearly distinguished the latter half of the 1990's from what had gone before, that feature would be the rise of Catholic sectariansim'.
The British State, the UDA, the PSNI, the Orange Order, pickets of Holy Cross and Harryville, the shooting of Catholics and Protestants by loyalists, weekly pipe bombings, attacks in interface areas etec etc All these pail in to insignificance by I suppose 'Catholic Sectarianism'.
What next black racism? Female sexism? Gay bigotry?
Get real comrade
"3) On the deliberate running down of a 16 year old boy for throwing a stone at a car, I suggest that Pat C take a long hard look at the poison he is spouting. Not that I think it will do much good."
This "16 yr old" was a member of the UDA ; he was taking part in organised attempt to murder catholics. This was not a child throwing stones; it was a gang of loyalist paramilitaries who wer throwing bricks and metal objects at cars which they identified as catholic.
If they had succeeded in stopping any cars then they would have beaten the occupants to death.
Once again the SP criminalise the victim who struck back and defended herself.
HE WAS A UDA MEMBER BRIAN, NONE OF YOUR PRO-LOYALIST POISON CAN CHANGE THAT FACT.
I think you should look at the poison the SP have been spouting forth here.
Supporting the "right" of the Orange Order to march down the Garvaghy Road. Despite the fact that loyalists have murdrered 12 people to assert that "right".
Refusing to support the Holy Cross children.
Attacking socialists who opposed the loyalist picket at harryville.
I could go on but its quite obvious that "Cahill" is pro-loyalist and his only message to Catholics in the North is "Croppy Lie Down".
"Brian Cahill" has once again made reasoned debate impossible : Anyone who disagrees with the SP line on the North is "Anti Protestant" according to Cahill. Because I highlighted a misrepresentation in a SP leaflet I am "spouting poison".
I reponded to this by pointing out how "Cahill" & SP positions could be seen as pro loyalist. This no doubt will bring cries of outrage from the SP; they can give iot but they cant take it.(Sauce for the goose is sdauce for the gander.)
Surely it should be possible to disagree with the SP on the North without being characterised as Anti Protestant?
This attitude is reminiscent of the Workers Party when Eoghan Harris ruled the roost. If you disagreed with them you were a provo fascist.
The issue at Drumcree was that Protestants should'nt be allowed into catholic areas if the catholics protested. Well Holy Cross is a protestant area and catholics were not wanted, simple!