'Route Irish' Docu Debuts in Dublin Nov 7th

by . Tue Oct 23, 2007 18:43

.

by . Tue Oct 23, 2007 18:47

Click images if u need hi res

by . Tue Oct 23, 2007 19:07

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/68521 : The 'Route Irish' Blog

by . Thu Oct 25, 2007 19:55

Seomra Spraoi
No. 4
Mary's Abbey, (Off Capel Street)
Dublin 1.

by eampnn crudpen Thu Oct 25, 2007 21:29

'Route Irish' (0.9) is a few things.

It is firstly a vérite documentation of the emergence between 2002 and 2004 of a broad popular opposition to the US military use of Shannon Airport in the buildup to, invasion of, and occupation of Iraq.

It follows a loose network of politicians, activist groups and individuals through the story of the rise, fracturing and sudden decline and disappearance of this movement and retraces the way in which their combined efforts, energies and strategies served to effectively tear away the Irish States' veneer of neutrality and non-alignment in the post September 11th era of the 'War on Terror'.

Secondly it is a essayistic reflection asking, from the perspective of one Irish individual caught up in the cycle of protests here, why the international pre-war wave of opposition to the invasion of Iraq appeared so suddenly, peaked so quickly, and failed to sustain itself despite the fact that, in historical terms, all of the predictions of that movement (and worse) were proved right in the course of the ongoing US/UK occupation.

Thirdly it has, because of the progress of political events in Ireland, become a strange and surreal portrait of the Green Party pre their elevation to government.

It's production was made possible by the existence of a pretty comprehensive video archive of the period which was produced by a loose network of Indymedia Ireland related videographers, and which was collected over the course of the events by the editor of the film.

Making this kind of film without a budget would not be possible without the existence of a very strong copyleft ethos throughout the video activist community which has developed here in the last few years alongside the development of Indymedia Ireland and Revolt Video.

In the spirit of that ethos the editor, after this beta screening, will be making copies of the film without the voiceover commentary available to interested parties within the broad activist community which uses and contributes to the development of Revolt Video and Indymedia Ireland. It is hoped that those who disagree with the personal analysis/version of events put forward by 'Route Irish', or find it unsatisfactory, or want to improve it, will take it upon themselves to version* this slice of history.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

Features

Willie O'Dea
John Gormley
Mary Kelly
The Pitstop Ploughshares
Ciaran Cuffe
Edward Horgan
Conor Cregan
Margaretta D'Arcy
Eoin Dubsky
Tim Hourigan
The Black Pope
Terry Leyden
John O'Donoghue
Brian Lenihan
Eamonn McCann
George Bush
Bertie Ahern
Patricia McKenna
Joe Higgins
Michael D Higgins
John Gormley

among others.

by Harry Fan Sat Oct 27, 2007 01:54

Since this doc partly deals with the Pitstop Ploughshares, the following link might be a helpful read. Harry Browne's "Lawful Excuse" published in Dublin Review on the strengths, weaknesses and phenomenon of the PItstop Ploughshares resistance at Shannon, prison time and trials etc.

http://thedublinreview.com/archive/twentyfive/browne.html

by Revolt Video collective Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:41 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

.

by Ciaon O'Reily - Pit Stop Ploughshares Thu Nov 01, 2007 01:50

Hey Folks,

Just landed back from OZ.

Just back from a night at the pub with NVDA anti-war folks and workmates from the shelter where I worked for the last 4 years.

Looking forward to seeing this Route Irish flick.

Here's some snaps of the vigil we have been maintaining at the Enoggera base in my home town of Brisbane. OZ troops are deploying from Enoggera to the U.S wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/brisbane-anti-war-...tan-0

Hope to see y'all Wednesday night

by Ciaron O'Reilly Thu Nov 01, 2007 08:05

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/brisbane-anti-war-...tan-0

by Anto - Loserdom Fri Nov 02, 2007 13:28

hi just wondering how long is the film?

by . Fri Nov 02, 2007 22:32

took 30 mins off in last few days. Hopefully more off tomorrah begorrah. Don't want to keep anyone up past their bedtimes.

by ec Mon Nov 05, 2007 16:57

Really finished this time thank christ. Only took a few years. Just the date of the Bush visit to Shannon to add. It's quite different to the version I handed out a few of already. I'm happy to supply DVD copies to anyone in Ireland who would like to screen it to whatever audience. I would also love to travel to Galway/Derry/Belfast to screen it if anyone with magic powers is reading. Cork/Limerick already asked - god bless them. You can mail me at ecrudden AT gmail DOT com. Should be on the web next week from Monday on. I'll put a link here.

by Sean Crudden Tue Nov 06, 2007 17:06

The best of luck with this screening, Eamonn. Hope everything goes well and that you can overcome any last-minute glitches. And I hope the film is a hit and that lots of people go to see it!

by Seomra'r Tue Nov 06, 2007 17:16

Hers where the Seomra is--

4 Mary's Abbey, Dublin 1. That's a blue door, on the luas tracks, just off Capel st.

From the spire,walk down Abbey street away from the BusAras/Connolly Station side and continue aliong the Luas tracks across Capel Street, the Seomra is on the right as you continue,with a blue door and probably some unsavoury types loitering outside!

The Seomra,now with Blue Door!

by Jimbob Tue Nov 06, 2007 17:35

looking forward to watching it.

I notice that in the list of who features in the film you included John Gormley twice...
presumably, the first one refers to the Anti-War Green Party TD John Gormley, and the second one refers to the Government Minister, and Green Party TD John Gormley, recently silent on Shannon?

also couldn't help notice that ploughshares appears as 'ploghshares' on the poster.
Spell check lads, it ain't that hard!

Beir Bua.

by T Tue Nov 06, 2007 19:28

What time is this film being shown at?. The Seomra Spraoi link has nothing about it. Maybe someone connected with Seomra Spraoi can update their website.

by Seomra'r Tue Nov 06, 2007 19:47

That site isnt used as much anymore,the active Seomra Sproai site can be found at
http://www.seomraspraoi.blogspot.com/
where the full details of the event can be found.
Starting time is at 8pm.

by Kerry Ko Ko Wed Nov 07, 2007 00:03

"Route Irish" will be screened in Tralee this Saturday !!

Saturday 10th November 3pm @ Grand Hotel Tralee

followed by:

"The Israeli Wall"
Two American activists/film-makers set out to explore the impact of
The Wall on Palestinian lives.

"Control Room"
Control Room is a 2004 documentary about the invasion of Iraq and Al
Jazeera TV and the other news organizations that covered it.

by x Wed Nov 07, 2007 02:38

hey, anywhere this can be downloaded or purchased? not interested in going to seomra spraoi.

by redjade Wed Nov 07, 2007 08:04

Also soon to play at Budapest's new anarcho-gaf, Lúgosi Béla Klub
(perhaps next week)

Lúgosi Béla Klub
@ Közért Egyesület
1094 Budapest, Tűzoltó utca
Magyarország/Hungary

by ec Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:14

details will be here when it's available.

by cling film buff Thu Nov 08, 2007 09:57

Anyone see the film last night? Whats it like?

by paul o toole Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:37

Well Done Eamonn, An excellent documentary and record of that part of failed Irish history. A hard watch, I hope there is something we could learn.
Four years of footage of the 'Anti War-movement' which was an honest look at its failings and how and why it failed despite soundings from the leadership stating otherwise.
There were two poinient points of the movie for me.
1. The lack of IAWM support for direct activists, there was not even a mention on FEb 15th 100,000 strong demo, about the five Catholic Workers in Limerick prison, or of Mary Kelly's action in disarming the same plane and being faced with a criminal lawsuit. Further demos continnued to ignore the actions of people who took 'action' rather than just protested, in favour of gaining political credentials over the dead bodies of Iraqi children..
If these actions had have been supported and debated rather than ignored there was a chance the 'movement' could have grown. which brings me to my second point....
2, In the film it was made abundantly clear that our 'war' [as in anti-war]..had ended.... before their war even begun. The focus was to march up and down O'Connell St. from the Dail to The Garden of rememberance....Obviously we remember fuck all...or dont care ...or both

by me Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:07

Anybody else see the film? Be good to read more reviews/overviews.

I hope it didn't treat the 'anti-war movement' as being just the IAWM. Apart from those who engaged in 'direct action' at shannon there were many. many folks who did a lot of hard graft during 2001 thru to 2004. After the Bush visit, the whole anti-war movement just went into a tailspin.

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:08

Well fuck ya Eamonn.

Your incredible film kept me up all bloody night thinking. Now I've gotta go out all grumpy and stuff. I'll be making folks miserable all day...

Keep up the great work man. I hope this work gets the recognition it deserves and indeed the consideration.

by Lara Hill Thu Nov 08, 2007 15:01

I saw the film ‘Route Irish’ in Seomra Spraoi last night. It’s an excellent record of that time in recent history. Over all I came out of the film feeling quite down heartened by the reminder that essentially the resistance had failed. Yet there were moments of encouragement. The actions of a few persistent individuals - Tim and Ed in Shannon, the Pitstop Ploughshares, for example – showed that the conviction and steadfastness of a very small group of people had the potential to focus a nation on the events in Shannon.

The voice over on the film was thought provoking as it called into question the whole motivation behind protest. The narrator was brave enough to consider that possibly it was about us protestors feeling good about ourselves and that by marching for one day we could wash our hands of the war as we chanted ‘Not in my Name’.

It definitely made me think again about my level of commitment to anti-war activism or any type of activism. I had thought about it quite a bit at the time of the Pitstop Ploughshares’ trials. I liked the way Ciaron O’Reilly and other Catholic Workers emphasised that the people who stood in solidarity with the people who took the direct action had an important role to play too. For example, writing to an activist who is in prison because they have taken some direct action can be an equally important support action to the direct action itself.

The narrator is understandably cynical about the politicians who were so vocally anti-war, but who are silent post-election. I think this is fair enough in relation to the Green Party, but Patricia McKenna who featured a bit in the film would stand out as an exception to my mind.

I’d be interested in hearing other peoples reaction to the film. The highest praise I can give it is the fact that I’m now spurred to attend the anti-war march this Saturday!

by anon Thu Nov 08, 2007 15:47

But isn't the "anti-war march" that you're spurred on to attend exactly what was being criticised? Marches to nowhere in Dublin, while no mobilisation happens in Shannon, to listen to show-boating speeches from people who are afraid to really rock the boat.

by Lara Hill Thu Nov 08, 2007 16:30

I don't think the film really criticised the anti-war march. I think it questioned the motivation of anti-war marches which was good. I think there are lots of different ways to express dissent and what I was saying in my comment is that there is also a place for less radical demonstrations which is what you might term 'a walk around Dublin'. I think the film criticised the short-lived euphoria around the anti-war movement. This is why I am convicted to go on the march on Saturday, because the rush and energy and buzz of the initial anti-war protesting is over, but the atrocities continue. This is also what I meant about steadfastness and persistence being so important in activism. It's struck me in my own main area of activism (community gardening) that what is more important than horticultural knowledge or skill with a spade is stubborn faithfulness - just showing up every week.

by anon - awi (definitely pers cap) Thu Nov 08, 2007 17:01

I take your point, but is it just about "stubborn faithfulness"? The likes of Richard Boyd Barrett and Roger Coal have certainly shown "stubborn faithfulness" in their adherence to the anti-war movement, but in my view they and those that think like them badly held back the movement at times when it needed to step up a gear. Isn't it more about adopting tactics that are effective and being open to challenging the state with direct action and civil disobedience? Marches are necessary (and should be attended) but are they any where near enough?

House-broken 'protesters' who always want to be attractive to moderates (in action and thought) never challenge the state and as a result never make headway. Surely we need to move beyond that?

by Denver The last Dinosaur Thu Nov 08, 2007 18:01

Any Chance of "Route Irish" being put on video google or something for people not in the country?????

by redjade Thu Nov 08, 2007 18:33

come back to this page in the coming days and you will see this option and other available to you.

personally, i pledge to keep a bittorrent seed of this available for a long time.

anyone else to pledge the same?

by Denver The last Dinosaur Thu Nov 08, 2007 20:25

ok i'll check back! I really cant wait to see this movie. Sounds like its deadly!

by . Thu Nov 08, 2007 23:37

Deadly indeed.

by . Fri Nov 09, 2007 00:30

> Isn't it more about adopting tactics that are effective and being open to challenging
> the state with direct action and civil disobedience? Marches are necessary (and
> should be attended) but are they any where near enough?

isnt there another question as to why the direct action/anarchist/grassroot tendency gave up on direct action(s) at shannon

and why actions like this always coat tailed onto more mainstream protests and marches at the same date rather than doing their own thing

and why they gave out about the swp/iawm doing nothing but then evaporated into nothing themselves, even after stuff like rendition flights became public

by Lara Hill Fri Nov 09, 2007 09:05

With reference to an earlier comment by anon:

“but in my view they and those that think like them badly held back the movement at times when it needed to step up a gear.”

This is an interesting take to think that certain people can hold back a movement. It wouldn’t even have occurred to me that people could be restrained by a ‘leader’ when or if they felt convicted to take an action. Maybe it’s because I’ve never belonged to any movement or political party? If I have ever taken any action of industrial sabotage or civil disobedience (and you understand I’m not saying on-line that I have), it would have been after I had taken my own counsel and acted in accordance with strongly held convictions. At the end of the day we all have to answer to our own consciences and take responsibility for our own actions so I don’t think you can blame Richard Boyd Barret or anyone else for holding back a movement.

”House-broken 'protesters' who always want to be attractive to moderates (in action and thought) never challenge the state and as a result never make headway.”

I disagree with your comment that “moderate action” doesn’t challenge the state. I thought the footage in the film of the marchers protesting and sitting down at the gates of Leinster House portrayed a strong challenge to the state. The actions taken by Mary Kelly or the Pitstop Ploughshares may be stronger challenges to the state, but both forms of protest are nevertheless challenges to the state and I don’t think ‘moderate’ actions should be dismissed or that the two forms of protest are mutually exclusive. I read an essay recently by Susan George and she used this really nice quote by a Buddhist thinker whose name escapes me now: “Above all, do not compete”. It’s very simple, but pretty powerful. She was using it in relation to neo-liberal economics, but I think it can be applied to the different forms of anti-war dissent.

by anon - awi (def pers cap) Fri Nov 09, 2007 09:49

"It wouldn’t even have occurred to me that people could be restrained by a ‘leader’ when or if they felt convicted to take an action. "

This is in an interesting perspective but not really rooted in reality. When protesters on a demonstration in Shannon or anywhere else face yellow-jacketed stewards whose job it is to prevent things 'going too far', then restraint is being used. But that's not the type of restraint I'm referring too (though it happens). I'm talking about the 'manufacture of consent' within social movements, whereby those speaking from the platforms (the 'respected leaders' etc.) pursue a line that frowns upon any action that goes beyond marching through Dublin and issuing statements to the media. Your suggestion is that people will do their own thing anyway, but that's not really true - some people will (and then might be disowned by the 'leadership'), but most will, in the interests of unity, follow what appears to be the agreed, dominant or hegemonic position within the movement. That's not because they are sheep, but because they consent to a 'common strategy' and don't want to be 'divisive' or seen as head-the-balls.

A good example was Richard Boyd Barrett and the IAWM's attitude to direct action at Shannon. They did almost nothing to support people like Mary Kelly and the Pitstop Ploughshares when they were before the courts. On February 15th 2003, with 100,000 in front of them in Dublin, and the Pitstop Ploughshares in jail in Limerick, they made not one mention of the imprisoned activists. That's disapproval. That sends a message. That's saying that 'moderation' is the way to go; direct action at Shannon is iffy. Likewise, they later either condemned (March 1st) or undermined (the blockade) attempts at mass direct action and civil disobedience at Shannon.

So, yes, don't compete. But what does that mean for the 'moderates'? Do they not compete and attempt to undermine other strategies and tactics? Of course they do! All the time. And then is it wrong for us to raise our voices against their determined efforts to contain the movement (such as it is now)? I don't think so. We shouldn't get into competition with people that want to protest by walking around Dublin or whatever (that has a role too), but we need to be clear that it's not enough.

It's all very well people saying everybody should just get on, but there were very different strategies at issue back in 2003 and the likes of Richard Boyd Barrett etc. did use their prominence to rein in the movement and to marginalise good people like Mary Kelly and the Pitstop Ploughshares. And, yeah, they were ignored in 2003 and later by the so-called 'mainstream' anti-war movement. Of course, some of those that the IAWM were very anxious to keep on board - the Greens - are now in government and overseeing the use of Shannon airport as a US military warport.

by Eoin D Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:46

Congratulations and thanks are due to Eamon for putting this together. I'm eager to download it, and will watch this thread for when people start seeding it on bittorrent or elsewhere online.

I think "." is on the money (http://indymedia.ie/article/84775#comment211843) when s/he notes that the non-moderates (radicals, anarchists, etc.) also dropped off the map. If I remember correctly, the "all sizzle no steak" phenomena was even greater in that camp, than it ever was among the moderates (well naturally -- the moderates never threatened to smash or stop anything by hand). But we shouldn't let that bother us.

Here's a question I've got -- having only read the intro and comments above, not seen the film yet: Will the Irish Left use ''Route Irish'' for navel-gazing, or will it be used to help move on, rebuild, etc?

by anon Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:14

First off I agree that the 'non-moderates' also dropped off the map - or left the country. Not all, I hasten to add. Some hung in there and are still there. Most disappeared though and must be taken on board and considered.

Eoin D sez: "Will the Irish Left use ''Route Irish'' for navel-gazing, or will it be used to help move on, rebuild, etc?"

What do you define as 'navel gazing'? Of course we need to rebuild and 'move on' but only an idiot doesn't learn lessons from the immediate past. And that's definitely not the same as saying people should get hung up on stuff that happened.

by Lara Hill Fri Nov 09, 2007 14:41

To anon, thanks for your comment. I wasn’t really aware that there was a pointed marginalisation of those who had taken direct action by those who decided it against it (although it makes more sense now that there were so few people at the Spire and the Four Courts supporting the Ploughshares). Yet as a bruised optimist I am wary of focusing on the division between the moderates and non-moderates. One reason for this is that a moderate could at any time become radicalised. I think we are all evolving all the time in our political beliefs.

With reference to your comment,

“but what does that mean for the 'moderates'? Do they not compete and attempt to undermine other strategies and tactics? Of course they do! All the time. And then is it wrong for us to raise our voices against their determined efforts to contain the movement (such as it is now)?”

please take consolation in the fact that as a current moderate I fully support those who take more radical actions and I don’t think I’m alone.

by anon Fri Nov 09, 2007 15:07

I agree.

Also, I think that the dichomy of 'moderates' and 'non-moderates' may not always be the best because, in reality, most people are neither until confronted by issues and choices. Really, with regard to the anti-war movement - it's about appropriate tactics and strategies, and disagreements about these.

Optimism is essential.

by ec Fri Nov 09, 2007 17:44

thanks to everyone who showed up - it was great (nervewracking) to show it to a full house on its first night out

thanks to indymedia for plastering event notice on every page - very effective

thanks to ciaron O'reilly for introducing it

thanks to seomra spraoi for the venue and grub.

thanks to b. from revolt for putting time into getting screening to happen

thanks to those who took the time to give me feedback about it afterwards

thanks for all of the offers and ideas I got to help distribute it effectively - i'll be back on to yiz next week after I mix the sound a little better.

Anyone who wants to support these kinds of events being possible in dublin and ireland should take the time to donate a few dollars to revolt video / seomra spraoi or indymedia.ie

by Ciaron O'Reilly - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Nov 09, 2007 18:42

Good evening and welcome to "Route Irish".
Many thanx to Seoma Spraoi for the space and Eamonn for putting the film together and all those who contributed.

"Route Irish" is the name given by the U.S. military to the road that leads from Baghdad Airport to downtown Baghdad.

I'm introducing this film as one of the Pitstop Ploughshares whpo along with Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon and Damien Moran disabled a U.S. navy war plane at Shannon Airport. We were put on trial three times at the Four Courts and acquitted of $2.5 million criminal damage. www.peaceontrial.com

In Australia, where I've just come from, we have a ritual of acknowledging the traditional custodians whenever we open a public meeting. It's a good way to place a gathering in a context. I like to acknowledge the context in which we gather tonight. We gather in Dublin, less than a hundred years ago Dublin looked a like Baghdad looks today. With Black and Tan death squads operating, with locals being interrogated and tortured in Dublin Castle. Indeed many of the torture techniques used in Iraq today were developed in the north of Ireland in the 1970's - the use of internment, body stress positions, sleep deprivation etc The Phoienix claims over 1,000 former RUC and Northern Ireland prison officers work as mercenaries in Iraq.

When do we gather? We gather in the 5th. year of this war on the people of Iraq that has claimed over 1 million Iraqi lives, mostly noncombatant women and children, according to the Lancett Report. It has created 4.5 million Iraqi refugees, internally and externally, and over 3,500 young Americans - most who passed through avery small departure lounge at Shannon Airport - have returned in body bags. Over 20,000 U.S. military have been evacuated with serious injuries. It is a time when there is massive silence - media, church, trade union, academy - around the issues of Irish involvement in this ongoing war.

The war has become very real and personal to me. Once I met Iraqi refugees, Cindy Sheehan & Rose Gentle who both lost children in Iraq, Jimmy Massey, Kelly Dougherty & Joshua Casteel who live with the trauma of their role in the war it becomes very personal and real, no longer a TV abstraction. A guy I spent an evening drinking with in London in 2002 got a job with Bechtel flying in Iraq, commiting suicide on his return - one of the many suffering with post traumatic stress.

The war escalates in Iraq. It expands into Lebanon, where our friends Caoimhe Butterly and Michael Birmingham continue to work. It expands into a a freefall in Pakistan which may conclude with a nuclear exchange with India. The U.S. wishes to expand it into Iran. The war escalates and expands and the anti-war movement has evaporated, leaving a remant of activists.

"Route Irish" is a film that deals not primarily with the war but with the rise and fall of the anti-war movement in Ireland. Like Harry Browne's book (to be published by Counterpunch in '08) "Hammered by the Irish" dealing with the Pitstop Ploughshares, the film has a strong theme of "disappointment". My father, who left Ireland in 1949, watched the unedited version of "Route Irish" and expressed great disappointment in the Irish response to this war and serioius resistance to it. Why such a disppointment? Disappointment is linked directly to expectation. I think because the world expects a lot more of the Irish when it comes to opposing or not collaborating with the imperialist endeavour that is built on the slaying of innocent children. Then again I have a lot more expectations of young people and people with long hair - so I could be wrong on all 3 counts!

My disappointment in relation to the quick collapse of the anti-war movement was tempered by my experiences in United States during the first Gulf War in 1991. On that occasion there was a huge pre-war anti-war movement (the numbers had only been matched by the anti-Vietnam War movement after 10,000 U.S. fatalities!) But the movement got on the streets in the later part of 1990/early '91 and chanted "No More Vietnams!" meaning no more American lives sacrificed on foreign battlefields. They tried to mobilise on the basis of fear and anxiety, President George Bush Sr. got up on the eve of the war and declared I agree with the piece movement "this won't be another Vietnam!" and delivered the equivalent of 8 Hiroshimas on Iraq. Two weeks into Bush Sr.'s bombing campaign the anti-war movement evaporated from the streets. Four of us were imprisoned at the time for disarming a B-52 Bomber in New York. We were to use two of those hammers 12 years later at Shannon Airport.

When the ground war ended in March '91, the war morphed into a war by sanctions that went on to kill over 1 million Iraqi children under the age of 5. Even though I had spent 13 months in jail for resistance to the war I too became disengaged in the '90's. It was only the like of Kathy Kelly and "Voices in the Wilderness" who directly resisted the sanctions that kept going appealing to the rest of us on behalf of the children of Iraq.

The movement collapsed this time because it failed to move from cpdependent protest to nonviolent resistance. I believe if 1% of those who marched against this war had gone into direct nonviolent resistance in the spirit of King and Ghandi to the point of imprisonment .....and the other 99% who marched against this war did not go home to watch it unfold on TV but offered proactive practical solidarity to the resistance then the western governments would have had a difficult time waging it and we would have a vibrant movement today.

The more solidarity there is, the easier the resistance will be. Resistance and solidarity were sabotaged in Ireland by media lies and movement censorship. Mainstream media lied about the Ploughshares saying we had assaulted and hospitalised a Garda. The Garda testified three times under oath that we had comforted him during a stress attack. Yet the slander by the two government ministers, repeated by others was never retracted.

There were those who lead the movement who saw the war merely as a marketting opportunity to lift their media profile, sell their newspapers and recruit to their organisations. They had no intention of seriously enaging the war or supporting those who were willing to resist. They actively sought to censor and marginalise the resistance. And there were those, many in this room tonight, who resisted and sustained the resistance. The resister gifted their liberty. And the gifts were returned by nmany in this room and around the world in terms of hospitality, transport, music financial, grunt work etc.

Welcome to "Route Irish".

by Deirdre Clancy - Former Pitstops Sat Nov 10, 2007 01:12

I was just reading the debate between Lara and anon and found it interesting. This partially because I agreed with about 99% of what Lara wrote and perhaps about 80% of what 'anon' wrote, even though 'anon' was purporting to take the part of people like me who had done the NVDA. For this reason, i have a few comments to add to the debate, unrelated to the film, which I hope to see soon.

I do tend to think a large part of activism is basically just showing up regularly and not being flaky (which, frankly, is a tall order at times in Ireland!). Only a small part of doing a radical-style action is actually radical as such. The rest of the time you're being taken through the legal system, mostly minding your Ps and Qs, in order to give your legal team a chance to do their jobs without any courtroom hassle. You or your supporters may have the urge to clock the judge, but you can't. That sort of thing. The Pitstop Ploughshares were very lucky in various respects (though our ultimate victory in court was also partly down to a series of decisions we made as a group).

Although our case dragged on for a long time, we had a certain sense of trust that we would get the best outcome possible because those speaking on our behalf were representing us in a way we found appropriate and never jarring. Others who do NVDA aren't always so lucky. But for most of the time, we literally just showed up at hearings and every day during trials, firstly at the Spire and then in the courtroom. At times, it was all we could do as a group, because we were all very different people with very different ideas and lifestyles. But staying faithful was just as much a part of NVDA for me as 'challenging the state'. Lara is right about that, and it applies as much to any type of activism.

There is no hierarchy in my head about types of activism. Something that appears moderate can actually create deep, long-term change - and often, it's the quiet, persistent people who ultimately cause the shift in our thinking. Similarly, it is not always appropriate, personally or politically, to do NVDA. This is also a deeply personal thing, but at times leftist activism is so mired in dogma it doesn't discuss the personal. Those in the throes of NVDA should never berate those within activism who aren't. Moderation is sometimes the right thing for people on a personal level. This is certainly the case for me at the moment and for the foreseeable future. I am still dealing with the after-effects of three years in the court system - nobody warns you about the psychological effects of being regarded as the offscourings of society for a period of years. Activists may feign bravado around such issues, but they should be talked about more. Everyone's True North is different at different times in their lives. There's also no point in trying save lives if you can't smell the roses yourself - it becomes meaningless if you don't have some sense that life is pleasurable and worth living. There are many burnt out NVDA activists out there. However, I always believed and continue to believe that the Pitstop Ploughshares were supposed to act when we did.

What 'anon' says about elements of the anti-war movement undermining NVDA activists is actually quite true. It can happen quite subtly, but it does happen. And certainly, I found that when the whole process was over and an acquittal gained, some of the reactions were bizarre. On a personal level, I have also experienced some strange reactions to the action from within the anti-war movement. This has included - and after the acquittal - being berated for what I had done to my 'life' (I think that's my choice, and in fact there were many joyful times during our witness) and being told that the action was 'strategically unwise' (this, from someone who defined themselves as a militant). A monk once told me that this was people's own projections and insecurities. It usually is, and it's often mixed in with whatever political dogma they currently subscribe to. It doesn't bother me much - I shrug it off at this stage. But it's important to name it for what it is. I have had more acceptance from what anon calls political 'moderates' in my family and beyond, who may not agree with what I did but who respect my right to follow what my conscience told me at a given time in my life.

I think it's important for people like 'anon' to realise that those who do moderate actions faithfully over a long period of time are contributing just as much. The quality of the action and the attitude with which it's done is more important than the thing itself. It's rather Zen I know, but it's the only way to go. If you get hung up on the details and dogma too much, you're a goner.

by anon Sat Nov 10, 2007 14:47

Deirdre, I never 'purported' to speak on behalf of you. That's a cheap shot. Where? I spoke on behalf of myself. With regard to 'dogma', the Catholic Worker has a fairly tight view of things too, doesn't it? 'Bearing witness', etc. etc. People in glass houses...

Anyway, at no stage did I suggest that 'moderates' should be dumped on or that they were engaged in worthles activity. What I did say, was that in my judgement the strategy put forward by the 'mainstream' anti-war movement was deficient and mere marches and show-boating speeches were never going to rock the resolve of the Aherne government. I stand by everyhting I said in my comments, so I'm not going to repeat them.

by Joe Sat Nov 10, 2007 16:31

Back a few comments '.' made a couple of points about one of the other poles of the anti-war movement

and why actions like this always coat tailed onto more mainstream protests and marches at the same date rather than doing their own thing

This isn't accurate. In fact the all the early significant protests at Shannon were Grassroots Gathering related one.

The report of the second at http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/shannonAUG.html was in August 2002

There was another one (or two?) GG ones in December 2002 - http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/shannonDEC.html
and
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2001/shannonDEC.html

Of course when there was an IAWM protest at Shannon the GG people went along as well, we didn't suffer from any sort of crazy sectarianims in that regard.

And in case there is any confusion the GG March 1st protest was called for that date before the IAWM called a protest for that date.

isnt there another question as to why the direct action/anarchist/grassroot tendency gave up on direct action(s) at shannon

I don't think there is any mystery around this, The GG argument was not that one form of protest was more morally valid than the rest but rather than direct action could be more effective. But the emphasis was on mass direct action. Much of what was written in advance of March 1st said that it was going to be the highpoint - the decline of the anti-war movement once we had not stopped the war starting was predictable. eg Writen in late February 2003 under the title of If not now when
"This coming war has got to be the least popular since World War One, which was also preceded by massive international demonstrations. Unfortunately in that war it was felt 'premature' to take action in advance of the war and when it broke out most, under the enormous pressures of war, took the side of 'their state'. "
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/FEBwhen.html

Of course there were various GG mobilisations at Shannon during the following year as well (eg Dec 2003 - http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/shannonDEC.html ) but even at the time it was clear that in terms of mass action the moment of possibility of early 2003 had been allowed to pass.

by A Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:06

The filmed failed to mention the 4 U.S. companies transporting troops thorugh Ireland pulling out in response to Mary Kelly and Catholic Workers actions. The U.S. embassy made this connection at the time.

A mass occupation of the runway might have meant gameover as the yanks dismissied the Irish state as unable to secure the facility. This of course was sabotaged by the Greens, SWP et al - March 1st

Why theanarchists all lined up in one spot to breach the fence is also a mystery....maybe they should have spread out. Any significant numbers airside near the runway would have meant the airport closed down and traffic redirected etc.

by Seán Ryan Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:32

The film did mention the carriers pulling out.

by B Sun Nov 11, 2007 15:55

Why theanarchists all lined up in one spot to breach the fence is also a mystery....maybe they should have spread out. Any significant numbers airside near the runway would have meant the airport closed down and traffic redirected etc.

but they did spread out, and kicked their legs in the air.

by Deirdre Clancy - Former PSP Sun Nov 11, 2007 19:20

'Deirdre, I never 'purported' to speak on behalf of you. That's a cheap shot.'

I didn't actually say you spoke on anyone's behalf. I said you 'took the part of' direct action, and it was clearly meant in a more general sense. And clearly, you were taking the part of direct action and direct actionists over and against more mainstream forms of resistance. How on earth is it a 'cheap shot' to say you were doing that? If you stand by your comments, as you say, then I have no idea why you'd regard it as a shot at all, cheap or otherwise.

'Where? I spoke on behalf of myself. With regard to 'dogma', the Catholic Worker has a fairly tight view of things too, doesn't it? 'Bearing witness', etc. etc. People in glass houses...'

The bit about dogma was not related to your post - if you read my post carefully, you may have actually noticed that (or maybe not). And as for 'bearing witness' - how on earth is that dogmatic? Because it has a theological ring to it, is that it? It's a term used by many activist and human rights groups, both faith based and non-faith based. And some of the best and least dogmatic human rights groups are very much faith based (some of the worst too, but let's try to be balanced here).

You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Worker. It is a very diverse movement. There is a Catholic Worker in the US consisting mostly of Buddhists; there is one for dying gay men, run by gay men. Many volunteers in Catholic Worker houses are agnostics and athiests who actually just admire the principles of the movement. So no, the Catholic Worker doesn't have a 'tight' view of things, though you may find individual Catholic Workers who do, just as you will in any movement. And I will put my hands up and admit that I have met a couple of them with dogmatic views, including an individual who thought people had no right to do direct action unless they had spent twenty years daily serving soup to the poor. Pharisaical stuff, I will admit. However, these people are the exception to the rule, and exist in every social movement.

The Catholic Worker is one of the most diverse movements in the history of social movements. It is wildly accommodating of different worldviews, ethnicities, sexual orientations and theological positions. It has no centralised power handing down instructions and believes in very localised forms of democracy. This is probably one of the main reasons that it has survived and thrived for so long since its foundation in 1933.

'Anyway, at no stage did I suggest that 'moderates' should be dumped on or that they were engaged in worthles activity. What I did say, was that in my judgement the strategy put forward by the 'mainstream' anti-war movement was deficient and mere marches and show-boating speeches were never going to rock the resolve of the Aherne government.'

I didn't attribute such comments to you - again, read my post carefully and you will find that nowhere did I do so. However, you did set up direct action in opposition to mainstream demos and implied the former was superior. This approach is not one I agree with - as someone who has participated in NVDA. It can be more effective, yes. But not necessarily and not always, and it depends on the context, intention and motivation behind the action.

'I stand by everyhting I said in my comments, so I'm not going to repeat them.'

I didn't expect you to retract your comments, nor to repeat them(?!) Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by the need for this line at all.

by POW! Sun Nov 11, 2007 19:31

Agnostically speaking I bore witness at:-
St Patrick's Cathedral.
Tara.
The 1916 Military Parade.
Sometimes the detractors of campaigns and the nasty little trolls (who have calculators)
tend to just like to bait activists, Deirdre, Pay no mind to them. I have enjoyed your actions and
listening to your testimony over a few years.

Now, we should all be speaking about how we are witnessing a corrupt and divided society
based in denial and war.

by Deirdre - Former PSP Sun Nov 11, 2007 23:37

In fairness to 'anon', I'm not sure troll is the right word. There was a fairly legitimate debate happening, which seemed to get a bit skewed when anon cited what I argued incorrectly (wilfull misinterpretation, perhaps, which was a little troll-like, because anon is fairly articulate). However, overall, I don't think she/he was a troll as such. Trolls generally engage in very personalised attacks when their arguments are demolished by others. This is just someone with a very strong line on direct action, and I felt there was no need to polarise demos and such actions.

It's not that I don't think arrestable actions are effective, as I said. The actions at Shannon (not just ours, but collectively) actually had a very concrete effect on the war machine and inconvenienced it quite seriously in certain respects. Three important companies pulled out of Shannon and diverted to Prestwick for a significant period of time post our action. However, demos also achieve something.

I can understand anon's strength of feeling, in the sense that there are people in the mainstream anti-war movement who don't actually acknowledge the effectiveness in many ways of the Shannon actions. They have a lot invested in keeping the movement 'respectable', as they see it, perhaps for reasons of personal and/or political career ambition; the present-day equivalent of Castle Catholics, perhaps. I find these people annoying too. But we shouldn't let this blind us to the fact that demos are also effective and important, along with various other forms of protest that don't result in arrest and criminal charges. There are many activists who were supportive of the direct actions at Shannon who actually engage in the non-arrestable forms of resistance, and over time these things can have a huge effect.

by anon Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:37

Deirdre, you very clearly critiqued my contribution by indicating that I, a mere nobody, 'purported' to represent the views of direct actionists and that you, as a former direct actionist, repudiated this. First off you are in no position to repudiate anything - you're not the only person to do direct action and suffer arrest - and second my view is that of somebody who has many times engaged in direct action over the years and been arrested many times as well. I have a point of view about what is and isn't politically effective and its based on experience.

Your condescending remark about me knowing nothing about the Catholic Worker movement is well wide of the mark. I know plenty about it. Where you speak of 'dogma' on the left, I can equally, and with justification speak of religious dogma and moralism in the Catholic worker tradition.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on these things.

by Suggestion Mon Nov 12, 2007 13:20

Maybe you should both wait to see the film before resuming this debate. This stream could be very valuable as people who view the film come back to it and make comment. It seems to have got sidetracked with your debate etc

by Deirdre Clancy - Former PSP Mon Nov 12, 2007 14:04

"Deirdre, you very clearly critiqued my contribution by indicating that I, a mere nobody, 'purported' to represent the views of direct actionists and that you, as a former direct actionist, repudiated this. First off you are in no position to repudiate anything - you're not the only person to do direct action and suffer arrest - and second my view is that of somebody who has many times engaged in direct action over the years and been arrested many times as well. I have a point of view about what is and isn't politically effective and its based on experience."

Okay, now I will say you're a troll. First off, I never said you were a 'nobody'. Second, I am as entitled to critique your comments as you are to express them. Thirdly, I never said I was the only person to do direct action, and in fact in my second posting referred to the Shannon actions in the collective sense. Fourthly, how can I have expressed the view that you were a 'mere nobody' when in fact you're not posting under you name? I never used the words 'mere nobody', but also, it's a nonsense to suggest I even gave that impression when you are posting anonymously land I have no way of knowing who you are (though, at this stage, and based on previous experiences of combative trolls who interpret any disagreement with their views and insult, I would say I could make a few guesses at this stage).

"Your condescending remark about me knowing nothing about the Catholic Worker movement is well wide of the mark. I know plenty about it. Where you speak of 'dogma' on the left, I can equally, and with justification speak of religious dogma and moralism in the Catholic worker tradition. "

The remark wasn't condescending - it was actually just true. You basically said the Catholic Worker was dogmatic, and I provided ample factual information to the contrary. Anyone who regards the Catholic Worker as dogmatic and 'tight' clearly knows nothing about the history of the movement. Given that you don't even have the guts to post under your own name, you can perhaps excuse me for expressing a certain scepiticism about your ability to speak 'with justification' about anything to do with the Catholic Worker. Not knowing who you are, clearly I can't know what that 'justification' is. Come out and admit who you are, and outline your experience of the Catholic Worker, then perhaps I might take you more seriously. Until then, I differ from you and have every right to do so.

by Deirdre Clancy Mon Nov 12, 2007 14:10

'Suggestion', I agree with you. However, the debate is about direct action at Shannon, one of the subjects of the film, and I joined a debate that was already taking place. I think it's fair enough to respond to comments that wilfully misinterpret what one says and/or interpret disagreement as somehow insulting or condescending. I've had this experience before on Indymedia, whereby upon disagreeing with somebody, the person in question referred to me as having a 'superiority complex'. It's usually when the person is losing the debate, and they start to personalise it, as well as changing the goal posts. It's either moderation or peer review on Indymedia. I chose peer review. I think that's valid, particularly as the debate is about the subject matter of the film.

by anon Mon Nov 12, 2007 14:26

My final word is that it was I who called myself a "mere nobody". I, I, I, irony. Didn't accuse Deirdre of any such horendous crime.

Relax, lads.

I must say, though, that I seriously beg to differ about who's personalising what was a discussion on the effectiveness or otherwise of direct action but sure.......Any careful reading of what I wrote will show that, contrary to misintrepretation, I never said the 'moderates' were wasting their time. I pointed out that there were more effective ways to proceed. That's all.

by an teach ban Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:35

The White House has been ordered to preserve all emails by a judge in advance of cases
against it by two groups, the judge's move was criticised by the Bush regime who say that
they would never destroy documents (just people, ideas and principles).

[Irelandcom breaking news]

by Aragon Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:03

Having become familiar with your style over time, I think people do sometimes misinterpret your meaning/motive. Maybe it's about tone rather than substance? Don't see anything to warrant the criticism of you about your original post, above, though.

Some people on Indymedia do regularly accuse others of not being genuine or 'proper' activists and it's so divisive and needlessly unpleasant. Everyone does what they can from their own convictions and to the best of their ability. Why must there be this non-stop bitching from certain people about it?. A little more humility and camaraderie wouldnt go amiss at times. As you rightly say, D, all forms of protest have their place in the scheme of things - none is exclusively 'the best'. Let's remember where the focus of our attention should be - united in a challenge to the warmongers.

The anti-war movement was defeated by the US government and its allies - they ignored the UN, they lied about the case for war in Afghanistan and Iraq (as they are doing now about Iran) and the Irish government rode roughshod over the constitution. It wasnt described as 'shock and awe' for nothing. The equivalent of 8 Horishimas has been unleased on Iraq in air strikes alone. Everybody caved in before this shocking and nakedly vicious assault - understandably stunned by what they were witnessing. It's hardly surprising if people felt overwhelmed by the unprecedented scale and viciousness of the aggression. Everything seemed futile in the face of that for a while but it seems people are beginning to recover their nerve and determination and have come to terms with the full horror of what the real enemy is doing. The monster has an underbelly which can be assaulted effectively if we cooperate. Let's blame the people who are really responsible.

This video is timely - it's helped people who had become discouraged to confront their malaise and its causes. If that could be built on it would be great. How about a big national anti war meeting of some kind at which it was strictly forbidden to criticise other people's tactics??? What can be done to bring people together as constructively as possible?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:44

Good suggestions . Following Last Saturday's demo some of us in the iawm think that it'd be a good idea to organise a series of local/regional meetings till Christmas, open to all, and have a national anti-war meeting early in the next year to discuss strategy and the way forward.
Our first such meeting is taking place next Thursday 15th, 8pm in the Teachers Club. The second meeting is planned for Galway (date and venue to be confirmed.
All welcome.
Agenda of the meeting posted in http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85034

by Aragon Tue Nov 13, 2007 22:49

Michael Y

I dont for a moment doubt your personal committment and sincerity where the anti war movement is concerned. But it would be ostrich-like in the extreme for the IAWM not to recognise at this point that it has a real and genuine credibility problem where the anti war movement is concerned. That is not to say that the IAWM has been wrong in all it has done. But it is not likely to be the group around which the anti war movement will be able to unify, It would be courageous and gracious if tne IAWM would come to terms with that. Especially so if defeating the war is your true objective.

by Harry Browne - awi Wed Nov 14, 2007 13:10

Any sign of the film getting an online 'release'? I'm happy to join redjade in swearing to seed a torrent (or words to that effect).

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 14, 2007 13:49

Thank you for the good words Aragon. The type of organisational shift forward necessary for the variety of active (and not-so-active) anti war collectives needs a lot of discussion, patience and debate - not separated from but along activity in the streets, the communities and workplaces. My personal stance at the moment is that if we, all of us nationally, are to move forward, we need to make the hard decision to commit to a process of coalescence and unification....not, necessarily, around one specific pole but in a wider collectivity.
The issue of 'credibility' is of import but not in a one-way sense. Hard to pinpoint with exactitude, at the moment, which of the three or four genuinely active setups enjoys full credibility and political coherence. There are respected individuals OK but very often they swim in muddy and unclear waters, trying desperately to keep afloat - 2-3 from the Green Party would be a good example of that category. Others, with a good history, seem to have taken a back seat - momentarily?
It is my personal opinion that those of us in the iawm, some members of the SWP and about 15-20 of us not, along with our comrades in Derry, in Galway, in the Midlands, in Cork and in Tralee are continuing to be active - AND OPEN TO DISCUSSION.
The fact that the Steering Committee has recently been joined by a member of Eirigi, a member of the Socialist Party, possibly a member of Labour Youth very soon, what does it show? At a bare minimum it must indicate that a number of us, and the organisations we represent, are willing to overcome this famous 'credibility' question, unite in action and move forward.
We are here and ready to open our eyes having had them (inadvertendly?) closed for a while. Any offers? Think of an ostrich, Aragon, waking up....and if it decides to run, watch the spectacle. Magic!

by on the ball Wed Nov 14, 2007 16:13

Reply from Michael Y not hopeful re the sentiments you expressed so well

by Ciaron Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:42

At a point in the film "Route Irish" it is noted the that the Berrigans are evoked by the emerging Catholic Worker movement in Ireland. "The War Stops Here! Phil Berrigan R.I.P." was spraypainted on the aeroplane wing scultpure at the entrance of Shannon Airport, the pool in which it is set is dyed red and photos of Iraqi chidren dying under the U.S. imposed sanctions are posted on the wing sculpture. This action happened a few days after the death of Phil Berrigan. (early Dec '02)

Phil Berigan had done most to move the Catholic Worker movement from a passive conscientious objection position to a more proactive nonviolence praxis in resistance to the Vietnam War. The groundwork for the plowshares actions www.plowsharesactions.org of the '80's and '90's and now coming to Shannon was laid by the Berrigan led raid on the draft board in Catonsville, Maryland, in 1968. Nine people walked into a Selective Service Office, took hundreds ofdraft files from a cabinet, took them outside, doused them with homemade napalm and burned them in the name of peace. Footage on link here.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3SHRc-NTrk

The radical Catholic pacifist draft board raids spread across the country in resistance to the Vietnam War. The FBI infiltrated one group in New Jersey and a conspiracy net was thrown out with 28 arrested. A recent PBS documentary revists the trial of the Camden 28

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2007/camden28/index.html

A play was written by Fr. Dan Berrigan SJ, recently revisted in the context on the war on Iraq. "The Trial of The Catonsville Nine" was first performed in 1971 by a cast that included Beau Bridges, Anthony Zerbe and directed by Gordon Davidson. These three men returned to reprise their roles in the play and were joined by a multi-generational, all-star ensemble including Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins, Sandra Oh, Camryn Mannheim, Neil Patrick
Harris, Jason Ritter, Frances Conroy, Keith Carradine, Mike Farrell, Tonya Pinkins, and Dakin Matthews. Performance benefitted the Actors' Gang and Office of the Americas.Interviews by: Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Sandra Oh, Jeremy Piven, and more...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-75332475427793...dex=1

The Pitstop Ploughshares action that seemed to shock the Irish anti-war movement as much as the Irish and U.S. governments comes form praxis developing over the past 4 decades.

by Richard Wed Nov 21, 2007 13:50

hi,

I couldn't make it to the screening.
Does anyone know the bit torrent link for the film?

Thanks,

R

by redjade Fri Nov 23, 2007 15:12

Nov 30 2007
more details to come

The Flyer

the .pdf of the flyer 0.37 Mb