Dev and Chauncey's Big Irish Debate or something

[Chauncey Gardner]

hmmm...some good points...but I think a few of your points are lacking in balance and your overall take on the real threat of fascism is flawed. for example....joe Public also learnt

a) Nick Griffin was/is a holocaust denier
b) Nick griffin thinks the klu klux klan was a non violent organisation (or to use griffins words) "I shared a stage with David Duke...who was a leader of a klu klux klan....a non violent one I might add" [cue shock from audience as everyones jaws dropped]
c) Nick griffin thinks the indigenous "british" are defined as those who came here when the ice melted!
d) the BNP is the enemy of everyone in the UK who is not descendent of people who came here when the ice melted ( about 99.9% of the population and electorate) and anyone who is not a christian (about 60% of the electorate). Which is not exactly a compelling vote winning stance.
e) There are options to voting for the BNP on immigration concerns. the other political panellists made a very good case for alternative approaches when it comes to immigration, which is not quite "pull up the drawbridge" style policies, but, most definitely vote-winning policies.
f) Nick Griffin got pwned by jack straw...i.e. one of the most unpopular politicians in the UK at the moment clearly got huge support from the audience when debating directly with griffin.

I could go on...but you get the gist.

One other extremely important observation I made - in the 1980's and even up until about ten years ago Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were absolute pariahs within Ireland, the UK and internationally. They were seen as murdering scum by many - unrepentant terrorists with the blood of hundreds if not thousands on their hands. Their politics was extreme, brutal, dirty and ugly and the shout went up for a long time that this particular leopard couldn't change its spots.

Well they did change, with small, painfully slow steps - nice shiny suits, an electoral mandate, talk about moving on, reconciliation, blah blah blah...now they govern me and my fellow countrymen.

I can see what you're saying about the BNP re-branding as a "moderate" and a supposedly "non-racist" party...but that's a very gross distortion of facts.

Adams and McGuinness were not absolute pariahs in ireland, the UK and internationally in the 1980s....in the same way Nelson mandella wasn't considered a pariah and a terrorist. The British government attempted to brand them as pariahs by using Adams/McGuinness' association with the IRA and Mandella's association with the ANC civil rights movement as the reason....e.g. "we don't talk to terrorists" etcetera. But it didn't work.

The truth is that at the heart of the Sinn Féin political movement was civil rights as well as republicanism and it was deeply embarrassing for the british government, who supported the equivalent of apartheid in NI for decades to have to confront the reality that they couldn't sustain the status quo any longer. Furthermore, anyone with a passing interest in irish history will remember how badly the tories needed the unionist/loyalist vote in the 1980s and how the news-gagging strategy for NI political parties backfired spectacularly for the british government. Even more so now that we know that Adams/McGuinness were trying to convert republicans from an armed struggle to a political and peaceful fight for civil rights and republicanism.

We also knew at the time that Mandella was not a terrorist....and to this day, I don't think thatcher has apologised for that dark period in british history.

You do raise some interesting points...but, I think you're over-egging the possible impact of Griffins appearance last night and your overall view of where the threat of fascism is coming from is flawed.

In other words, what happened last night was just an entertaining circus...like a DIY hanging. the BNP don't posses the intellect to advance their cause beyond a very small minority of small-minded racist bigots in the UK. What you should REALLY be worried about is who the conservatives are cosying up to in Europe (such as those nutjobs in eastern europe)....or political parties like the Pirate Party who are making great headway in the EU elections recently...i.e. parties who have a more sophisticated brand of fascism where racism and the sort of bile that we saw last night is much better disguised.

I would argue that this is where the real threat lies.....and it's a mistake to suggest that the BNP represents fascism in the UK. They represent a very jaded and antiquated version of fascism....entertaining to watch ridiculed on the BBC, but the contemporary neo-fascists are far smarter and much savvier than the likes of nick griffin...

[devogue]

hmmm...some good points...but I think a few of your points are lacking in balance and your overall take on the real threat of fascism is flawed. for example....joe Public also learnt

a) Nick Griffin was/is a holocaust denier

The "was" bit is important - he did enough (on a number of seriously contoversial subjects) to muddy the waters and make even me think twice for a second before wising up and, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I reckon there are millions who watched who aren't as clued up as I am.

b) Nick griffin thinks the klu klux klan was a non violent organisation (or to use griffins words) "I shared a stage with David Duke...who was a leader of a klu klux klan....a non violent one I might add" [cue shock from audience as everyones jaws dropped]

Indeed, but then he said directly to David Dimbleby that he would explain why he was sharing a stage with the KKK and I thought, "you can't get out of this one", but he did by claiming that he was attacking the KKK and trying to prevent yougsters from joining it! Again, think how that would come across to someone who isn't clued up with politics and the methods and history of the far right.

c) Nick griffin thinks the indigenous "british" are defined as those who came here when the ice melted!

You are right - it's totally ridiculous, but then think how many people believe the world is 6,000 years old and how many people eat bread and wine which they think is really flesh and blood. The bigger the lie and all that...

d) the BNP is the enemy of everyone in the UK who is not descendent of people who came here when the ice melted ( about 99.9% of the population and electorate) and anyone who is not a christian (about 60% of the electorate). Which is not exactly a compelling vote winning stance.

Again, there are millions of people who don't think about things as deeply as you, me and pretty much everyone else here. As for the Christian issue, it is probably fair to say that most British people see themselves as culturally Christian even if they don't practice the faith, so they would have understood where Griffin was coming from.

e) There are options to voting for the BNP on immigration concerns. the other political panellists made a very good case for alternative approaches when it comes to immigration, which is not quite "pull up the drawbridge" style policies, but, most definitely vote-winning policies.

But Griffin's policies (and I hate to say this) came across as the most crystal clear, decisive and radical. A great many people don't trust the main parties anymore with immigration, they want a radical answer like "pulling up the drawbridge" and, if truth be told, there is nothing inherently evil in stopping immigration completely - it's a point of view which should enjoy airtime. However, the panel didn't go nearly far enough in scratching the surface and pointing out the BNP's rabid inconsistencies regarding ethnicity.

f) Nick Griffin got pwned by jack straw...i.e. one of the most unpopular politicians in the UK at the moment clearly got huge support from the audience when debating directly with griffin.

I totally disagree with you. Jack Straw came across as a blustering, emotional student trying to press all the right buttons - I thought Griffin destroyed him, firstly by winding him up completely with the slur against his father and then cooly reacting to his constant rage thereafter.

I could go on...but you get the gist.

End of part one...

[Chauncey Gardner]

Within Northern Ireland Adams and McGuinness were seen as pariahs by not only the whole of the Unionist community, but also by people from a Nationalist background. This was reflected at the ballot box during the 1980's when around 90% of the entire electorate in Northern Ireland consistently rejected them.

As for international support, PIRA enjoyed support from NORAID (which was constantly on the radar of the US government), Libya, ETA in Spain, the PLO, Hezbollah and other groups - but as for overwhelming international support? No - it is fair to say they held pariah status.

You're muddling up things there too much devogue.

Just to rewind a little, you asserted that Adams and McGuinness were "pariahs" in Ireland, the UK and internationally. That's not true. They received enormous support at the ballot box in the 1980s, in particular after Adams was elected president in 1983. They also received a huge amount of support internationally in the 1980s particularly surrounding the hunger strikes. International pressure on the british gov. was enormous at that stage...hence the famous "we don't talk with terrorists" line that the thatcher gov. used to avoid engaging with sinn fein. It was the same tactic they used with Nelson Mandella..whom was branded a pariah and terrorist around the same time as Adams/McGuinness.

In the same breath, it would be correct to say that the IRA and their actions were condemned around the globe, in ireland and the UK.

You're making the same mistake that many others make..thanks partly to the same sort of political spin thrown at nelson mandella..but that's sort of understandable considering how closely linked IRA and Sinn Fein actually were.

Incidentally...at the time you describe adams as being a "pariah", he was sitting down with John Hume from Derry in secret talks that ultimately led to the GFA (good friday agreement). Those talks started in 1988, just a few years after Adams was elected president of SF. That's hardly the actions of a "pariah" or a terrorist, don't you think? One might argue that a "pariah" or "terrorist" would be too busy out attacking the british army or killing protestants, as the spin doctoring led many to believe.

The major difference with the Adams, McGuinness and Mandela is that Mandela had absolutely overwhelming popular and moral support for his position in South Africa. Apartheid was recognised internationally as an aberation and the white minority government in South Africa rightly faced sanctions from the international community.

I think history will show that the only real difference between the civil rights movement in northern ireland and south africa was the use of colour as the dividing line, which made it far easier to conceal and sustain. Incidentally..I wasn't equivocating Mandella's civil rights movement with Sinn Féins. I was just illustrating how you have drawn your "pariah" conclusion.

PIRA's campaign grew out of the wholly justified Civil Rights movement of the late 1960's, but they took it way, way too far.

That's one way of looking at it...but many will argue that it was bloody sunday and the events leading up to it that was the "tipping point"...in other words PIRAs campaign wouldn't have even got off the ground, if there had of been a peaceful, political path towards civil rights. Or to put it even more bluntly, there wouldn't have been queues of volunteers around the block, ready to sign up for an armed campaign for civil rights, if it wasn't for the collapse of the attempts at a peaceful, political movement and innocent people weren't been shot in the streets.

As for taking it "way too far"...while not justifying anything, I think it's churlish in the extreme to suggest that the IRA were the only ones involved who "took it way too far". What's very clear from the last 40 years is that nobody's hands are clean and I hope it's not too embarrassing for me to point out that, whether you like it or not, the IRA campaign succeeded....civil rights is returning to northern Ireland and there is now a peaceful, political path to resolving issues. As an added bonus for sinn féin, they have also successfully managed to shift NI one step further away from downing street, closer to full autonomy and the incredible reality that a referendum may be called to vote for/against reunification with the rest of Ireland.

Whether that will happen or not, is up to the electorate to decide, but, that's the current situation and over 90% of the electorate on the island of ireland (all denominations and non-believers included) voted overwhelmingly in favour of that framework when it was presented to them on good friday all those years ago.

Even the most die-hard Unionists (apart from dicks like Jim Allister) realise the Shinners have done a 180 turn and have now completely disowned violence. However, while Nick Griffin is playing the same game he is nowhere near as trustworthy. In fact, he's full of shit. Also, as for the censorship issue with Sinn Fein - Peter Hain and those who wish to deny the BNP air time would do well to read up on that particularly grubby little piece of history.

I hate to be a pain, but, you're wrong there as well. Republicans will have no problem picking back up arms if the unionists continue to stall the political process. Adams/McGuinness have done extremely well to contain and convince republicans that there is a peaceful way but I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the stuttering stop-start nature of the NI assembly is not going unnoticed in certain circles and there is an incredible amount of pressure on adams/mcguinness to prove they were right. Also, the censorship issue wasn't just for sinn fein..it was for all "parties" in NI with proven ties with paramilitaries.

As for your point about peter hain...I think you're mistaken in comparing the gagging order in Norn Iron in the 80s with hains complaint..but I do agree that it wasn't wise to try and deny free speech because he didn't like what they have to say.

Armed resistance should be the final recourse for a group which has exhausted every avenue in the search of an ethical solution to an injustice

Do you mean how NICRA (Northern Irish Civil Rights Association) members suddenly morphed into IRA volunteers in the 1970s, particularly following bloody sunday (1972) when IRA sign ups went through the roof?

Or do you find it too uncomfortable to believe that there really was a genuine civil rights grounding behind their aims and goals?
Before you answer that, I should probably point out that most historians appear to agree that PIRA was more or less dormant, almost an aspiration rather than an active army, in the run up to the 1960s.

Also, Britain recognised the evil of apartheid with sanctions against South Africa in the 1970's and 80's.

oh really?

In the 1980s Lady Thatcher caused controversy when she refused to back sanctions against South Africa. In 1987 she said that anyone who believed the ANC would ever rule South Africa was “living in cloud-cuckoo land”

There was a huge kerffufle about the UK governments support of apartheid in south africa recently when david cameron openly criticised Thatchers support of the apartheid regime (in south africa) and branded Mandella a "pariah" and "terrorist".

Interesting - you reckon that European fascism is more of a danger than just the BNP. It's ironic that the BNP want to withdraw completely from Europe - perhaps the British are damned if they do, damned if they don't... ...I would be careful though. We live in an era of banner headlines, celebrity, soundbites and low attention thresholds -ideal for the likes of the BNP.

On the contrary, as was proven last night and today...Griffin is probably the most despised person in the UK at the moment and if there was an election tomorrow, only the very small minority of small-minded racist bigots would vote for them...i.e. the same people who have voted for them over the years. They don't care that he's despised. They are small-minded racist bigots and they will vote for them regardless. Last night won't have converted those sort of people.

There's an underlying myth that vast swathes of people voted for the BNP out of frustration with the gov. I think that's an inaccurate way of looking at the results and it's a mistake to get your knickers in a twist worrying about the BNP. It was because vast swathes of people DIDN'T BOTHER VOTING in the recent european elections that they got 2 seats.

I'm not sure if that's clear but to put it another way.....the reason you don't have to worry about the BNP is because, after last night, every non-racist person in the UK is going to make DAMN SURE they vote in their next council and parliament elections to ENSURE the BNP don't get any more seats.

the BNP don't have the intellect to advance their cause beyond small minded racist bigots with their jaded brand of fascism. however in europe...there is a new, contemporary form of neo-fascism that is very subtle and very sophisticated that IS gaining a lot of ground. In ireland we were almost suckered in by one such party (libertas) and one only has to look at the rise of the pirate party or UKIP and you begin to see where the threat of fascism really is.

[devogue]

Many thanks for the response, Chauncey - I'm up to my eyes at the moment but I'll try to respond tomorrow!

[devogue]

Within Northern Ireland Adams and McGuinness were seen as pariahs by not only the whole of the Unionist community, but also by people from a Nationalist background. This was reflected at the ballot box during the 1980's when around 90% of the entire electorate in Northern Ireland consistently rejected them.

As for international support, PIRA enjoyed support from NORAID (which was constantly on the radar of the US government), Libya, ETA in Spain, the PLO, Hezbollah and other groups - but as for overwhelming international support? No - it is fair to say they held pariah status.

You're muddling up things there too much devogue.

Just to rewind a little, you asserted that Adams and McGuinness were "pariahs" in Ireland, the UK and internationally. That's not true. They received enormous support at the ballot box in the 1980s, in particular after Adams was elected president in 1983.

Nonsense. The best performance Sinn Fein could manage at the polls in the 1980's was a measly 13.3% of the vote in the 1983 General election, which fell to 11.8% in the 1985 Local Government elections - hardly "enormous" support. In 1987 they polled 11.4% of the vote and in the same year they polled less than 2% in the Dail election in the Republic.

As for international support, outside of various ultra-leftist groups, proscribed groups and rogue states in the 1980's name one country which officially supported the IRA, Sinn Fein and their objectives.

They also received a huge amount of support internationally in the 1980s particularly surrounding the hunger strikes.

Once again, outside of pro-Irish Republican groups in the US and various extremist groups who felt natural affinity to the IRA and antipathy towards Britain, name one country which condemned Britain or called for sanctions against Britain. I am in no way condoning Thatcher's reaction to the hunger strikers but I certainly contest your claim that there was a huge amount of support for the hunger strikers internationally. Also, while I do concede that the hunger strikers may have gained a certain amount of sympathy within the international community (which is very different from support), at no time before or until the end of the Troubles did PIRA or Sinn Fein enjoy anywhere near as much kudos, either at home or internationally.

International pressure on the british gov. was enormous at that stage...hence the famous "we don't talk with terrorists" line that the thatcher gov. used to avoid engaging with sinn fein.

If there was international pressure on the British it did not translate into outright hostility and sanctions - it remained diplomatic and strictly from a sympathetic point of view to the hunger strikers rather than a supportive position of the IRA. To illustrate, Amnesty International would certainly have campaigned against ill treatment of IRA prisoners while disagreeing fundamentally with the IRA's campain of violence.

It was the same tactic they used with Nelson Mandella..whom was branded a pariah and terrorist around the same time as Adams/McGuinness.

The international community as a whole - including Britain - was completely opposed to apartheid. Let me just address the side issue of Thatcher's shitty disdain for Mandela for a second. Thatcher wrongly tried to equate Mandela/ the ANC with the IRA, but as I explained in my last post she was wrong - there was a subtle but crucial difference. Now, leaving aside Mandela and the ANC, it is possible to call them all the wankers of the day while still condemning the separate (and genuine) evil that was apartheid. In other words it was possible to recognise and condemn the evil of apartheid while arguing that the ANC and Mandela were not the solution to the problem.

Also, Thatcher's condemnation of Mandela was typically batty - he was lauded and lionised by the rest of the international community at a time when Adams and McGuinness, the political faces of a movement carrying out unspeakable atrocities and causing endless suffering on behalf of a tiny rump were seen as personae non gratae by the international community. Mandela had no problem getting a Visa to the US on his release from prison, it took Adams and McGuinness a bit longer to come in from the cold.

In the same breath, it would be correct to say that the IRA and their actions were condemned around the globe, in ireland and the UK.

Exactly - and around the globe Sinn Fein were seen as being inextricably linked to the IRA. QED.

You're making the same mistake that many others make..thanks partly to the same sort of political spin thrown at nelson mandella..but that's sort of understandable considering how closely linked IRA and Sinn Fein actually were.

Once again - Mandela was seen by the International community as a beacon of hope against a cruel and genuinely illegitimate regime that was oppressing millions, whereas Adams and McGuinness were seen as mouthpieces for a deadly minority within a minority within a minority. (say a couple of hundred people supported by 100,000 people within a population of 1.5 million).

Incidentally...at the time you describe adams as being a "pariah", he was sitting down with John Hume from Derry in secret talks that ultimately led to the GFA (good friday agreement). Those talks started in 1988, just a few years after Adams was elected president of SF. That's hardly the actions of a "pariah" or a terrorist, don't you think? One might argue that a "pariah" or "terrorist" would be too busy out attacking the british army or killing protestants, as the spin doctoring led many to believe.

I should state for the record that I am an Irish Nationalist - I would like to see a United Ireland achieved by peaceful means and with the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

The secret talks were momentous - brave, far-sighted, historic and genuinely good. Adams and McGuinness have never received the credit they should have got for instigating the talks - a Nobel Peace Prize would not be a step too far. However, before the talks, and while the talks were taking place they were still international pariahs. It is only because of the talks and the peace process that followed that they left that status behind and, by treading a completely different path to Mandela, will eventually come to be revered in the same way in Irish history. But the fact is they once were pariahs.

The major difference with Adams, McGuinness and Mandela is that Mandela had absolutely overwhelming popular and moral support for his position in South Africa. Apartheid was recognised internationally as an aberation and the white minority government in South Africa rightly faced sanctions from the international community.

I think history will show that the only real difference between the civil rights movement in northern ireland and south africa was the use of colour as the dividing line, which made it far easier to conceal and sustain. Incidentally..I wasn't equivocating Mandella's civil rights movement with Sinn Féins. I was just illustrating how you have drawn your "pariah" conclusion.

I agree, but the Irish civil rights movement will forever be tainted by PIRA's ruthless hijacking of a noble cause for other motives, and that is unforgiveable.

PIRA's campaign grew out of the wholly justified Civil Rights movement of the late 1960's, but they took it way, way too far.

That's one way of looking at it...but many will argue that it was bloody sunday and the events leading up to it that was the "tipping point"...in other words PIRAs campaign wouldn't have even got off the ground, if there had of been a peaceful, political path towards civil rights. Or to put it even more bluntly, there wouldn't have been queues of volunteers around the block, ready to sign up for an armed campaign for civil rights, if it wasn't for the collapse of the attempts at a peaceful, political movement and innocent people weren't been shot in the streets.

Yes, the split from the Stickies and the birth of PIRA was precipitated by the attempt to surpress the Civil Rights movement, but if PIRA's list of demands and reasons for war had matched the Civil Rights Movement then a solution could have been found. The push for a united Ireland was completely unnecessary and misguided.

As for taking it "way too far"...while not justifying anything, I think it's churlish in the extreme to suggest that the IRA were the only ones involved who "took it way too far". What's very clear from the last 40 years is that nobody's hands are clean and I hope it's not too embarrassing for me to point out that, whether you like it or not, the IRA campaign succeeded....civil rights is returning to northern Ireland and there is now a peaceful, political path to resolving issues.

Nobodies hands are clean - you are absolutely right - but the only people who could ever stop the bloodshed was PIRA. You have been sold a massive pup, a huge piece of propaganda - the claim that PIRA won civil rights for the Nationalist people in Northern Ireland.

PIRA's agenda may have claimed the fight for civil rights was their goal, but they pushed way beyond that remit for a United Ireland - who asked for a violent campaign for unification? All they succeeded in doing was causing huge strife, bloodshed, the creation of ghettoes, incredible levels of sectarianism, hatred and economic and civil collapse. They destroyed Northern Ireland. While PIRA carried out its horrendous war for thirty years, supported publicly all the way by Sinn Fein, NICRA and then the SDLP led by John Hume were the true heroes of civil rights, campaigning for the principle of consent and giving a crucial voice to moderate nationalism.

Your claim that "civil rights are returning to Northern Ireland" doesn't make sense - by the early 80's the civil rights and political landscape had changed significantly and Unionist political hegemony was gone forever. Bit by bit, year by year, equality came to the North and it was hampered all the way by PIRA's actions which gave hardline British and Unionist opponents a reason to be heavyhanded.

As an added bonus for sinn féin, they have also successfully managed to shift NI one step further away from downing street, closer to full autonomy and the incredible reality that a referendum may be called to vote for/against reunification with the rest of Ireland.

The SDLP advocated the principle of consent decades before Sinn Fein! It could only be agreed upon after Sinn Fein pulled back from supporting armed struggle. Also, the GFA was created and agreed by all of the main parties, not just Sinn Fein, and there is nothing to suggest that Sinn Fein alone called for such a provision. Don't forget that the Republic also amended Articles 2 & 3 of its constitution as a counter offer to Unionists, something which seriously annoyed diehard republicans.

Whether that will happen or not, is up to the electorate to decide, but, that's the current situation and over 90% of the electorate on the island of ireland (all denominations and non-believers included) voted overwhelmingly in favour of that framework when it was presented to them on good friday all those years ago.

Yep - 90% of the whole of Ireland voted for consent, democracy, peace and parity of esteem, everything Sinn Fein was against for years while thousands of people died.

Even the most die-hard Unionists (apart from dicks like Jim Allister) realise the Shinners have done a 180 turn and have now completely disowned violence. However, while Nick Griffin is playing the same game he is nowhere near as trustworthy. In fact, he's full of shit. Also, as for the censorship issue with Sinn Fein - Peter Hain and those who wish to deny the BNP air time would do well to read up on that particularly grubby little piece of history.

I hate to be a pain, but, you're wrong there as well. Republicans will have no problem picking back up arms if the unionists continue to stall the political process. Adams/McGuinness have done extremely well to contain and convince republicans that there is a peaceful way but I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the stuttering stop-start nature of the NI assembly is not going unnoticed in certain circles and there is an incredible amount of pressure on adams/mcguinness to prove they were right.

I'm not wrong - I specifically mentioned the Shinners (Sinn Fein). I did not mention splinters and off-shoots which are waiting in the wings and are ready to fuck everyones lives up again like the IRA did.

Also, the censorship issue wasn't just for sinn fein..it was for all "parties" in NI with proven ties with paramilitaries.

Indeed.

As for your point about peter hain...I think you're mistaken in comparing the gagging order in Norn Iron in the 80s with hains complaint..but I do agree that it wasn't wise to try and deny free speech because he didn't like what they have to say.

There were of course differences in the detail, but the major point is the issue regarding censorship .

Armed resistance should be the final recourse for a group which has exhausted every avenue in the search of an ethical solution to an injustice

Do you mean how NICRA (Northern Irish Civil Rights Association) members suddenly morphed into IRA volunteers in the 1970s, particularly following bloody sunday (1972) when IRA sign ups went through the roof?

Or do you find it too uncomfortable to believe that there really was a genuine civil rights grounding behind their aims and goals?
Before you answer that, I should probably point out that most historians appear to agree that PIRA was more or less dormant, almost an aspiration rather than an active army, in the run up to the 1960s.

Even after Bloody Sunday they hadn't exhausted every avenue. If they had then John Hume would have joined the Provos - you are making the mistake that the whole of Irish nationalism was represented on the streets of Derry that day, that it was the last stand of the Civil Rights movement and that afterwards war was inevitable. Absolutely not - the British army fucked up big time, they were complete cunts that day but there wasn't a systemic policy by them against all catholics or nationalists - the IRA took advantage of Bloody Sunday and ratcheted up their war, and I can't stress enough their war against the Brits.

As I have said over and over again, there was not a genuine civil rights grounding behind their aims and goals - they completely hijacked the civil rights campaign and waged a terror campaign instead. To make a rather clumsy analogy, imagine Martin Luther King spearheaded the Black Civil Rights Movement for equality and parity with white America and an armed group led by Malcolm X came along and across the course of 30 years murdered and maimed hundreds of thousands of Americans in the pursuit of a Black separatist state - their goals and aims would be completely different, wouldn't they?

Also, Britain recognised the evil of apartheid with sanctions against South Africa in the 1970's and 80's.

oh really?

In the 1980s Lady Thatcher caused controversy when she refused to back sanctions against South Africa. In 1987 she said that anyone who believed the ANC would ever rule South Africa was “living in cloud-cuckoo land”

There was a huge kerffufle about the UK governments support of apartheid in south africa recently when david cameron openly criticised Thatchers support of the apartheid regime (in south africa) and branded Mandella a "pariah" and "terrorist".

Yes, I must concede an error on my part - certain British groups including businesses imposed sanctions and partial sanctions were imposed by the government, but never full sanctions.

Interesting - you reckon that European fascism is more of a danger than just the BNP. It's ironic that the BNP want to withdraw completely from Europe - perhaps the British are damned if they do, damned if they don't... ...I would be careful though. We live in an era of banner headlines, celebrity, soundbites and low attention thresholds -ideal for the likes of the BNP.

On the contrary, as was proven last night and today...Griffin is probably the most despised person in the UK at the moment and if there was an election tomorrow, only the very small minority of small-minded racist bigots would vote for them...i.e. the same people who have voted for them over the years. They don't care that he's despised. They are small-minded racist bigots and they will vote for them regardless. Last night won't have converted those sort of people.

There's an underlying myth that vast swathes of people voted for the BNP out of frustration with the gov. I think that's an inaccurate way of looking at the results and it's a mistake to get your knickers in a twist worrying about the BNP. It was because vast swathes of people DIDN'T BOTHER VOTING in the recent european elections that they got 2 seats.

I'm not sure if that's clear but to put it another way.....the reason you don't have to worry about the BNP is because, after last night, every non-racist person in the UK is going to make DAMN SURE they vote in their next council and parliament elections to ENSURE the BNP don't get any more seats.

I would like to think that is the case, but after seeing the depressing yougov opinion poll today and seeing the sheer apathy of the electorate over recent years I can only see things going the other way.

the BNP don't have the intellect to advance their cause beyond small minded racist bigots with their jaded brand of fascism. however in europe...there is a new, contemporary form of neo-fascism that is very subtle and very sophisticated that IS gaining a lot of ground. In ireland we were almost suckered in by one such party (libertas) and one only has to look at the rise of the pirate party or UKIP and you begin to see where the threat of fascism really is.

It must be extremely subtle. I know of UKIP and I fail to see how they are fascist in any shape or form. It seems that each of the parties you mention are anti-EU and that you are labelling them as fascist as a result.

[Chauncey Gardner]

wow. where do I start.

You're muddling up a lot of different points, but, what makes it so difficult to respond is that sometimes you're right and other times you are completely off the rational radar and often you even mix up the correct with the incorrect in the same point.

It's clear that you have your mind made up about, as you put it, Britain was completely opposed to apartheid, despite everyone knowing that there was official British government support for the apartheid regime in south africa and despite me pointing you to articles explaining why David Cameron apologised to south Africans recently (on behalf of his party which was in power at the time). It's plausible that British citizens didn't share the views of the government, in the same way that there was huge support for Sinn Fein amongst Irish-Americans in the 1980s, in particular, while the reagan administration adopted the thatcher view, but, I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the British officially opposed apartheid in south africa...particularly when they were one of the only countries, alongside israel, who refused to impose sanctions.

You have also made up your mind (I think) about how much support sinn féin had in the 1980s...despite the fact that they refused to participate in elections in Northern Ireland up until the 1980s when they went they went from ZERO to 13% of the electorate. I'm surprised at that because almost everyone with a passing interest in Northern Ireland history will point to that period as a pivotal point in the conflict...i.e. when Sinn Féin realised that they could get so much support (without damaging the core SDLP vote by the way) they morphed from being an agitator into a fully committed political party.

As for separating civil rights from the drive to end british involvement in Ireland, I'm not sure exactly how you can manage to do that. The two are inexplicably linked and it's also worth mentioning that there was a very strong militant threat of violence in America with the civil rights movement there. The "peaceful protest" strategy was waning and if it wasn't for the actions of Kennedy (and subsequently Johnson), in particular, it's quite likely that would have turned into a very violent and very bloody protest. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Northern Ireland didn't have a "kennedy" i.e. someone brave enough to come up with the equivalent of the American Civil Rights Acts (1964 and 1965) so the NI civil rights campaign took the only turn it could take. Which was a similar turn the ANC took in south africa, incidentally.

You're obviously very uncomfortable with the fact that civil rights was a key motivating factor in the IRAs fight against british involvement in ireland, but, while it was a very different incarnation of the IRA, it's probably worth reminding you that civil rights was a corner stone to the famous address Padraig Pearse delivered outside the GPO in 1916.

My point is, I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the IRA suddenly spotted a "gap in the market" for civil rights and hijacked existing sentiment in the 1970s. On the contrary, the IRA were already considered to be the militant side of the civil rights movement, in a similar way to how the "black panthers" were considered to be the militant side of the black power movement in the USA. The difference is America had visionaries like Kennedy...N.I. simply got pummelled with many bloody Sunday style events and the rest, as they say, is history.

In the same breath...I'm not in any way justifying what followed....I abhor all forms of violence, whether it's state sponsored terrorism or geurilla warfare...I was just offering a rational take on how things rolled...

[devogue]

wow. where do I start.

You're muddling up a lot of different points, but, what makes it so difficult to respond is that sometimes you're right and other times you are completely off the rational radar and often you even mix up the correct with the incorrect in the same point.

It's clear that you have your mind made up about, as you put it, Britain was completely opposed to apartheid, despite everyone knowing that there was official British government support for the apartheid regime in south africa and despite me pointing you to articles explaining why David Cameron apologised to south Africans recently (on behalf of his party which was in power at the time).

You are making your assertion from the point of view that the imposition of sanctions was absolutely the only morally correct thing to do, and not to impose sanctions represented approval and support of apartheid.

However, Thatcher argued that sanctions would deprive millions of black South Africans of work and impoverish them even more. You and I might disagree with that but her position did not mean that she approved of apartheid, and neither did her meeting with PW Botha in 1984 when she criticised apartheid and condemned it as unacceptable, demanded the release of Mandela and demanded that the South African government cease the bombing of ANC bases.

There is a major difference between "official British government support for the apartheid regime in south africa" and a considered diplomatic and political approach to the problem which in no way condoned it.

However, Cameron understands well that current sentiment and public feeling means it is important that he distances himself from such a position, and that he condemns it as inherently wrong without feeling the need to explain why (for the record, I think she was wrong as well, but I don't think that equates with official support for apartheid) - he is as opportunist as Blair was when he apologised for the Irish Famine.

It's plausible that British citizens didn't share the views of the government

,

Although a Mori poll in August 1986 suggested otherwise, with 49% of those polled supporting the government's stance as opposed to 44% who didn't.

in the same way that there was huge support for Sinn Fein amongst Irish-Americans in the 1980s, in particular, while the reagan administration adopted the thatcher view, but, I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the British officially opposed apartheid in south africa...particularly when they were one of the only countries, alongside israel, who refused to impose sanctions.

Once again, on the surface it looks as though a refusal to impose sanctions is an official endorsement of apartheid, but that is only if you feel that sanctions are the only recourse. When I first realised that I had made a mistake and that the British government hadn't imposed wholesale sanctions my first reaction was "What a bunch of bastards" but having read up on their reasons (and there were many) I realised it wasn't as (forgive the unintentional pun) black and white as many commentators and David Cameron have made out. If only Thatcher had been a bit more willing to act diplomatically with the IRA and Sinn Fein at the time the peace process in Ireland could have been advanced by ten years. Jaw Jaw is better than War War.

You have also made up your mind (I think) about how much support sinn féin had in the 1980s...despite the fact that they refused to participate in elections in Northern Ireland up until the 1980s when they went they went from ZERO to 13% of the electorate.

Even after the emotional, glorious, selfless Republicanism of Sands and the other hunger strikers Sinn Fein were still rejected by 87% of the Northern Irish electorate in democratic one man-one vote elections. Across the whole of the 80's Sinn Fein was seen as a rump full of basket cases like Adams and McGuinness while the SDLP was seen as the voice of reasonable nationalism on the national and international stage. Having lived in a "Nationalist town" in Northern Ireland the whole way through the 1980's I can honestly say that my family and friends, while longing for a United Ireland, were embarrassed and horrified by what Sinn Fein was defending and advocating.

To this day, even though Sinn Fein has renounced violence to become the largest Nationalist party and has a first class strategy and excellent spokesmen and women, it's still embarrassing and nauseating when they laud IRA war memorials and talk about the Provos as heroes and freedom fighters to appeal to their core rump of support - that hateful 10% who supported the 1% who supported the 0.1% who destroyed this country. This might shock some people, but you don't need to be a raving Unionist to hate the IRA and their support network. All through the troubles here moderate nationalists grumbled about terrible atrocities and how shocking everything was but no one dared say a word or lift a finger, knowing full well how ruthless the bastards who were supposed to be "fighting for them" were.

I'm surprised at that because almost everyone with a passing interest in Northern Ireland history will point to that period as a pivotal point in the conflict...i.e. when Sinn Féin realised that they could get so much support (without damaging the core SDLP vote by the way) they morphed from being an agitator into a fully committed political party.

Well then, almost everyone is wrong. :-)

Sinn Fein's electoral performance in the 80's kept on declining, eventually hovering at around 11% of the vote. At the same time the IRA's campaign hit the rocks. Planned offensives did not materialise because Libyan arms were intercepted, more and more volunteers were bing killed, less and less of their missions were proving successful. The Troubles were grinding towards a stalemate and the IRA had a choice to carry on as a relatively well contained thorn in the side of the British or try to progress by political means.

As for separating civil rights from the drive to end british involvement in Ireland, I'm not sure exactly how you can manage to do that. The two are inexplicably linked and it's also worth mentioning that there was a very strong militant threat of violence in America with the civil rights movement there. The "peaceful protest" strategy was waning and if it wasn't for the actions of Kennedy (and subsequently Johnson), in particular, it's quite likely that would have turned into a very violent and very bloody protest. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Northern Ireland didn't have a "kennedy" i.e. someone brave enough to come up with the equivalent of the American Civil Rights Acts (1964 and 1965) so the NI civil rights campaign took the only turn it could take. Which was a similar turn the ANC took in south africa, incidentally.

Once again, PIRA was born of the Civil Rights Movement and draconian actions by the British but it's eventual motivation and aims were much more selfish and morally questionable that NICRA's objectives.

Look at things this way - the Civil Rights campaign kicks off, there is resistance from Unionist elements, PIRA is formed because "something must be done" and "we must protect our people", and the Officials are sitting on the fence (more about them shortly). The British come in and the situation escalates - before long there is a nightmare scenario, zealots fighting an unwinnable war, stirring up sectarianism and paranoia in their heartlands...but all this didn't have to happen.

If only, if only, if only the Official IRA hadn't split in 1969. If only the (admittedly idealistic) strategy of uniting the catholic and protestant working classes within the existing framework of existing governmental bodies had been followed in conjunction with the burgeoning, respected and morally legitimate Civil Rights Movement - who knows where we would be today...quite possibly within a united Ireland. When Mac Stíofáin and the others set up the Provos their objective to take a war to the British to drive them out of Ireland was absolutely not on the Civil Rights agenda - that's why I say the Provos hijacked the movement and the political discord at the time to start their own campaign. Not only that, but the Provos, by dint of force, hijacked Republican history in its entirety, to the point where they claimed to be the rightful heirs of the 1916 IRA - a standpoint which was adopted by Sinn Fein and which is still espoused today (McGuinness used this so-called authority to condemn the members of Republican splinter groups as traitors).

You're obviously very uncomfortable with the fact that civil rights was a key motivating factor in the IRAs fight against british involvement in ireland, but, while it was a very different incarnation of the IRA, it's probably worth reminding you that civil rights was a corner stone to the famous address Padraig Pearse delivered outside the GPO in 1916.

Pearse's words are magnificent - one of the most basic civil rights (IMO) a people can enjoy is the right of self-determination, but the terrible decision to create the Northern Ireland statelet had created a new "majority population" of unionists in an internationally recognised territory, a majority which became ensconced and not only demanded self-determination, but became disgracefully jaundiced against the minority.

In the 1960's the minority, encouraged by what was happening in America, screamed to be heard and it had the upper hand morally, but the Provos came in and their warped, selfish and false claim to self-determination and their ruthless campaign was waged while the less "exciting" civil rights campaigners quietly worked to remove institutionalised prejudice.

In other words, the level of equality and opportunity people of a catholic background like myself enjoy in Northern Ireland today exists in spite of the Provos, not because of them.

My point is, I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the IRA suddenly spotted a "gap in the market" for civil rights and hijacked existing sentiment in the 1970s. On the contrary, the IRA were already considered to be the militant side of the civil rights movement, in a similar way to how the "black panthers" were considered to be the militant side of the black power movement in the USA. The difference is America had visionaries like Kennedy...N.I. simply got pummelled with many bloody Sunday style events and the rest, as they say, is history.

It's not naive in the extreme. The civil rights movement fomented discord and social aggravation - it created circumstances in which a movement like the Provos could inadvertently be born. I was going to say that it could be argued the Provos' campaign escalated week by week and month by month away from the original aims of the Civil Rights Campaigners (which would be regrettable but understandable), but that would be wrong - right from the outset they set their agenda, which was to attack the British and fight for a United Ireland, and that was never part of the Civil Rights movement's aims.

You say that the IRA was considered to be the militant side of the civil rights movement - but by whom, and which IRA, the Stickies or the Provos? The Provos took it upon themselves to escalate the Troubles, and from that decision, taken without the express support of the wider nationalist community they drove Northern Ireland down a road of pain and suffering for 30 years. Yes, the British state forces and loyalist groups were bastards as well, but there's no doubting who kicked it all off

In the same breath...I'm not in any way justifying what followed....I abhor all forms of violence, whether it's state sponsored terrorism or geurilla warfare...I was just offering a rational take on how things rolled...

[Chauncey Gardner]

re: the british support for apartheid.

Are you aware that conservatives distributed badges with the slogan "hang nelson mandella"? A young David Cameron recently apologised for wearing one of those badges as a young tory..around the same time Thatcher famously said in 1987: "anyone who believed the ANC would ever rule South Africa was ‘living in cloud-cuckoo-land’". Leaving aside the very clear support for the apartheid regime in south africa, It's no secret that thatcher (and reagan) even tried to portray the anti-apartheid movement as a soviet-backed initiative in an attempt to curb support for it. The suggestion that the british government refused to join international initiatives and impose sanctions because they were worried about the little people, is simply untenable, devogue. The words grappling and straws springs to mind. It is equally important to note that the effects of weak measures by the Americans and British were arguably devastating to the South African people. By all accounts, the 30-plus years of limited or no activity by the American and British were marked by thousands of cases of execution, torture and unlawful imprisonment.


Poster distributed by the Federation of Conservative Students (the official Conservative Party student organisation) in Britain during the 1980's.






re: support for sinn féin in ireland & internationally.

Your sentiments towards the IRA and Sinn Féin is not unlike the treatment volunteers received in Dublin during 1916. Many locals in dublin were not best pleased about the rebellion at the time. It was only over time, when initial feelings subsided, they achieved the status of heroes. However, your feelings doesn't prove that McGuinness/Adams and sinn fein didn't have a lot of support. On the contrary...they received huge support at the ballot box in NI...without impinging on the SDLP (moderates) vote and massive support in the USA and internationally, where noraid donations were going through the roof. To go from zero to 13% of the electorate in the 1980s was an astonishing result, regardless of how you dress it up.

I suspect that your misgivings of the armalite-and-ballot-box strategy is clouding your judgement over what happened. That's understandable, but, if what you claim was true and sinn fein did not have support (at home or abroad), they wouldn't have survived as party and they most certainly wouldn't have been able to persuade the IRA that there was an alternative (peaceful) route.

Incidentally, Sinn Féin only put forward candidates in certain constituencies in Northern Ireland during the 1980s, so it's not only incorrect to say that 87% of the NI public voted against them but it's also impossible. If Sinn Fein had candidates standing in 100% of constituencies in NI, you might have a point. They didn't and you don't.

Re: civil rights & IRA.

There are a lot of "if only's" devogue, but, perhaps the most pertinent one is [/i]if only[/i] William Craig (home secretary 1966-1968) or the British had of done something in the first 18 months of NICRA which was already a combined group of protestants, catholics and others. They didn't and NICRA decided to up their game. Bloody Sunday effectively marked the end of the use of mass street demonstrations to achieve civil rights and the point is, if we had a Kennedy instead of a Craig back then, the shift from diplomacy to the armalite may not have been necessary. In the same way the black panthers and the militant side of the civil rights movement in the USA disbanded soon after the civil rights bills.

[devogue]

re: Apartheid

It seems I was indeed clutching at straws, and I recognise that. I concede to your far superior argument.

re: Ireland

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to differ.

I'm well aware of the initial disdain for the protagonists of the Easter Rising, but it does not take away from the righteousness of their cause - something which becomes ever more apparant with the passage of time. Unfortunately PIRA's campaign (and all of the Troubles) will not be seen in the same way - it was ultimately futile and hopeless, even though the Shinners will falsely maintain that it was a regrettable but necessary path in order to gain equality and, ultimately, a United Ireland.

As I said from the outset, the support from dubious organisations such as Noraid, ETA etc, cannot be equated with international support from sovereign governments. You say that Sinn Fein persuaded the IRA to embrace peace, but I think it is more likely that a war weary IRA persuaded Sinn Fein to pursue the avenues which led to the peace process - however, I suppose it's fair to say we are both too close to events at the moment and the whole truth will out over time.

Regarding your final point about Sinn Fein's candidacy in elections - in 1987 they actually stood one more candidate than the SDLP, but they still only managed to gain less than a third of the nationalist vote (and only 11% of the overall vote), so at a time when their profile was extremely high they were rejected by the vast majority of the Nationalist population they were claiming to fight for.

[Chauncey Gardner]

re: whether PIRAs campaign has been a massive success or not: I hope it' s not too embarrassing for me to remind you that N.I. has MOVED AWAY from downing street...rather than the other way around....towards true autonomy and the possibility that reunification with the rest of ireland will happen at the ballet box in a few years. That's not the results of a PIRA campaign that has failed, Devogue. On the contrary. That's the results you would expect when the other side knows they can never win.

re: PIRA was unnecessary Given the circumstances...and you were faced with an oppressive force sustaining a form of apartheid (which discriminates against you), that was colluding with loyalist paramilitaries to unleash random acts of violence towards your community....and when your community tries to protest peacefully, in the form of peaceful marches, the british army uses live ammunition on men, women and children.....do you think it's an unbelievably astonishing notion that some might turn to last resort tactics?

Incidentally, we're talking about a british government that openly supported apartheid in south africa and still sang rule britiannia with feeling and no sense of irony. A government that CRUSHED peaceful protests in NI in a very similar way to how they CRUSHED peaceful protest in INDIA and other corners of the Empire.

On a more general point, it simply doesn't make any rational sense to blame or criticise PIRA for the volatile period in NI, without mentioning the British/loyalists....it is not unlike like blaming the ANC for the volatile situation in south africa during apartheid, without mentioning the apartheid regime/british.

The truth is William Craig (home secretary 1966-1968) and his successors are arguably as much to blame as the militants on all sides of the fence. Both had ample opportunities to act upon the demands of NICRA - Craig had 18 months to react, before the jack-boot tactics were introduced and it all kicked off. Not forgetting Stakeknife, the dublin/monaghan bombings and countless other british army collusions with loyalist paramilitaries.

In other words, if there was a nobel prize for cognitive dissonance, you would be a shoo in for a nomination.

[devogue]

...and Unionists will claim that the union has been secured because of the neutering of Articles 2 & 3, while dissidents claim that Sinn Fein and the leadership of PIRA has sold out and are now puppets of the British state! You've fallen hook line and sinker for McGuinness's wild claim that unification could happen by the centenary of the rising (something I discussed with him when I found myself sitting beside him on a flight back from London to Belfast in 2004 - he was a good bloke to talk to).
Even Gerry Adams played down such talk within the last week in the Newsletter.

Your analysis seems to be that the British were pushed in to the process by PIRA because they "knew they could never win" against them when the general feeling is that PIRA were getting nowhere and they decided to change tack. This is borne out by the fact that it wasn't the British who approached Sinn Fein...

As I said earlier, NICRA and the SDLP managed to make excellent, if quiet, progress throughout the 70's regarding equality and rights for the nationalist community at large (my father benefited when he was able to find decent work in the 70's so he could return from London after 20 years).

Yet even though great strides had been made PIRA carried on with its relentless campaign, never pulling back from the endless game of tit-for-tat with loyalists and (occasionally) state forces.

Your analysis also jumps from the events of 1968 to Bloody Sunday in 1972, when you know full well that the situation had already escalated beyond the point of no return in to something completely different. In 1968 there were a number of parades by Civil Rights campaigners - in October the RUC came down hard on a parade in Derry. The world was shocked and stunned, as well as by other violence, intimidation and sectarian actions by loyalists - the civil rights movement had the moral highground, and events throughout the 70's within moderate nationalism showed that progress in civil rights was possible through non-violent means. It was the one time when there was genuine, universal international support for the minority population of Northern Ireland.

However, the Provos changed the whole landscape by going on the attack against state forces and unionist targets, rather than taking a defensive position. That option did exist - it was the Official IRA's position. If the Stickies had shown a bit more leadership and the eventual Provos had held back and learnt the lessons of history (from the 1950s) then the chances are that serious bloodshed could have been avoided. The Provos aggressive, rather than defensive, reaction to events like the expulsion of Catholics from their homes in Belfast in the summer of 1969 was the easy, knee-jerk way to respond to such events. It was also the wrong way, as the violence spiralling out of control illustrated.

By the time of Bloody Sunday (one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the British army) Republican armed struggle was not a last resort tactic as it may have been in 1968 or 1969 - for many it had already become a way of life.

As for Craig, a bit of context would be nice - his boss Terence O'Neill made serious overtures to the Dublin government early in 1968 and on the 19th January he called for "a new endeavour by organisations in Northern Ireland to cross denominational barriers and advance the cause of better community relations". There's no doubt that Craig was hardline, sitting on exactly the opposite side of the fence from the hardline Republican elements, but his politics were eventually shown to be beyond the pale of mainstream unionism at the time.

You say that Craig, O'Neill and the British had ample time to react to NICRA's demands - well, what about the Reforms package announced on November 22nd 1968:

**a nine member 'Development Commission' to take over the powers of the Londonderry Corporation;
**an ombudsman to investigate complaints against government departments;
**the allocation of houses by local authorities to be based on need;
**the Special Powers Act to be abolished as soon as it was safe to do so; and
some reform of the local government franchise (the end of the company votes).

["In just forty-eight days since 5 October 1968 the Catholic minority had won more political concessions than it had over the previous forty-seven years." (Bardon, 1992; p657).]

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch68.htm

Craig was drummed out of office on December 11th 1968, three weeks after the Reforms package was announced, and his eventual reemergence in Vanguard showed his true sectarian colours.

It is quite clear that the Civil Rights movement was getting results and that there was a change in the zeitgeist - the tragedy is that the moderates (it's always the way here) were overwhelmed by the radicals and extremists. It has always been the case here that the moderates have to kow-tow to the extremists, the latest example being the DUP's ridiculous demand for the abolition of the parades commission, a policy which they hope will shore up those in their ranks who are tempted by the TUV, but which will hold up the much more important issue (of the vast majority of people) of devolving policing and justice.

It's something that Adams and McGuinness have got used to as well over the past 20 years, taking tiny steps to keep the most dangerous and hard headed people in their ranks on side.

In 1968 the likes of O'Neill and Fitt were overwhelmed by the radicals around them.

Your antipathy towards the British government is noted, however it was Wilson and Callaghan who put pressure on Stormont to come up with the Reforms package at the start - they were clearly trying to find some way out of the situation before events overtook them.

[Chauncey Gardner]

You're fudging too many facts there, Devogue and tweaking the chronology to suit your argument.

For starters, the following is a more accurate outline of NICRAs demands:

• universal franchise in local government elections line with the franchise in the rest of the United Kingdom,
• the re-drawing of electoral boundaries by an independent commission to ensure fair representation,
• legislation against discrimination in employment at local government and the provision of machinery to remedy local government grievances,
• a compulsory points system for housing which would ensure fair allocation,
• repeal of the Special Powers Act,
• disbanding of the B Specials,
and later
• withdrawal of the Public Order (Amendment) Bill

As for your point about O'Neill's Reforms package announced on November 22nd 1968 it was actually James Callaghan’s reform package and it was August 1969. O'Neill may have been part of the drafting of the package but either way it was regarded by many as toothless and ineffectual as history shows. It was not until the Patten Report in 1999 as part of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, that sweeping changes were made, such as to the PSNI, for example, where a model of accountability comparable to other police forces came into effect.

The same could be said for the Fair Employment Commission was set up in 1974, which was basically toothless also. It wasn't until the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO) that it became unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief and/or political opinion in the fields of employment.

In fact, the first major change was probably the case taken by the Irish Government against the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights over the treatment of persons arrested on the introduction of internment in 1971. The Strasbourg process was very slow and internment had ended before the European Commission of Human Rights gave its verdict in 1976, saying that the treatment of certain of the detainees amounted to torture (later demoted to “cruel and inhuman treatment”).

As for your comments about PIRA...I think you're still trying to separate the two...both were fighting for civil rights and while I'm not condoning the violence that followed.....the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland felt it had nowhere else to go and the RUC reaction to the October 5th march meant that there was no turning back from then on. And that, I think illustrates the essential truth of the following quotation from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Whereas it is essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I'm not suggesting NICRA was a rebellion, per se, but the principles were the same.

As for your assertion that the Provisional IRA failed.....I hope it is not too embarrassing for me to point out that Northern Ireland has moved significantly AWAY from downing street following the armalite & ballot box campaign strategy. In fact, N.I. is the envy of Scottish and Welsh assemblies because of the level of autonomy it has. Following your line of argument, the opposite would be true. While it's plausible that the British might have been embarrassed into intervening and ending the form of apartheid that existed in Northern Ireland, it's worth noting that the civil rights movement, led by NICRA was a peaceful one to begin with until it was crushed with state sponsored violence and terrorism. The words wishful and thinking springs to mind if you are suggesting that the civil disobedience and violence that followed was unnecessary.

[devogue]

Chauncey - apologies, I've only just noticed your response - I'm away until Tuesday again - although we differ in opinion (and I do agree there is a degree of wishful thinking on my part - on many people's part - it's hard not to ask what might have been) I am enjoying this immensely and learning a lot. RDF fucked up by losing you.

One thing I would say - I think that Scotland has more chance of gaining full independence as we stand today (or at least a referendum to ask the big question - earmarked for November 2010 by the SNP) than Northern Ireland has, even though not one bullet was fired there, and I think that if the Welsh pushed for full autonomy (not that there seems to be any appetite there) they would have more chance than Northern Ireland as well. The sectarian divisions here are still writ too large, and while I acknowledge that the IRA was only part of the problem (and perhaps just a symptom of it) there is no doubt that their campaign during the 70's and 80's caused massive damage to community relations here, relations which are essential if an eventual peaceful transition to a United Ireland is to happen.

[Chauncey Gardner]

re: Scotland gaining full independence before Northern Ireland.
Possible but unlikely. The main reason is because of strategic and economic importance. For example, it means more than 90-per cent of the UK's oil wealth would come under an independent Scotland's control. Contrast that with the strategic and economic importance of Northern Ireland and almost the opposite is true...instead of revenue coming in, downing street is haemorrhaging money towards Northern Ireland. I can't remember how big the first tranche of payouts is from the British Government, to repair the damage done there, but, I think it's between 75 and 90 billion pounds sterling.

It should also be noted that there appears to be an enormous amount of ignorance amongst ulster unionists to the implications of the good friday agreement. Only a few days ago, Gregory Campbell from the Democratic Unionist Party gave an astonishingly ignorant speech outlining his (and unionist support) for the death penalty. Not only is it illegal in the EU, but, there have been so many miscarriages of justice in the British legal system over the years, it would be simply madness to even suggest bringing it in.

As an aside and speaking of madness, Campbells speech is up there with dangerous homophobic bigotry from unionists like Ian Paisley Junior or Irish Robinson who even suggested that the victim of a brutal homophobic attack in Northern Ireland should see a psychiatrist to stop being gay!!!!

re: sectarian divisions
I'm not sure how you can blame the IRA for sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland. Some would argue that they are just reacting to sectarian discrimination. In the same breath, I accept that the IRA and UDA, UVF etc. helped exacerbate sectarian divisions, but, I would argue that the separate protestant/catholic public school system is more to blame.

In truth, you have to go back to Winston Churchills father, Randolph, to find the source of contemporary sectarianism in Northern Ireland.

Churchill famously played the "orange card" and even made a big speech in belfast to incite hatred amongst loyalists against the home rule bill, which like the United Irishmen rebellion of 1798 was supported by both Irish protestants and catholics. The orange order, I might add, was wound up in 1836 and lay dormant for nearly fifty years, up until this point. Soon after Churchills speech, over 73,000 orange men were mobilized and volunteered to defeat the home rule bill by force if necessary.

Basically, by whipping up loyalists' belief in their superiority and linking it to their religion, Churchill believed the unity of the Irish people could be dealt a blow and the landlords and capitalists would continue to hold the reins of power in Northern Ireland.

The same "orange card" has been played again and again over the years, such as when Thatcher needed the unionist vote to hold a majority in the house of commons, during the 1980s, or more recently when David Cameron, worringly, announced closer ties with Ulster Unionists.

I agree that sectarianism is a problem, but, I get the impression that many unionists don't understand the implications of the GFA (good friday agreement) in a wider context, particularly in an EU context. The secularisation of Europe via the EU is the biggest threat to anyone wanting to maintain the protestant/catholic public school system in Northern Ireland, for example. If I was asked, I wouldn't have religion taught in schools at all and let people setup private sunday schools instead, without state support.

So my argument would be that blaming the provisional IRA for sectarianism in Northern Ireland is incorrect and I would also argue that removing the Provisional IRA won't remove sectarianism.

What is fascinating about recent developments in Northern Ireland is that it was an echo of the United Irishman of 1798....i.e. when irish protestants, catholics (and jews, non-believers etc.) rose up in a rebellion to end british involvement on the island of ireland (most of the leadership of the United Irishmen were in fact Presbyterian). Over 90% of the electorate on the island of ireland (catholics, protestants, jews, non-believers etc.) voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Good Friday Agreement - which means an end to british involvement on the Island of Ireland and the establishment of an autonomous northern Ireland parliament...or "home rule" for a lack of a better description. That new N.I. assembly still has a good bit to go, but, the parallels with the United Irishmen are uncanny.

[Arse]

Dev is right.