Letters 2005-04-02

I have to wonder if either William Hederman, the author of the interview with Kelly Dougherty in last week's Village, or Dougherty herself happen to recognise the inconsistencies in Kelly's values and statements. Like a true anti-war activist, she can flip-flop on a dime.

Dougherty lambastes the US for embracing capitalism and money, but she'll give up her own ethos for some college dollars to do something she vehemently despises.

It is also a stretch to call her a veteran. She said her unit arrived in Kuwait, which is not Iraq. Was she in Kuwait, or Iraq? There's no war in Kuwait. What harm came her way while she was on duty there? I can't believe that Village dedicated so much effort to this individual.

Dougherty wants her story to be heard, but if you actually read it, there is no story there. There are far better veterans in Ireland to interview than this pseudo-military hippie wannabe. Don't criticise George Bush too much, Kelly. He needs those oil reserves to pay for the college educations of more individuals just like you.

Carter R Fly

Sergeant, US Marines, Dublin 1

I presume that the brief article, "Spelling is important", on page 6 of issue 25, was included as justification for the incorrect spelling of words in each issue of Village.

I had assumed that this was as a result of poor proof-reading or reliance on a spellchecker, which can result in a word being spelt correctly but being the wrong word in the particular context.

However, closer reading of the article revealed that poor proof-reading is indeed the cause, as at least three words in the article did not contain the correct letters or symbols, albeit in the wrong order. Even the title of the piece is incorrect as its content would indicate a title which should have read: "Spelling is not important".

Graham Lightfoot

Feakle, Co Clare

On Saturday 19 March 2005, as part of the Worldwide International Day of Action to mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, over 1,500 people, and not 500 as RTÉ deliberately and erroneously reported, marched from the Garden of Remberance, Parnell Square, Dublin to near the Dáil on Molesworth Street.

Among the many speakers were Mick O'Reilly from the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (ATGWU) and Joe Higgins TD from the Socialist Party, together with speakers from the Islamic Community in Ireland, and the Iraqi community in Ireland.

This Worldwide International Day of Action was also called to highlight the wholesale bloodshed that has engulfed Iraq since the start of the war two years ago. More than 100,000 Iraqis, nearly all innocent civilians, and over 1,500 troops of the occupying forces have been killed in that time, and many hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis and occupation troops have been injured, many maimed for life.

Furthermore, most parts of Iraq still have no running water, sewerage or electricity. So in that sense Iraqis are much worse off than they were under the brutal Saddam Hussein.

In addition we have seen the wholesale privatisation of every industry and service in Iraq, including of course the precious oil reserves, which is what this war is really about.

Corrupt friends of Bush and Blair have benefitted, such as Halliburton, with the result that Iraqi is now the most privatised country in the world. It says a lot that Iraq is more privatised than even the US.

So that's why we need to keep resisting the occupation of Iraq, and to support the resistance of the ordinary people of Iraq to the occupation of their country, but not the reckless and indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

This bombing campaign is being used to stir up sectarian tensions between the various factions in Iraq. Many of us suspect the campaign is part of a "dirty tricks" operation carried out by the US Secret Service/intelligence, much like what the British did during the Troubles in the six counties.

Paul Kinsella

Eire

An injustice has been done over the last couple of weeks against our nation's social workers. While appreciating that the art of journalism is constrained by the "no comment" policy of our public bodies, I lament the low general standards evident in Irish journalism today.

Although not a social worker myself, I know several through both personal friendships and professional acquaintances. Over the years, I have discussed with them at length the philosophy and modus operandi of their profession. Believe me when I say I am not easily impressed, but I have never held another group of persons in such high esteem. I am struck by their steadfast philanthropy, their thoughtful dispositions, their martyr-like acceptance of the criticism and scapegoating that occurs at the hands of many clients, the judiciary and media alike.

Social workers are, I believe, torn between two problems. The egotistical desire for a full public inquiry into recent high profile cases, which I implicitly trust would vindicate their actions and redden a number of faces. Secondly, the self-sacrificing belief that absolute confidentiality is essential to the well being of all their clients.

There is an undeniable lack of resources for disabled and other vulnerable people in this country which needs exposure and rectification, but isn't that an issue of values at both the highest political levels and at the level of the taxpayer?

For the record, I for one sincerely believe that the vast majority of decisions made by social workers are made with a unique blend of kindness and practicality, within a state structure that demands they get blood from stones. And I would encourage certain journalists of this country to seek truth and not just stories.

Clare Dowling

Swords, Co Dublin

Gerry Adams' analysis of Easter Rising commemorations, and his views on the perceived lack of emphasis by successive governments in support of the heroic sacrifice of Pearse and the other leaders of 1916, is rather simplistic. It's as if he is preaching to his own people in Sinn Féin to the exclusion of those he might not see as being worthy of the name Republican.

We are urged to "pay our own silent little tribute to the heroes" who found the courage to stand up for freedom. We do that anyway, Gerry, and perhaps it is time to slip in the observation that perhaps it is Gerry and his people who have lost their direction a bit.

I grew up in a household where my father, uncles and grandfather were members of the old IRA and who supported the anti-treaty side in the civil war. My dad and two brothers were obliged to immigrate to Canada for their pains soon after, where my uncles died, never seeing the land of their birth again. (An uncle on my mother's side fought with the British army for the duration of World War Two. I respect him equally.)

My father returned home to unemployment in 1945, and lived the poverty-stricken life of a builder's labourer until his death in 1978. But he didn't complain. He was not a flag-waver, expecting reward, or somebody who spent his time indoctrinating his family on notions of "sell-outs" and the "betrayal of the Republic".

When I was growing up in the 1950s, we fought our own civil war in the school playground, to my dad's amusement. There was many a black eye if one was the child of a "Free-Stater" or an "Irregular".

His intelligent analysis of the civil war aftermath was that if men who hated and fought each other so bitterly could then sit down across the table from each other and negotiate the formation of a government for the good of the nation, then there was no more room for worn-out dreams. For example, he never supported the six-county war, and I had many the argument with him on the topic. I'd been to numerous marches and demonstrations and actively supported the hunger-strikers in their simple demands (this one I never regret), but over time I have come to see that was what was legitimate in my father's time, is no longer so now. The fighting should have finished with his generation.

So many have needlessly died. A tragedy unfolded which we are all familiar with. Adams ought not to be concerned with silliness like the name of Pearse being wrongly spelt by someone in Dublin, or whether the scale of 1916 honours are up to his standards. We really know we are free regardless of how many tricolours are flown. We all own the flag – and having all voted for the ambiguity of the Good Friday Agreement and the relinquishing of Articles 2 and 3 of our constitution, it could be argued we are all "free-staters" now. It doesn't matter. Gerry conveniently refers to the "establishment" when admonishing the powers that be, yet it could be considered his party is part of it also. They negotiate with "them" at all times. This is not a bad thing, I hasten to add. We had the pleasure in Bantry a couple of years ago of having author Patrick McCabe visit during our literary week, and he and I had a long talk about what being Irish and the Republic meant to us. He said, "For me the Republic was truly established when Kevin Barry and his comrades were taken from Mountjoy prison where they had so shamefully been left for so long, and a huge crowd of Dublin citizens, representing, I'm sure, the rest of Ireland also, stood with heads bowed and applauded the fighters for our democracy as their bodies were taken to be buried with dignity and respect in Glasnevin."

That'll do me too, after a long road of uncertainty. It's really in our hearts and not necessarily through any particular political ideology how we remember 1916-1924, which makes us grateful citizens.

Robert O'Sullivan

Bantry, County Cork

Gerry Adams' understanding of the 1916 insurrection is as appalling as the collective consciences of the party he leads. What Adams seeks to characterise as a patriotic and heroic act aimed at securing "freedom and justice" was in fact an attempt at political revolution, undertaken by a cadre, without a shred of moral or democratic legitimacy.

One could argue that in a sense, there were two risings, the one that did in fact take place, and the one most certainly did not. The reason that MacNeill and Casement attempted to abort plans for an insurrection arose from the certain knowledge that German intervention would simply not happen.

Both nationalist historians and revisionists have unwittingly assisted each other by portraying the insurrection as either a protest in arms or a blood sacrifice. The truth about the Rising is that it was meant to succeed, and that it was driven by intelligent, ruthless, and dedicated professional revolutionaries.

Adams is loath to point out the obvious fact in his hagiographic salute to those who's principle of law was the gun, which is that moral justification for the insurrection was measured in terms of carnage. The principle tactic of Adams' so-called patriots was to create a state of national fear, anarchy, and death sufficient in its scale to entice the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman, to sanction an immediate intervention in Ireland. This was the original plan negotiated by Casement in 1915, but shelved by the Germans as impracticable in the short term at least.

However it is important to point out that the upper echelons of the volunteers, and principally the military council, entered into the insurrection convinced that the German plan could be activated.

Hence when Pearse referenced "our gallant allies" in the proclamation, he was of course alluding to the German Imperial Army.

Those who participated in the insurrection (bearing in mind that many were duped) were not trying to achieve "freedom or justice". They were in fact endeavouring to destroy a developed democratic system that had secured political consensus between Irish nationalism and the British government, in the form of a Home Rule settlement. This measure was the law of the land, though its implementation had to be placed in temporary suspension until after the war.

The intention of the insurrectionists, with help from their "gallant allies", was to impose a pro-fascist ideology of ethno-nationalist domination upon the whole of Ireland. Had they even come close to achieving this, the cost in innocent life would have been in the hundreds of thousands. In all, over three hundred civilians were killed in the insurrection and thousands more injured. Scores of children were also killed. I would suggest to Adams that he should consider paying his own "silent little tribute" to the "non-combatants'" who lost their lives, as a result of the murderous actions of a cadre of fanatical terrorists. One might well ask where is the Garden of Remembrance for them?

Pierce Martin

Celbridge, County Kildare

Fr Pyka, in Tom Galvin's excellent article on the Polish community in Ireland, is quoted as saying, "You wouldn't expect to meet a Polish person who is not a Catholic". A throwaway remark often reveals deep-rooted prejudice.

Is the sole representative of the Polish Catholicism here in Ireland expressing official Church policy?

Are we to understand that the millions of Jews transported from the Warsaw ghetto, and elsewhere in Poland, to be slaughtered for no other reason than their faith, were not really Polish at all?

Could we imagine an Irish Catholic prelate similarly equating Irish identity with membership of his particular ecclesial community?

On an Easter weekend would such an attitude not be a betrayal of the men and women of differing faiths who participated in the long struggle for independence, and an explanation of the difficulty of some elements of the Protestant and dissenting traditions to adhere fully to the concept of a fully independent island?

Gordon Davies

Bray, Co Wicklow

Your decision to publish Salman Rushdie's "The Trouble with Religion" must feel like a case of being suckered by a brand name. His non-engagement with the breadth and complexity of the worlds of faith and religion – Oscar Romero, Archbishop Tutu and Jim God's Politics Wallis spring to mind from my own extended faith family – is par for the course for omniscient atheists. But his pen picture of history, ancient and new, is breathtaking for its bigotry and monochromaticity.

Even George Bush is reputed to have a box of crayons in his possession.

Rushdie's article, which is little more than a loosely linked series of pompous assertions, concludes with what he must have thought we would think was a killer quotation. "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose." Methinks he dot protest too much. Salmon's little fable would fit very nicely into a Mother Goose collection. If only it rhymed.

Brendan Conroy