Letters 2005-09-09

In your editorial last week ('Beating a broken drum on Irish unity', Village 2 September) it was stated that "the vast majority (85 per cent) of the people on this island voted in 1998 in favour... of the Good Friday Agreement." Not so.

In this State, 43.97 per cent of those entitled to vote did not do so and of those that did cast their vote, 5.6 per cent voted no.

In Northern Ireland, 19 per cent of those entitled to vote did not to do so and, of those that did cast their vote, 28.88 per cent voted no.

The claim that "...85 per cent of the people on this island voted in favour ..." is simply false.

John Horan (PRO) ,

Comhairle Ceantair Atha Cliath,

Republican Sinn Féin, Teach Daithi O Conaill, 223 Parnell Street, Dublin 1

A number of families in the North side of Limerick are being put under unfair pressure by the Irish Rugby Football Union to leave their homes. The expansion plans for Thomond Park envisage extending the ground into part of the Ballynanty housing scheme.

The plan in conjunction with the Limerick City Council is to replace some dwellings so that the pitch may be extended. However some of the residents whose homes border the pitch are angry by the way the IRFU has approached them.

While the IRFU has made offers of 200,000 euro to the residents, to vacate their home and purchase new houses, it is the "take it or leave it" attitude that has upset people. The rugby union seems to be trying to blame the residents if the expansion plan fails.

In fact residents have told me that some union officials are saying that if the plans do not succeed then they will move to Cork.

I am now calling for a full and open meeting between the IRFU, the residents, the local City Councillors and officials to discuss the whole plan. Limerick is the home of Munster rugby and the IRFU should be more sensitive to people who now fear for their homes.

Mick "The Quill" Ryan

Ballynanty, Limerick

I must congratulate Padraig Mac Fionnlaig on the excellent letter of his that appeared in last week's Village (2 September). While being just as misguided as his last offering, it was nonetheless refreshingly witty and made for entertaining reading, so much so that I almost didn't have the heart to put him in his place again. Unfortunately, I have this obsession with basic accuracy, so here we go again.

For the last time, I did not criticise Village. I merely critised Eoin Ó Murchú, and I did it very well. Nor, might I add, did my criticism imply any wish to censor his views. We live in a free democracy, which means that Ó Murchú and Mac Fionnlaig are free to be as wrong as they like. At least Mac Fionnlaig does it with style. But one slovenly columnist does not take away from the overall merits of a publication. I did feel that Village could use someone to balance these naked republican sympathies, which thankfully are still a distinct minority, and so I offered my services.

I was slightly insulted by Mac Fionnlaig's assertation that I am a "self-professed" student of history, which did make me sound a bit sad. It would deeply sadden my history teacher to discover that apparently I only turn up every day so that I can call myself a "student of history" and impress the readers of Village.

As for his statement that constitutional nationalists are celebrated with "the charity of silence", I can only suggest that Mac Fionnlaig take a glance around the next time he is on the main street of the capital. At one end is the newly spruced-up statue of Daniel O'Connell; at the other, the monument to Charles Stewart Parnell. Mac Fionnlaig once again failed to put up a defence of his criticism of these and other Irish patriots, nor did he explain his view that bloodshed is preferable to peaceful methods.

John Horan (same issue) came back for more on the issue of Parnell, as if any member of Republican Sinn Féin were fit to lick his boots. Republicanism does indeed have a despicable history, not just from the vantage point of Westminister or myself, but from the vantage point of the bloodied and dying at such atrocities as Omagh, Enniskillen or La Mon. With regard to Parnell's status as a constitutional nationalist, the historical consensus is in my favour, although I do accept that it is a contentious issue. However, Parnell's physical force leanings, if any, never manifested themselves in anything other than rhetoric of the kind John Horan quoted. His actions were always above reproach. If Horan has further queries, I would refer him to the authoritative biography of Parnell by the late Professor FSL Lyons, a man whose knowledge on the subject undoubtedly surpassed that of mine and Horan's put together.

Conor J McKinney

Mount Merrion, Co Dublin

Maureen O'Sullivan (Village 26 August) has failed to address the issues raised in my recent letter concerning the opening of the Brendan Kennelly festival by PUP spokesman David Ervine. Let me state at the outset that I hold no hatred for any individual, though I loathe the ethos of the UVF with which organisation the PUP is associated. Neither would I seek to belittle ex-prisoners, or deny David Ervine freedom of speech. I do however draw a distinction between providing someone with a public platform for his or her views and inviting that person to open an event. The latter clearly implies a certain approval of that individual's status.

The purpose of my letter was twofold; firstly to highlight the insensitivity of the festival committee in according celebrity status to an apologist for the UVF, on the anniversary of the the Miami Showband massacre and at a time when that organisation was spreading arson, terror and murder – internecine, sectarian and racist – in Belfast and Antrim.

More importantly I sought to highlight the contrasting attitudes of the mainstream southern media towards respectively republican and unionist paramilitaries.

I am slightly saddened but not surprised that David Ervine's address was well received by the capacity audience who listened "tier beyond tier" to his words of wisdom. Unlike the victims, David and his devotees were well removed from the thick of the conflict. His rhetorical question "How can you hate someone you don't know?" could, with some justification, be addressed to the loyal heroes who in recent months cleared the Chinese out of Donegall Pass, hurled petrol and pipe bombs at Catholic houses businesses and schools killed four Protestants and butchered Catholic schoolboy Thomas Devlin. Perhaps the theme of the Kennelly festival should have been "Indifference".

Brian Patterson

Newry, Co Down

This week is Heritage Week when Ireland celebrates its culture, its environment, its pub-going traditions, its wildlife. All over the country, professionals (often on short-term and insecure contracts) and volunteers are running events such as nature walks, field trips, lectures, music recitals, guided tours, historical re-enactments, exhibitions and displays of traditional crafts. As we face back into the working year, it's a chance to enjoy the notion that we are a rich people, with a long and proud historical tradition and the cultural sophistication to understand and enjoy the treasures which we possess.

It is important to understand, however, that Heritage Week is a political construct, designed to promote the agenda of the now disbanded state agency, Dúchas. When Dúchas was created, it was a one-stop shop where the various branches of government dealing with environmental and archaeological protection worked together, drawing support from each other and strengthening what had historically been weak services within the government apparatus, relying heavily on volunteerism and enthusiasm.

Whether because of ideological conviction or because of agreements made by Irish government ministers in Brussels, it was agreed to strengthen the various protection bodies with new powers and new funding and Heritage Week was created to help inspire public enthusiasm for the new body.

When Martin Cullen succumbed to those lobbying for the removal of such protection, disbanded Dúchas and divided the responsibility for heritage protection amongst four different government departments, Heritage Week was left to the body known as the Heritage Council to run, an agency which gives out advice (and more importantly, cash) rather than enforces laws.

That political backdrop is vital for understanding the bizarre omissions from Heritage Week such as 19th and 20th century history, the Irish language or genealogical research. Heritage Week is about politicians wanting citizens to feel good rather than to examine the complex realities which make up our traditions and our environment. Even within its own terms, what we are officially told about our heritage during this week has all the glossy perfection of a Fáilte Ireland poster.

The Irish Times can celebrate the glories of our archaeological past and monuments – but nobody wants to know that we are paying hand-over-fist to destroy those monuments without gaining any information in return. The company currently responsible for mitigating archaeology in the Tara/Skryne valley on behalf of the NRA, ACS Ltd, proclaims on its website that they have earned 9.83 million euros from less than half of the contracts they have been awarded by the NRA, working through local authorities, over the last five years. They also state that they have yet to make a single substantial report available to the public in return for all that cash. I wonder what Eddie Hobbs' Rip Off Republic would make of that?

Dr Catherine Swift

Save Viking Waterford Action Group

It is heartening that Pierce Martin admits to having accepted a more comprehensive view, of sorts, on the causes of the 1916 Rising. He now says it "consisted of far more than malevolence"(Village, 26 August). However he goes on to disagree with the way that "I connect the event to historical phenomena outside the political community of separatism".

Pierce believes that the sheer wilful commitment of a handful of separatists, inspired by "early Fenianism" as he calls it, caused the Rising. With all due respect to the 1916 rebels he is crediting them with far more ability than I do. He is flattering them exactly as they were flattered for decades. Admirable as they were it was not their political willpower that solely determined their success. Pierce totally ignores the political context in which they acted – the proverbial water in which the rebel fish swam so well.

The political context then, as always, was effectively set by the government of the day. That government was the most powerful the world had ever seen but Pierce is oblivious to what it was doing in Ireland. By 1916 it had conceded to the threat of civil war by the Ulster Unionists against Home Rule and yet that government had succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands of Irishmen to fight its war against Germany for "the freedom of small nations". This was a remarkable achievment but it was based on a contradiction, or hypocrisy, and as the war progressed this contradiction/hypocrisy became more glaring and pronounced. This is the situation that made the Rising a success. Surely Pierce must see some connection between this political context and the success of the Rising? The most cursory reading of any contemporary account makes the connection very clear.

Pierce claims that "the real political issue in the 1918 election (was) that of the threat of conscription". But the attempt at conscription had long since been abandoned and the war was over for months when the election was held. How therefore could conscription have been the issue?

The issue of the election was about what the hundreds of thousands of Irishmen had fought for and 50,000 died for – "the freedom of small nations" – and this one in particular. But the general surprise and disgust at the realisation that this great slogan did not apply to Ireland, despite the huge sacrfices, ensured overwhelming support for Independence after that election. The 1916 Rebels were then seen as having the foresight that this would happen and therfore the rebels and the electorate were at one after that election and this is what ensured the success of the War of Independence.

The objection to 1916, that it was illegitimate because it lacked an electoral mandate, is undermined when the electoral mandate of 1918 is not accepted as legitimate authority for establishing and defending independent government in 1919-21.

Pierce rightly points out that the election I quoted which gave Sinn Féin complete electoral support was held in 1921 not 1920 but typographical errors have become one of the charming elements of this debate.

However, whenever it was held and whatever the result clearly makes no difference to Pierce as he is ever ready to explain away any awkward electoral fact, howver obvious, as due to threats by Sinn Féin by claiming that any opponents in that Election would "have signed their death warrants". However he accepts the result of the local elections held in 1920 where there were hundreds of non-Sinn Féin candidates. Did all these candidates thereby sign their death warrants? Was there a general massacre of Local Councillors in 1920?

Jack Lane

Millstreet, Co Cork