Letters to the editor 2005-10-06

Being Irish and British

A nebulous nationalism   
The people of Ireland, North and South..., or in other words the living Irish nation as understood by Bunreacht na hEireann, in an act of concurrent self-determination, overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, which has now led to the cessation of all IRA activity and completed decommissioning. One might think that most democrats would be more disturbed by the invocation of a supposedly still subsisting right of self-determination by “the historic Irish nation”, as a justification for continued armed struggle, unwanted by the Irish people, than by my description of that claim as nebulous (Jack Lane, 29 September).
The attempted justification comes from the same ideological stable that asserts that all powers of government in a nebulous “Irish Republic”, which takes precedence over this (unrecognised) Republic, were handed down by the last surviving member of the Second Dáil rather than from the living electorate, and created the preposterous fiction that the legitimate government of this country was an equally nebulous army council or military junta.  
The “historic Irish nation” in this context is clearly a differently constituted entity from the living people of Ireland that made the decision North and South in 1998 to ratify the Good Friday Agreement, but in what way exactly is not self-explanatory.  
My concept of nationality would be that of Tone and Davis, and Parnell, when he said: “We cannot afford to give up a single Irishman”. That is to be understood obviously today as gender-neutral and non-coercive. Under the revised articles 2 and 3, approved by the people, the Irish nation continues to be defined on an inclusive all-Ireland basis, but membership is not forced on those who want no part of it. Where this differs sharply from many two-nation exponents is that it does not exclude anyone, who, consistent with their legal entitlements, wishes or declares themselves to be Irish (which can be extrapolated backwards pre-independence).  
As a leading loyalist put it to a conference I was present at, his grandparents were Irish, he is British, but, who knows, his grandchildren may be Irish again. Under the Agreement, they have the freedom to do so, without being encumbered by ideological straitjackets that require that some of the people on this island have prior rights that override theirs or that definitively assign them to a non-Irish category. Under the terms of the Agreement, people in Northern Ireland can be Irish or British or both. There is no necessary incompatibility between being Unionist and Irish, and no political tests to be passed to qualify for Irish nationality and citizenship.
Martin Mansergh
Seanad Éireann, Dublin 2

Irish sovereignty

Keeping a firm grip on your vote
As the Irish people sleepwalk their way to the next election, distracted by taxation, interest rates and other economic woes, they seem unaware of the inability (or unwillingness) of our elected representatives to halt the erosion of our neutrality, and by extension our sovereignty and national identity. Citizens should raise the following issues as matters of grave concern with their TDs.
• The continued use of our territorial waters by submarines from Britain, Canada and many other nations.
• The aggressive marketing of British broadsheets and tabloids in Ireland, some of which publish “Irish” editions, as well as the ongoing purchase of regional titles by UK companies. These newspapers appear to exist in some sort of pre-1922 era where the distinction between what is Irish and what is British is so blurred as to make the two terms synonymous.
• The tendency of certain newspaper titles in Ireland to peddle a simple-minded pro-British, pro-Unionist line (dressed up as multiculturalism!) while sniping at President McAleese, Irish language enthusiasts and the legitimate representatives of Northern nationalists as all being given to sectarian tribalism.
• The willingness of our Government to consider committing Irish troops to the NATO offshoot, Partnership for Peace, and to EU battle groups.
It appears to me that our elected representatives are not only failing to uphold our neutrality, they are also overseeing the erosion of our sovereignty and national identity. They must be punished at the next election. Keep a firm grip on your vote!  
Sean Goulding
Carraigkerry, Co Limerick

IRA decommissioning  
 
DUP's reaction to disarmament fair and respectful  
In all of the reporting, commentary and analysis I've encountered so far on the recent IRA announcement, a lot of the focus has been on the (apparently) luke warm, less-than-ecstatic response from unionist politicians and the DUP in particular. It is surprising therefore that as yet noone seems to have drawn the obvious conclusion. Could this be deliberate?  
What has been remarkable about the reaction of unionism and the DUP is not their lack of embrace for the IRA's historic initiative. Rather it is the fact that they did not respond to it in some kind of triumphalist fashion, which obviously would have been disastrous.  
Think about it. Unionism and the DUP's arch-enemy, the IRA, have completely and unconditionally disarmed (according to General de Chastelain), having earlier declared an end to their military campaign. But no one from the unionist camp is hailing it as a victory of any sort. There has been no flag waving, insults, provocations or even any kind of oneupmanship from any quarter. In this sense it has to be said that the reaction has been generally quite respectful, and therefore positive.  
I believe that this is firstly because unionism and the DUP represent a constituency of people who are fundamentally decent and don't want to re-open new wounds now that old wounds have a chance to heal.  
Secondly it confirms that the DUP are on board in this new departure even though they have reservations and, officially at least, remain opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. It is to be expected that, if they are to play a role in facilitating acceptance within their political constituency for the new dispensation that is on offer, they will want to do so on their own terms. It has to be remembered that DUP leader, Ian Paisley, is actually viewed with suspicion within sections of unionism (those usually labelled “loyalists”) stemming back to the days of unionist protests against the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985. For reasons that I must confess are beyond my comprehension, it is perceived by some that he somehow betrayed these sections, sold out. Recent disturbances in loyalist communities may even be a reflection of this, were it the case for example, that word somehow filtered through that a big development was about to take place.
I think it is worth saying that there would be no point in any community or individual making triumphalist noises as a sad and terrible chapter closes.  Because still one feels that the full story has yet to be told. When it is told, the picture it will reveal will be one in which every one of us, without exception, Irish and British, was the victim of duplicity, cunning and manipulation. In short the joke was on us all, but what a pity that it had to be such a tasteless one.  
The skeptics and dissidents (and there are some of these in the nationalist/ republican camp too) to this new departure should be accorded the necessary breathing-space, and whatever time is necessary, to absorb the significance of these developments. In return they must agree not to use this breathing space to physically threaten or attack anyone. Or indeed to prepare for such attacks when circumstances might change in the future. There can be no such thing as “an acceptable level of violence”. Also the issue of “allowing people time to absorb” should not be used as an excuse to hold up progress towards normalisation of civil life that continues to make strides despite periodic setbacks. This can only be accomplished through the vigilance and conscious activity of the population as a whole, not through measures implemented “from above”.  
There is a lack of transparency, accountability and consultation in verifying the IRA's decommissioning. It has lead some to cast doubt on whether they really have “gone away”. It can only be hoped that in time these people will accept that, on this occasion, one wrong has managed to cancel out some previous wrongs, without for one moment denying that these wrongs should never have been committed in the first place.
Oscar Ó Dúgáin
Baile Átha Cliath 11

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil  
 
Politics and prison  

While reading your recent article about payments received by Ray Burke, I believe I worked out the main difference between Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil.
When voting for a Sinn Féin candidate, often one is voting for someone who got involved in politics due to experiences they had in prison. While voting for Fianna Fáil, one is voting for a candidate who may end up in prison for what they got involved in while in politics.
Matthew Sadlier
North Circular Road, Limerick
Irish history  
 
Support for Tom Barry  
Village magazine published a piece by me on a simmering historical controversy concerning republican violence during the War of Independence, between Memorial University Newfoundland History Professor Peter Hart on the one hand and Irish historians, Meda Ryan, Brian Murphy and Manus O'Riordan on the other. The controversy has occupied space in the past four editions of History Ireland. In the latest issue, Irish historian Meda Ryan defended her recent biography of legendary IRA commander Tom Barry and repulsed an attack on her reputation by Peter Hart.
Peter Hart accused Ryan of “prejudice” and of having “a catalogue of excuses for killing”, referring to IRA actions in the Irish War of Independence of 1919-21.
Hart's allegation that Tom Barry was a “liar” and a “serial killer” has given rise to much controversy. Hart alleged that there was no “false surrender” at the Kilmichael ambush in November 1920. In the accepted version of events, British troops took up arms after surrendering and killed IRA volunteers who stood to take the surrender.
Ryan brought forward new evidence demonstrating that Professor Hart used documentary evidence in a misleading manner. Professor Hart was also accused by Irish historian Brian Murphy of similar practice in relation to killings near Bandon in April 1922.
Ryan brought forward new evidence that undermined the Hart case that republican violence had a dominant sectarian dimension.
One issue attracting increasing attention is the anomaly whereby Professor Hart claimed to have anonymously interviewed a participant in the Kilmichael ambush six days after records show that the last participant died in November 1989. Hart has refused to name the alleged informant who said there was no false surrender.
In the new paperback edition of Tom Barry – IRA Freedom Fighter (Mercier 2005 €14.99), Ryan lists when all participants in the Kilmichael ambush died, putting further pressure on Peter Hart to explain his capacity to interview dead witnesses.
Maynooth University historian Andreas Boldt has criticised Professor Hart for using intemperate and “emotional” language in lengthy attack on Ryan.
In a sign of further support from within the academic community for Ryan, University of Limerick History Department Head, Ruan O'Donnell will launch the new paperback edition of Ryan's Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter on Friday 14 October in the Teacher's club in Dublin at 7.45pm.
NIALL MEEHAN
Dublin

Child Abuse - Last Chance to seek redress

The Residential Institutional Redress Board (RIRB) was established under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 with the purpose of providing people raised in the care of the state as children the choice of applying for financial compensation if they suffered abuse or neglect while in the institution. One hundred and twenty eight institutions were named in the original Act and a number have been added subsequently. The establishment of the RIRB is of crucial importance to people with intellectual disabilities who were raised in these institutions. For a variety of reasons people with intellectual disabilities are more vulnerable to abuse and also much less likely to receive justice through the existing legal system. In the eyes of the law, people with intellectual disabilities in general make poor witnesses and do not stand up well to the rigours of cross examination. Consequently they do not have recourse to the same legal channels as the majority of the typical population. As the burden of proof required to make a successful application to the RIRB is lower than the criminal or civil courts it is a much more viable option for this group of people.
Applications to the RIRB are normally but not exclusively submitted through a solicitor and the closing date is 15 December 2005.  In general, reasonable legal fees are met by the RIRB. If there are people who have spent time in one of the named institutions as children who have not made an application they have less than three months to do so.
Many people with intellectual disabilities who presently are in care with an organisation may be eligible to apply to the Redress Board. Some of the people may have little or no contact with their families and thus the responsibility for informing them of their rights rests with their carers. While it is debatable whether an organisation has a legal responsibility to inform someone of their entitlements, from a moral and human rights perspective it is incumbent on each organisation to inform people that they may have an entitlement to make an application; the least we should do is give people accurate information in an accessible form to allow them to make an informed decision to consult a solicitor who can make an application on their behalf. If the person has poor communication skills, they should still consult a solicitor with the support of an advocate and allow the legal profession or the Redress Board make any necessary decisions regarding their eligibility to apply.
In the Brothers of Charity Services in Galway we have been fortunate to receive some funding from the Order to allow us to identify people who currently receive a service from us who may wish to enter an application to the RIRB and we are informing them of their rights.  We have also identified a group of people who have passed through our services and now receive support from a wide range of organisations covering the length and breadth of the country. We have managed to track many of them down and have informed their carers of the rights which they have. Many others, alas, we have been unable to trace but hope to do so by placing adverts in the local and regional press.
After contacting many organisations providing care for people with intellectual disabilities around the country it is particularly noticeable that not all of them appear to be aware that people with intellectual disabilities are eligible to make an application.
It is important to recognise that for many this is their one and only chance to gain any recognition and redress for the abuse and neglect which they may have suffered while in care as children.  It is imperative that we do not miss this opportunity to inform these vulnerable people of their legal rights and facilitate them to exercise those rights.  If we fail to inform people of their rights we could be accused of failing in our duty of care as the generations before us, only this time we cannot plead ignorance.
John Leinster
Head of Social Work, Brothers of Charity Galway
∏More johnleinster@galway.
brothersofcharity.ie

Defined by what we destroy  
In a letter to Village (23 September 2005), Joe Fenwick of the Department of Archaelogy in NUI Galway expressed his perplexity that the National Roads Authority/Meath County Council should attempt, on the flimisiest of grounds, to justify the destruction of our national heritage in the area integral to the Hill of Tara.
The letter reminds me of a statement by the eminent biologist Edward O'Wilson that “society is defined not just by what it creates, but by what it chooses not to destroy”.
Need I add anything?
Tommy Hamil
Ballinteer, Navan, Co Meath

Tara and the M3
Do you feel you have a voice?
Make no mistake about it – planning affects all our lives, be it for cities, towns, road, rail or other infrastructure. At its best it can be exciting and inclusive, at its worst it can be a disaster.
With good planning one would expect genuine consultation with the aim of arriving at the best possible outcome. Contrast this with what we hear of people around Ireland today whose experience of the State planning system has been one of exclusion, dismissal, not being listened to, even ridicule.
Infrastructure is at stake. The issues are major and varied – superdumps, incinerators, gas lines, motorways, tolls, a super prison. The concerns are valid and serious – health, safety, environment, heritage, compulsory purchase orders.
We know we need infrastruture, but surely it is possible in a country of four million people to modernise without destroying. The notion of a competitive economy seems so all-consuming that those with power and corporate clout have become blind to anything they perceive as an obstacle to their project. The consequences are that things that are precious to people get trampled upon while narrow solutions to problems are imposed. A prime example is the M3 toll road provided as the only solution to Meath's traffic nightmare. Where is the planning in that? A solution that desecrates Ireland's most important ancient landscape which at the same time guaranteed to exacerbate Dublin's gridlock, add to greenhouse gases, provide little or no relief to the frustrated commuter and will empty pockets through tolls and dependence on ever-more expensive petrol.
On the other hand, good inclusive planning would have taken up all these issues which were repeatedly highlighted by citizens and experts throughout the so called “consultation process” for the M3. Good planning, which should always look at the big picture, would likely have come up with a comprehensive transport solution appropriate to the needs of the region, involving upgraded roads, bypasses, rapid rail and coach services – all this for approximately €835 million, ie about the same cost as the M3 on its own (costed by the Meath Multiway project ).
Why are the state and its agents ignoring the citizen who cares and is courageous enough to involve themselves in the planning process. Not many get involved, but those who do end up feeling frustrated, angry, disempowered, and isolated. Who can be held accountable for this blatant breach of democracy?
Claire Oakes
Navan, Co Meath

D-Day for the Baths
On Monday, 10 October, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Co Council will meet to vote on plans to build an eight-storey apartment and shopping complex on the site of Dun Laoghaire Baths. On that day, Save Our Seafront (SOS), along with many local residents, will hold a demonstration outside the meeting, calling on councillors to reject the plan.
On several occasions now, thousands of people have joined SOS protests against the council's development plan. On 18 September, almost 5,000 people marched against these proposals in by far the biggest demonstration Dun Laoghaire has ever seen on any issue. Almost 15,000 people have also signed a petition opposing this development. SOS has shown beyond doubt that the vast majority of people in the Dun Laoghaire area oppose this plan to privatise a major section of the seafront and destroy the beautiful public sea views.
The seafront is an amenity that belongs to everyone. It is unacceptable that any part of it should be handed over to private developers to build exclusive developments for a privileged elite. The derelict baths site must be redeveloped but it should be redeveloped as a fully public swimming amenity that is available to all.
Our demonstrations have had a major impact. When the council first unveiled their plans most councillors supported them. Now, following the huge wave of protest, many individual councillors and political representatives say they oppose the development. One Fine Gael councillor that initially welcomed the Council plan now even claims he was against it all along.
However, for several months the three major party groups on the council, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour party, sat on the fence and refused to state which way they would vote. Since the 18 September protest, Fianna Fáil now says it will oppose the plan. Fine Gael and Labour are still saying nothing.
The pressure is working but the battle is not over yet. On 10 October we will be demanding that all parties listen to the voice of the public and vote against these plans. We must also make it clear that scaling down the existing plan or just leaving the baths derelict is not good enough.
We want a firm commitment to build a fully public swimming amenity on the baths site with no apartments. We want commitments from the council and from central government to provide the money for this. We want firm commitments from councillors and TDs that their parties will find the money to redevelop and reopen the baths as a fully public swimming amenity.
People power is working. Let's keep it up. Join the protest at the Town Hall on Monday 10 October. The protest will start at 5 pm and will continue until at least 7 pm while the councillors are meeting. If you cannot get there at five, get there as soon as you can.
For more information contact Richard Boyd Barrett, 087 632 9511, Nicola Sarratt, 087 411 5015 or Bob Waddell, 087 761 6741 or email info@saveourseafront.ie
∏More www.saveourseafront.ie