Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2005-12-22
McDowell vs Frank Connolly
'A drumhead court martial'
Michael McDowell should be ashamed of himself in carrying out what respected retired Justice Feargus Flood termed a "drumhead court martial" against investigative journalist Frank Connolly. It can be extremely dangerous to use parliament to make serious allegations against an individual, as the tragic case of Pat Finucane showed. British Minister Douglas Hogg used the House of Commons to make unsubstantiated allegations against the Human Rights solicitor. Weeks later Mr Finucane was shot dead as he ate dinner with his family. Hogg claimed he based his allegations on "security sources" but Sir John Stevens later found that elements of the security forces were involved in the murder.
McDowell also claimed that his allegations were based on security sources. But these same sources continued for 30 years to tell the family of Seamus Ludlow that he was killed by the IRA when they knew that he had been shot by a Loyalist gang with British security connections.
McDowell should learn from the fallout from his allegations against a new national newspaper before it was even published. Since he said that Daily Ireland was like a "Nazi hate-sheet", that paper has received six visits from the PSNI to tell its workers that they are under threat from Loyalist paramilitaries.
Sean Marlow
Dublin 11
Grinding and expensive tribunals
If the Minister can act as judge and jury when democracy is threatened, can we close down all the tribunals and just have the Minister tell us who he thinks corrupted our democratic process for all these years?
This matter is too urgent to be left to the grinding pace of the tribunals, with their expensive barristers. What if it turned out that some of these people were guilty but it could not be proved in a court of law? What if, God forbid, one of them used their media assets to influence the course of an election? Wouldn't that be a threat to democracy?
This is a hypothetical case. Probably all the people mentioned in the tribunals are innocent. But can we take the chance? Look into your secret files, Minister. Name those who are innocent and those who are guilty, now. You have the power and the duty to do so. You told us so yourself. Or have I missed something?
Tim O'Halloran
Ferndale Road, Dublin 11
McDowell's abuse of power undermines our democracy
Many have taken Frank Connolly's refusal to account for his movements in April 2001 as an indication of his guilt, but Connolly is entirely correct not to answer these questions to anybody except those entitled to ask them, ie An Garda Síochána. Minister McDowell has decided to circumvent and thus to subvert due process of law, and for Connolly to answer for his movements to anyone but the gardaí would be for him to join in this extrajudicial trial and thus be as guilty as McDowell in the undermining of our hard-won democratic institutions.
Careless observers have pointed to the fact that Mr Connolly published allegations against Ray Burke and against Donegal gardaí without their first being heard in court, and that therefore, why shouldn't Minister McDowell do the same to him? Connolly published in journals, which bore the heavy risk of libel action if the allegations proved to be unfounded. The accused had, at all times, access to legal remedy. He published all the details known to him, and which led him to his conclusions. The Minister has, on the other hand, hidden behind Dáil privilege to make his allegations, thus barring Connolly from any legal redress. He has leaked one document to a chosen media outlet. He has himself admitted that this document would not support a criminal prosecution against Connolly. Far from publishing all the information which, he claims, led him to conclude that Connolly was part of some fantastic cash-for-training scheme, he has refused to do anything except make wild claims which cannot be challenged by anyone.
The FARC army has successfully fought a US-trained and armed Colombian army, right-wing paramilitary groups and covert US special forces for over 30 years. Colombian special forces are regarded to be on a par with the US special forces who train them. Despite this, FARC now control almost half the country. Does any sane person believe that they needed three Irishmen to go over in 2001 to teach them how to use a sniper rifle and mortars? I know the Celtic Tiger has severely distorted our sense of self importance, but this must be the most ridiculous of Irish jokes.
Donnchadh MacGill
Castleknock, Dublin 15
CPI's undoing by McDowell
The Centre for Public Inquiry has produced two excellent reports on Trim Castle and the Shell gas pipe in Rossport. What was the next project planned by this organisation and by Frank Connolly? Could it have been the strange story of Tara and the M3?
Muireann Ní Bhrolcháin
Maynooth, Co Kildare
Response to Martin Mansergh
Not proud of our Republican village
One might be forgiven for imagining that Senator Martin Mansergh regrets the fact, that it was not "he standing" on the steps of the GPO on Easter Monday morning 1916, reading the Proclamation with the ghost of Cúchulainn in the background, inspiring him on into history and glory.
Mansergh would like nothing better than to at least retain our traditional supine mindset in relation to the standard historical narrative relating to events from 1916 to 1921/'23. Ideally he would like the general population to enthusiastically fall in line with the "great heroic historical epic", just as we did in 1966, to wear, if I may quote Yeats: "the pinafores of charity children", not to think, and certainly not to make up our minds about the moral conduct of our cruel founding fathers. Mansergh is something of a Frankensteinian mix of Patrick Pearse and D.P. Moran, the latter an anglophobic control freak, the former a deluded nationalist fanatic.
Mansergh chooses to construe any rejection of the criminal violence carried out by separatist revolutionaries from 1916 up to the establishment of the State in 1922, as an attack upon the legitimacy of this State. This is outrageous and disingenuous. The legitimacy of this state, as Prof. Cooney has repeatedly argued, derives from the 1937 Constitution, whatever any citizen may believe about the validity of the historical and ideological assumptions behind it, that cannot affect a citizen's duty to respect it, and obey all its laws. For Mansergh to insinuate otherwise is unacceptable. My argument is not against the legitimacy of the State but the smug and false assumptions relating to the historiography of what is popularly termed: "Ireland's fight for freedom".
I do not argue that it was "right" for the British to shoot the leaders of the Rising. Despite their despicable crimes, death at the end of a firing squad was both morally and tactically wrong. It is very easy to confuse heroism with virtue, one could just as easily argue that because members of the SS fought and died bravely in the Second World War and that they too were also virtuous. This would be patent nonsense.
Mansergh asserts that "it is not individuals who determine what is a crime". This is palpable nonsense, individuals decide what is a crime every day, as jurors, in any event for most rational people what determines a crime is evidence.
His citing of his distinguished father, the commonwealth historian, Nicholas Mansergh to bolster his contention that the British Empire needed the violent impetus supplied by Ireland to break the Imperial will is unconvincing. Only the most reactionary elements within the British political establishment believed that the Empire was not beyond its sell by date. Most British politicians saw the dismantling of the Empire through constitutional means as not only inevitable, but desirable. The contribution of violent Irish republicanism to the break up of the British Empire is not something to be proud of. Mansergh knows full well that there is no historical consensus in relation to whether Ireland was a Kingdom or a colony. I believe that Ireland was not a colony in the 19th century, and with good reason.
Mansergh's assertion that my correspondence was "designed to cause maximum offence and provocation" and his interesting use at the end of his letter of the word "captious" is very revealing of his attitude to freedom of speech, and humanity generally: there is more than a whiff of totalitarianism about his choice of words. What is extraordinarily offensive, and an outlandish provocation, is his arrogant patrician dismissal of an argument as "captious", which means that, what violent republicans did from 1916 to 1921-'23 was unnecessary, wrong, and criminal. Thousands died as a result of the terror, anarchy and murder that Pearse, and Collins, following the tactics of Kropotkin, unleashed in the name of a perverted patriotism, to object to that, Senator Mansergh, is hardly petty.
Pierce Martin
Celbridge, Co Kildare
Irish Ferries marches
Renationalise Irish Ferries
I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Joe Higgins, TD in last week's issue of Village. Irish Ferries should be renationalised. The Irish Government should also think twice before considering privatisation of other state or semi-state companies. Telecom subsidiaries, when sold off, were quick to fly the nest and accumulate vast profits worldwide. So, too, are our high-tech multi-nationals, if any problems arise or production costs increase like the Irish Ferries threat, they can use their "flag of convenience" and vanish.
I believe trade unionism has been relaxing for far too long on the sunny side of the Celtic Tiger: indifferent, lacking in foresight and showing little innovation for the future during the most tense and sensitive period in our history. How aware were they of the thousands of foreign workers arriving here and how they were treated? Had they been monitoring the jobs available to them, while at the same time ensuring there was full employment for all our own workers? The fact we, as a nation, know more about exploitation of our people by capitalist powers than most, is no excuse why we should now condone or perpetuate such practices; either on our own or on our friends from outside, who have come here to earn their livelihoods.
It's no surprise we have such a high proportion of millionaires and multi-millionaires, when numerous Irish employers so readily exploit foreign workers who come here looking for a job – exploitation at a double cost, both for the underpaid immigrant workers and for the Irish people they displace.
Trade unions and employers need to heed the symptoms. Our overstressed, heavily borrowed society has come to face the stark reality and is already cracking at the seams. What if the building boom collapses, if interest rates continue to rise, maybe over inflation of our economy, outside happenings beyond our control, or perhaps a further population explosion propagated by Brian Cowen's Budget? Already the high- tech multi-nationals are moving out for the cheaper labour "sweatshops" of Asia and Eastern Europe. The unions made little furore at the quick exit of 3-Com and that has cost 1,300 jobs at Blanchardstown.
Not many marches in recent times, demanding so little trade union input, evoked such heartfelt solidarity transcending politics, creeds and class, as the Irish Ferries demonstration. That huge banner, worded "Equal Rights For All Workers" hoisted high above the thousands of participants carried enough sincerity to make Larkin and Connolly shirk in their graves.
James A Gleeson
Thurles, Co Tipperary
Irish Ferries
Ferries' deal does not address real causes of dispute
Once again the leadership of the trade union movement has taken its eye off the ball. Despite the fact that 're-flagging' was the central issue at the core of the entire Irish Ferries dispute, they have negotiated a settlement to the dispute, which leaves the company the freedom to use this loophole to escape its responsibilities to their employees under 26-county labour and employment laws.
The editorial of Saoirse pointed this out in its December issue (published on 7 December): "The trade union leadership must close off the "re-flagging" loophole, and this must be made the cornerstone of any settlement of the dispute... By making this issue a central plank in any settlement and securing its abolition, the trade union leadership will strengthen their position, making it much easier to confront the company on the main issues of wages and working conditions leaving them with no back door by which they can escape their responsibilities to their employees."
Under the present deal the unions have let the company off the hook and turned a position of strength into one of weakness. The dispute showed there was plenty of goodwill among the public for the workers and unions in general, the national day of action showed the ability of working men and women to mobilise in defence of their rights. However, once again they have been let down by a weak and short-sighted leadership.
Des Dalton
Republican Sinn Fein Vice President
Christmas in modern Ireland
Pagan Christmas
The pagan Romans had a festival at the end of December called Saturnalia. It was a chaotic time with masters swapping places with slaves, soldiers dressing as prostitutes and people wearing masks and dancing in the street.
In post-Christian Ireland we have exploitation of workers, millionaires who pay no tax, hundreds sleeping on the streets, multinational corporations given a licence to put the lives of our citizens in jeopardy, and our Taoiseach is a self-confessed socialist.
So Happy Saturnalia, let chaos commence.
JOHN HANAMY
Rathmines, Dublin 6
STATEMENT
Rich countries backsliding on promises, developing countries standing firm
Developing countries are rejecting bad offers from rich countries at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong. They should maintain their firm stance and resist proposals that would exacerbate poverty.
In the last 24 hours new initiatives have emerged from different developing country groups on all three pillars of the negotiations – agriculture, non-agricultural market access, and services. These have been presented in response to proposals from rich countries and the WTO Director General that failed to live up to promises to put development first.
The EU and US are trying to undermine developing countries' positions. They are playing groups off against each other, recycling old pledges on aid, and offering market access to some but not others. At the same time, they are backsliding on promises already made. Developing countries must stand firm against this pressure.
An alternative text on services emerged from the G90 – a coalition of developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. They are rejecting the current services text which denies them the right to choose whether or not to open their service sectors, including health, education and water, to foreign competition.
Developing countries agreed to enter negotiations on services on an 'opt-in' basis. Now rich countries are trying to change the rules of the game halfway through and force them to negotiate even when it is not in their interests. This has the potential to undermine development and deny poor people access to basic services at prices they can afford.
Poor countries have also rejected existing proposals on lowering industrial tariffs, including on cars, textiles, and electronics, on the grounds that they are too sweeping and make no provision for the protection or promotion of fledgling businesses.
On agriculture, developing countries are holding out for an end date for export subsidies, and continue to resist rich country demands that concessions on agriculture must be matched by reciprocal movement by poor countries in other areas.
The EU recently tabled a proposal saying that any product-specific exceptions on market access for poor countries – so called 'special products' – should be linked to comparable exceptions for rich countries – known as 'sensitive products', despite the fact that the former were promised to protect food security and livelihoods.
Rich countries are going backwards, not forwards. Professions of commitment to development are sounding more and more hollow. This is unacceptable and poor countries must stick together and continue to hold out for better treatment and a fairer deal.
Oxfam Ireland
STATEMENT
Migrants have rights
An estimated 90 million migrants live and work outside their country of birth, many of them having left in search of security and a sustainable livelihood. Many economies have come to rely on migrants who are prepared to work in what are often referred to as "3-D jobs" – dirty, degrading and dangerous - with little security and low wages.
On International Migrants Day, 18 December, Amnesty International, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland urge the Irish Government to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families. This Convention is one of the seven core UN human rights treaties, the other six of which Ireland has already ratified.
Migrant workers all over the world are subjected to grossly inadequate conditions of work; often in demeaning circumstances and compelled to live in overcrowded and dangerous living quarters. The types of human rights abuses migrant workers face range from having salary payments withheld, passports or other identity documents confiscated by their employer, verbal and physical abuse from their employers, lack of access to proper housing and health, and difficulties securing family reunification. Women, who constitute around fifty per cent of migrant workers throughout the world, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, including sexual violence.
The Convention provides important protection to migrant workers, and aims at guaranteeing equality of treatment and working conditions for nationals and non-nationals. It also promotes inter-state collaboration to prevent and eliminate exploitation. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General has said:
"It is a vital part of efforts to combat exploitation of migrant workers and their families." Yet, the Irish Government has declared that it has no intention at present to ratify the Convention.
Amnesty is deeply concerned about the exploitation and myriad human rights abuses this large, often vulnerable and invisible group is subjected to by unscrupulous employers and host states. And Ireland is clearly no exception. It is deplorable that no EU Member State has ratified this Convention.
An increasing number of countries have ratified the Convention, but Ireland and the EU are lagging behind. Ratification of the Migrant Workers' Convention would be an important affirmation of Ireland's commitment to respecting the rights of migrant workers.
To date, Ireland has not done enough to protect the rights and entitlements of all immigrants in Ireland. We urge the Ministers for Enterprise and Justice to ensure that, at a minimum, the principles of the Migrant Workers' Convention are reflected in the new Employment Permits Bill and the Immigration and Residence Bill, both of which are due to be introduced in 2006.
For further information, please contact:
Amnesty International – Fiona Crowley, Tel. 01 677 6361
Migrants Rights Centre Ireland: Siobhan O'Donoghue Tel. 01 8897570