Villagers - Letters to the Editor 2006-01-19
Stormontgate - Spy ring: unlikely series of events
In recent weeks there has been a stream of media reports giving the PSNI version of the events which led to the "Stormontgate" arrests. This version invariably comes from unnamed PSNI sources. The story goes as follows:
Donaldson would not have been arrested if he had told his handlers about the stolen documents.
A second informer, who was not a significant republican figure, was able to tell the PSNI where highly sensitive stolen documents were being hidden. He was able to take the PSNI "deep inside an IRA intelligence gathering operation," to quote Brian Rowen in his Irish Times article of 7 January 2006.
The documents lay under a bed in a house in west Belfast "for weeks", during which time the PSNI broke into the house, photocopied all the thousands of documents and then carefully replaced them as they had found them, but with bugs attached. The owner of the house was under police surveillance during all of this time and spent "significant" amounts of time away from home, during which time these documents sat under his bed. During this time the IRA seems to have shown no interest in them and, though the documents, we are told, contained the details of hundreds of PSNI officers, the PSNI were happy to leave these details in the hands of the IRA "for weeks" and did not consider it necessary to inform their officers that their security had been compromised.
The documents were, for some unknown reason, moved to Donaldson's home. If Donaldson had informed the PSNI of the presence of the bag in his home he would not have been arrested, according to a PSNI source quoted by Rowan in the Irish Times: "If he had, we would have let it make another move." And yet, in the next paragraph, Rowan says that the PSNI had to make arrests because they believed the documents were about to be moved south across the border. Were they willing to let such seemingly important material go out of their jurisdiction if Donaldson had been a good informer.
We are told that the PSNI was hoping to find the IRA's director of intelligence in possession of the documents. And yet IRA intelligence just left a bag containing such a wealth of information on their enemies in a bag under a bed in West Belfast? The bag was supposed to contain such various documents as communications between the US administration and the British government and Irish Government over a period of several months, files on various political parties and files on ordinary police officers. From what we are told of these documents, they could not all have been stolen in the same place at the same time. A lengthy and well-organised spy ring was required. So how was this incriminating bag packed? a) Did the IRA steal documents over a period of months, throw them all into a bag without looking at them, then throw the bag under a bed? b) Did the IRA assess widely disparate types of information as it became available over a period of months and then throw it all together in a bag and throw the bag under a bed? Or c) Did the PSNI special branch gather together lots of incriminating documents that would be bound to upset everyone from the US government to the Irish Government to all the parties at Stormont, and then pile the documents into a bag and leave it where they could find it in the possession of a senior Sinn Féin official, who they knew they could never take to court, and thus could never be cross-examined on their actions?
Donnchadh MacGill, Castleknock, Dublin 15
Response to John Waters - Mary O'Rourke's rudeness
John Waters' article in last week's Village may have purported to be about the media search for scalps, and on this topic he may well have had a point. That he ended up trying to defend the indefensible is regrettable, but not unpredictable.
The source of offence in Mary O'Rourke's ill-advised slip-of-the-tongue is not in the use of the term "blacks", as the article attempted to postulate. It is the phrase itself, and Waters' statement that it is an "entirely positive" racial stereotype, that praises the industriousness of black people, is fatuous at best. In fact, "worked like blacks" is a reference to the notion that black people will happily perform menial, thankless jobs that no white person should have to do. It carries with it an implication that black people don't mind, and are suited to doing, such jobs; that it's right and proper that they should dispense paper towels to drunken customers in the toilets of Dublin's more trendy bars; that they are intellectually inferior to white people; that they can't be expected to perform a task that requires more than an ability to perform manual labour.
Waters has long taken exception to the perceived tyranny of political correctness, and the concept received a namecheck here. He would be well-advised to consider Armando Iannucci's recent article in the Observer, where he observed that political correctness is the reason we don't use words like "nigger" in tannoy announcements at railway stations. It is usually (with notable and worrying exceptions) a new spin on the basic concept of manners.
So does Mary O'Rourke's use of the phrase indicate that she is racist? No, probably not. But in a public speech, to say her staff "worked like blacks" – a phrase with highly negative connotations – was simply rude. That she doesn't see fit to apologise for this is either ignorant, or pig-headed, or both. Praising her for such behaviour is misguided and not a little unpleasant.
Mike Morris, North Strand, Dublin 3
Meejit and Marc Coleman - Pot calling the kettle black
I think that Village magazine, in general, is a useful addition to our public discourse and is not intended as a source of humour. But "Meejit" last week made me laugh like never before.
For Harry Browne, whose practical knowledge about issues seems to be in direct contrast to his opportunities to express his opinions, to refer to, Marc Coleman as "pontifical" is surely a case of an extremely dark kettle calling the pot black.
Hopefully the new Investigative Journalist and Political Correspondent, for which you have recently advertised, will cover politics in Ireland in a meaningful way and give Harry Browne a few lessons in some of the many subjects on which he outlines his ignorance on a weekly basis.
Cllor Dermot Lacey, Donnybrook, Dublin 4
Meejit and Chomsky in Ireland - Old left view of Bosnia
In light of Noam Chomsky's current visit to Ireland we recommend to your readers the "letter the Guardian refused to publish" accessible on the Bosnian Institute's website at www.bosnia.org, under the title "Srebrenica – defending the truth".
The "Chomsky/Brockes Affair" that appears to have temporarily convulsed the Guardian last November concerns an (admittedly rather intemperate) interview with Chomsky on 31 October by Emma Brockes, which sought to highlight among other things his views on the war in Bosnia, and in particular the Srebrenica massacre. The Guardian's pathetic performance in the affair was referred to in Meejit's columns of 10 and 24 November last, which, while gloating over the Guardian's climbdown, oddly did not once refer to the substantive issue involved – ie Chomsky's attitude to the war in Bosnia.
The letter in question has 25 co-signatories, including two actual survivors of Srebrenica and a veritable 'Who's Who' of those in the UK and beyond who have through the war and intervening years championed the cause of Bosnia. It reflects the outrage felt across this broad spectrum of opinion at the Guardian's pusillanimous caving in to 'the Chomsky Camp'.
It has long been a cause of puzzlement to those on the left who have supported Bosnia at the general failure of the "Old Left" to stick to its principles when it came to the destruction of Bosnia. Some attempts have been made to explain this failure, eg:
1. in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, Bosnia didn't fit comfortably into any of the agendas with which the left-wing establishment felt comfortable;
2. there was a confused identification of the post-1991 government in Belgrade with the highly politically-correct non-aligned Titoist regime that preceded it;
3. there was again an instinctive sympathy for Serbia stemming from a simplistic and romanticised view of Serbia's roles in the two World Wars, coupled with a similarly simplistic view of Croatia's role in World War Two, etc.
It is all the stuff of future doctorates in history and political science.
Whether Chomsky has been influenced by these prejudices and misperceptions, only the great man himself can (possibly) know.
Finally, Meejit's' failure to once mention the substantive issue of the Brockes interview ironically illustrates yet again the still myopic view held by the "Old Left" of events over the past two decades in Bosnia and the western Balkans.
Peter Walsh, Greystones, Co Dublin
Connolly-McDowell affair - Affair calls for rational debate
Bill Tormey's comments (Village, 12 January) on the McDowell vs Connolly affair are undermined by his obvious political party bias against the PDs. This takes from the points he makes and does not do justice to the seriousness of the issues highlighted by this controversy.
Since he represents all of us at the Cabinet table (and not because he is a member of a specific political party), we are entitled to voice an opinion on the actions of the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell. It is arguable that his use of the powers conferred on him as a member of the Cabinet to leak the contents of a garda file to a sympathetic journalist was an abuse. That opinion may be right or wrong and people are entitled to disagree with it. However, much of the defence of the Minister's actions on television, radio and in newspapers does not enter into any discussion of the issues involved. Instead, those who dared to express opinions critical of Minister McDowell are accused of being in the ideological pocket of the paramilitaries.
Among the democratic freedoms that all of us hope to defend from the intrigues and intimidations of armed paramilitaries is the ability to express views critical of those that purport to represent us at the highest level of government. The press is supposed to be defending this freedom of speech. Sticking labels on individuals without discussing the underlying issues seems to me to be an abuse of those democratic freedoms. If it is valid to label someone who is merely exercising his or her right to express opinions as being in the pocket of paramilitaries, then it is just as valid to allege that the Minister's defenders are in the pocket of the Government. Both statements obviate rational debate. If we are not to take our democratic freedoms for granted, the important issues raised by the McDowell vs Connolly affair cry out for rational debate rather than labelling and political party pointscoring.
A Leavy, Sutton, Dublin 13
McWilliams and the Pope's children - Welcome satire on 'Tiger' economics
I've always been wary of David McWilliams. Despite his fringe, affable nature and intelligence, I've never been convinced and always felt he could do better. But other than my own random grumblings about his incorrect claim to have coined "that" phrase, I'd never come across a substantial critique (even by way of satire) of the world view he represents.
I'm delighted that Michael Smith, through his hilarious portrayal of McWilliams' book, has begun the (hopefully sustainable) attack on what passes for social commentary and analysis in Ireland at present.
I should also point out that McWilliams is somewhat hoisted by his own petard. His insight into and undertanding of a demographic that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing reveals his own limitations as an analyst, and brings into relief the poverty of imagination other "Celtic Tiger" economists have imposed on Irish society for some 15 years now. They should read The Pope's Children – or Mr Smith's rendition – and then shut-up.
Ivor Crotty, Kilmainham, Dublin 8
Response to Martin Mansergh - 1916 rebels betrayed the Irish
Martin Mansergh (Village, 29 December) accuses me of engaging in a campaign to "criminalise the struggle for independence". May I suggest to him that he should examine the evidence, rather than speculating on my motives.
Behind the republican patriotic myth of the 'Rising,' there hardly lurks a mystery of Udolpho. It is quite clear that the intention of the insurrectionists was to use murder and terror in order to create and sustain a state of anarchy, long enough to lure the German Imperial army into Ireland. Had Zimmerman taken the bait, one requires little imagination to picture exactly what the consequences of such an intervention would have entailed.
He says that he is "glad" to have been part of a generation that has been able to draw "a line under the use of political violence". (Who in their right mind wouldn't be?) However, he chooses not to mention the fact that such a line had already been drawn, since 1873, when the IRB/Fenians prohibited the use of force without a mandate. The rebels in 1916 were in fact violating their own constitution – the penalty for such an act of perfidy, according to IRB rules, was death! One could argue that what Maxwell was doing was, in fact, in line with the IRB's own constitution. (Bulmer Hobson, who was against anti-democratic direct action, was held captive by the IRB during the Rising.)
The Taoiseach stated a few days ago: "No cause can ever justify terrorism and there are no circumstances in which it can ever be tolerated." President McAleese spoke in a similar vein. However, this is not evidence of a Pauline conversion on the road to Arbour Hill, or a re-think about the planned monument to be placed outside the GPO (how ad hominem can one get?). These words have about as much credibility as those emanating from the wooden lips of a ventriloquist's dummy. In truth, they conceal a grotesquely grim and thinly-veiled solipsistic, ethno-nationalist pride, grounded in the moral myth of an unavoidable (terrorist) war by republicans against all of those arraigned against them from 1916 to 1921 and onward to 1923.
There was no breakdown in Irish democracy following Ulster Unionist militancy, and the so-called "Curragh mutiny". The centre ground held; Nationalists and Unionists united in a common effort against Germany; Home Rule was enacted on 18 September 1914 (implementation delayed until after the war); a constitutional political consensus existed. The future relationship between the Home Rule state within the Union, and Ulster Unionism still had to be worked out; the struggle for Home Rule was over.
The only threat to this constitutional agreement between the "elected leadership" of Irish nationalism and London came from the internal logic of those inside separatism, who favoured direct-action, pro-independence "terrorism". The plurality of allegiance between nationalism and the crown – a marked feature of 19th century Catholic Ireland – had constitutionally triumphed over unpopular antediluvian separatism, much to the chagrin of a proto-fascist fringe minority.
This disproves Peter Hart's argument that political conditions in Ireland conformed to Charles Tilly's definition of what constitutes a revolutionary situation. The fact is that the two antagonistic blocks – Nationalism and Unionism – united in support of Britain.
Martin Mansergh cannot accept that the first shots fired in the so-called "war of independence", later to be known by its victims as the "Sinn Féin terror", were fired by criminals who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women. These are the people he wishes to celebrate as patriots. Martin Mansergh is really only interested in a panegyric of the "struggle for independence": beyond this, like Jack Lane, he is emotionally, and intellectually incapable of real engagement.
Pierce Martin, Celbridge, Co Kildare
On-the-runs - Justice for victims of British collusion
The only good thing to emerge from the fiasco of the "On-the-runs" legislation is the implicit admission by the British government that its forces have committed crimes in Ireland for which they have not been brought to justice.
Hopefully those who have now recognised that British forces have been involved in murder, torture and collusion will give full support to the families of the victims who have struggled to achieve justice since the first killings in 1969.
I suggest a good starting point would be to ascertain whether any of the killers of, for example, Samuel Devenny and nine-year-old Patrick Rooney in 1969; the killers of children like Julie Livingstone and women like Nora McCabe with plastic bullets; and those Special Branch members who colluded in the killing of Pat Finucane and hundreds of others are now in the ranks of the PSNI.
Dessie Ellis, Finglas, Dublin 11
Blood sports - Hare coursers are welcomed here
The staging of a mainly British hare-coursing event on Irish soil again underlines the extent to which we have become a haven for all forms of deliberate cruelty masquerading as "sport". The Waterloo Cup was the Ascot of hare coursing in Britain until the Labour Government, responding to the will of an overwhelming majority of its citizens, outlawed hare hunting for entertainment.
The "sport" that a democratic assembly consigned to the UK history books has now been exported to Ireland. The criminalised British hare-coursers just couldn't believe their luck when the Irish embraced them!
In stepped the remnants of our colonial self-effacing slavish Paddywhack culture to accommodate their UK lords and masters... themselves the despised and exiled relics of a vanquished Middle England.
There's a Céad Míle Fáilte for them when they come "looking for a start" on the Irish killing fields.
There is an interesting precedent for the influx of British coursing fans in the wake of the UK "field sport" ban: when a previous Labour Government in the mid-1970s outlawed otter-hunting, large numbers of the UK's otter-hunters packed their bags and moved to Ireland.
They joined native clubs and for 15 years engaged in the orchestrated and unrelenting torment of otters in the waterways of Munster. The aquatic mammals were ripped to pieces on riverbanks, or bludgeoned to death with iron bars, by men dressed in blood red jackets accompanied by packs of dogs.
The fun and games associated with that "field sport" came to an end in 1990 when the Government banned otter hunting. It did so in order to comply with a Council of Europe convention on wildlife habitats.
So now we have the hare-baiters arriving on our shores to get a piece of the coursing action. Like the otter-hunters before them, they will happily persecute our hard-pressed wildlife heritage with the willing and eager assistance of their stage Irish hosts.
One wonders how long it will take the Government here to consign hare coursing to its rightful place on the statute books... along with otter-hunting, dog-fighting and badger-baiting.
It will certainly be criminalised at some point in the future, but the timing is rather important for the thousands of timid creatures already earmarked for maiming, agonising injury or death.
For how long more will our politicians dally and dither before confronting this clear-cut issue of blood-curdling, sadistic and indefensible cruelty?
I strongly recommend to your readers a visit to an Irish website called banbloodsports.com. It has lots of graphic and well-documented evidence of what hare coursing is all about. Anyone who cares even remotely about the welfare of animals should make a special effort to lobby and campaign for the abolition of this evil practice.
John Fitzgerald, Callan, Co Kilkenny
Conor Brady on Wikipedia - Media standards slipped long ago
In Conor Brady's piece on Wikipedia, with no hint of irony, he laments that only recently have journalistic standards slipped with the advent of a new medium, the internet. He conveys the specious impression that there was integrity, rigour and accuracy inherent in the practices of journalists in the days before online usurped traditional print media.
Does Brady he not remember the vicious lies that were spun against Arthur Scargill in 1990 in the British Press, exposed by Seamus Milne in his book, The Enemy Within? That episode puts any inaccuracies in Wikipdeia to shame. Where were journalistic values then? More recently, the New York Times apologised to its readers for repeating the lies that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the United States. The New York Times realises that the core principles of its profession were absent when it simply echoed and amplified state lies and propaganda.
I detect sour grapes from Conor Brady, resentful that both readers and advertisers are drifting from newspapers to the internet for their news and audiences respectively. As that legendary champion of investigative journalism, John Pilger recently said: "In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and to the world wide web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power."
I have more or less eschewed traditional print news, even the Guardian in light of its recent smearing of Noam Chomsky, but I enjoy and appreciate your publication. Keep it up.
Will Lynch, Naas, Co Kildare
Dublin Port Tunnel - Wake up and smell the coffee
There are major problems with Dublin Port Tunnel and people have a duty to inform the residents, the taxpayers and the workers when dangers emerge and when a project is over-budget. So far we have seen:
• 235 damaged homes
• New video evidence showing major leaks
• Major cracks in the ceiling
• 128 claims still outstanding
• Poor ventilation means workers could be breathing in poisonous fumes
• EUR728,878.60 already paid out to local residents for property damaged
• Major noise and disruption for more than three years
• Deadlock over €444 million claim for more money by contractor could put the final cost to above EUR1.3 billion.
The city manager and councillors should face up to this nightmare for local residents.
FINIAN McGRATH TD, (Independent), Leinster House, Dublin
Stringfellow's big opening - Peter Stringfellow, we salute you
A strip club at last, all this time we've been waiting, it's here, it's finally here.
Situated in the heart of Dublin's fair city, on Parnell Street (that former sanctity of all that was pure) we welcome our new naked Mecca with our arms held closely by our sides.
Catholic Ireland is dead and gone! Let depravity, debauchery and decadence reign with Peter as our King.
The baton of moral guardianship for the nation has been passed on to a truly nefarious leader; we salute you oh Peter.
Ireland is reborn and it's going to be wearing a shiny new green thong.
You are the way, the neon light that leads us down the path to moral squalor, let not your critics be heard for they know not what they say.
We embrace your guidance, the opening date of "Stringfellows" we await and we welcome the commencement of Ireland's new immoral fate.
Shaun Gavigan, Harolds Cross, Dublin 6
STATEMENT: M3 – a great cash cow damaging our heritage
The challenge currently underway in the High Court to the M3 motorway has brought out an important fact that the corporate media have ignored: that the present administration has done more to undermine heritage protection than any in the Republic's history.
On 12 January, Gerard Hogan SC argued that the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 permits the Minister for the Environment to order the sale or destruction of any monument, heritage site or artefact in the country, if said Minister deems this to be "in the national interest", the definition of this term not being provided. This incredible amendment to previous National Monuments law was introduced as emergency legislation by the previous incumbent, Martin Cullen, now Transport Minister, in response to the Supreme Court decision in 2003 that, not only was the National Roads Authority's wish to destroy Carrickmines Castle illegal, but that Government had a Constitutional duty to safeguard heritage.
The contempt of the Minister for the highest court in the land, as expressed by his evisceration of the National Monuments legislation, is symptomatic of the PD-led administration's contempt for the Constitution, or more precisely, their rage at the existence of a legal document with the temerity to presume that there are such things as basic rights and protections. It is also a sign of its contempt for the country and its history that they should see themselves entitled to act so openly.
The arrogation to the Minister's possession of all national monuments and heritage sites has been done with a distinct aim in mind: by removing all State monitoring of and guidelines for archaeological excavation, the Minister can now permit for-profit archaeological firms to work the necessary destruction, without responsibility for this destruction accruing to the State, or to the office and person of the Minister. Once the corporate media and other vocal interest groups have succeed in normalising the transference from archaeology as research and preservation to archaeology as something old and useless that gets in the way of progress, the project can proceed, with expressions of triumphalist scorn from Cullen and co for old thinkers who stand in the way of the inevitable future.
The problem is that the M3, and the roads programme as a whole, are simply an excuse for spending large amounts of money in a way that does not benefit those who actually have to pay for them. The M3 will enable drivers to reach the glut of traffic on the M50 in less time than before, but that is all. What is to be done about the increasing dependency on private ownership of petroleum-powered GM or Ford products and the non-existence of a public transport network in the country is, simply, not the administration's business. Their business is to create "investment" opportunities for land speculators in the Boyne Valley and on any re-zone-able land in the "Greater Dublin Area". This is a logical step for IBEC's political wing, the PDs, a party which no one elected to Government and enjoys 3 per cent support, yet dictates Government policy and controls its major ministries.
But there are bigger games at work. One of the candidates for the M3 contract, Brown and Root, formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root, is well known for its greatest cash-cow yet, the Dublin Port Tunnel, perhaps the most appropriate symbol of expensive futility imaginable. Brown and Root is the construction subsidiary of Halliburton, a corporation that is less than popular in America, owing to investigations by the Pentagon and Congress into its practices, including allegations of massive fraud, bribery and insider trading. But a friend in need is a friend indeed, and what better way to support ailing corporations than for client administrations to give them tax holidays and vastly expensive prestige projects, such the Dublin Port Tunnel and the M3? And what better way to make this possible than to clear away a few inconvenient legislative obstacles?
Considering Minister McDowell's willingness to trample on the legal rights of Irish citizens and to sign defence "agreements" with the US without bringing them before the Oireachtas, it seems that the IBEC administration's policy is to ignore the Constitution wherever possible until the great day dawns when it can be cast aside. And "who will stand upright in the winds that would blow then"?
Andrew McGrath, Secretary, The Tara Foundation. www.tara-foundation.org