Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2006-06-01
Afghan hunger strikers - More empathy needed for asylum seekers
A dramatic and potentially tragic situation was averted in Dublin when the Afghan asylum seekers agreed to end their hunger strike. These were men whose fight for survival had brought them to a desperate place.
What has happened to us that we have lost the ability to empathise with people who are suffering in the same way our own people did just a few generations ago? Reactions to the Afghans' protest were mixed, with a lot of negative opinions being voiced by sections of the public and, more seriously, by the Government and the media. To hear our Taoiseach imply that the arrival of a tiny proportion of the world's refugees on Ireland's shore was contributing to a problematic population explosion in Ireland was shocking. As if the unfortunate handful of Afghan men had in some way contributed to these statistics (or, indeed, that the Government had not itself encouraged immigration). In 2005, asylum seekers represented only three per cent of immigrants arriving in Ireland, let alone the total population.
Minister for Justice Michael McDowell commented that while there were "disturbances" in Afghanistan, just being from that country did not give people a right to live in Ireland. Firstly, Afghanistan has been torn apart by a succession of wars for 30 years, costing the country two million lives. A chronic emergency exists, with widespread and random periods of violence. Secondly, the asylum process is a legal one and those who apply to be given refugee status are following a procedure enshrined in international law. The Sunday Independent's frontpage headline (Afghan says 'I am a rapist and killer') was shocking, but not for obvious reasons. An asylum application is strictly confidential and the Department of Justice has no right to release contents of an application to the press in any circumstances.
Archbishop John Neill made a good point when he said that, though the Irish asylum system is fair on paper, the problems arise in its application. As well as being made feel guilty and obliged to prove their innocence, asylum seekers live long months, or more often years, of limbo in uncertainty: forbidden to work, kept in direct provision centres, enduring communication breakdowns with the authorities, faced with an appeals procedure lacking transparency and fairness.
Why can the minister not accord Humanitarian Leave to Remain in Ireland, instead of full refugee status? This grossly underused option (only 518 in six years) gives temporary protection but allows people to get on with their lives.
We need to switch off our fear of the outsider. We must start to see the human being in each individual.
Geraldine Mitchell, PRO for Mayo Intercultural Action
ESRI report on immigration - Inequality bred by low-wage immigration
The recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report, Freedom of Movement For Workers from Central and Eastern Europe is slim on substance. The authors suggested that evidence of displacement of Irish workers was 'circumstantial'. This must be the new politically correct term for 'anecdotal'. If this was valid one would have to deduce that the laws of supply and demand in the labour market were somehow miraculously suspended.
The report fails to undermine Manus O'Riordan's (head of research SIPTU) research results in the Irish Times on 13 January 2006, Fintan O'Toole's column in the same paper in November 2005, or recent articles by David McWilliams – all supported by verifiable statistical data – which argued that unregulated low-wage immigration and unscrupulous hiring practices were undermining wages and conditions of Irish workers and that displacement in the low-wage sector of the economy was a fact of life. The ESRI report advises educating migrant workers of their rights and adequate labour protection to safeguard against potential future disturbances in the labour market. Although admirable, it presupposes the non-existence of a black economy and, if it succeeded in Ireland, would be unique in the history of low-wage immigrant economies.
In countries with a history of low-wage migrant workers a number of disagreeable truisms emerge. George Borjas, a respected US expert on the economics of immigration, wrote in the New York Times in 1996, "Low-income workers and taxpayers in immigrant states lose; those who employ immigrants or use immigrant services win, as do the immigrants themselves. The critical issue is how much we care about the wellbeing of immigrants compared with that of the Americans who win and the Americans who lose."
There are many studies which underline increases in poverty as a result of high levels of unskilled immigration. This leads to greater inequalities in society and lower wages for native blue-collar workers. As immigration is usually a permanent response to a temporary problem, a large underclass of disparate ethnic groups is created which may become alienated from the host society. This in turn can ensure that a weakened and supplicant trade union movement is held hostage by the availability of a large pool of casual labour in the low-wage sector of the economy.
If the Government, supported by the main opposition parties, did not set out to deliberately create a low-wage, unequal society under the guise of promoting interculturalism it would have gone down the Canadian road. There, an active immigration programme is very particular to encourage only the highly skilled and highly educated. As a result, Canada remains a far more equal society with a more limited alienated underclass.
Simon O'Donnell, Rathmines, Dublin 6
Subsidisation of landlords - Landlords got €1.63bn in rent supplements
The Comptroller & Auditor General have found that a breathtaking €1.63bn has been handed to private landlords from the taxpayer in rent supplements in five years. This points to a catastrophic failure by Government over nine years to invest adequately in social housing. It also results from the relentless rise in house prices as a result of speculators' profiteering which the Government has not raised a finger to oppose.
This huge subsidisation of landlords is not only a misuse of taxpayers funds but, by forcing tens of thousands of those seeking homes into the private rental sector, is creating a situation where landlords can charge rack rents due to a high demand.
A housing emergency should now be declared alongside the Government's forced admission of an emergency situation in A&E in our hospitals units.
This should mean action to curb speculation in building land and huge investment in social and affordable houses.
Joe Higgins TD, Socialist Party, Dáil Eireann, Kildare St, Dublin 2
M3 route through Tara - Taoiseach's remarks were misleading
Why does the Taoiseach want to push ahead with the proposed twice-tolled M3 above any other motorway? Why does he wrongfully accuse protesters of delaying the road? Why does he mislead the public about road deaths on the N3? His recent remarks on opening the Ashbourne bypass were shocking, saddening and sinister.
The campaign to save Tara is only against the route of the M3 through the Gabhra Valley, not against the motorway. We are not a minority – 70 per cent of people in an independent Red C poll said that they wanted the road moved out of the valley. At least five of the deaths mentioned are unrelated to the proposed M3 and it is disingenuous and disrespectful of the Taoiseach to say otherwise. Using the gradings of the AA Eurorap study 2005, the N3 is the safest national route in Meath.
The route, the lack of will to open the railway line and the waste of public funds on unnecessary excavations do not serve the people of Ireland. Are we now to be denied our democratic right to protest and to be accused of causing deaths?
Muireann Ní Bhrolchin, Maynooth, Co Kildare
War of Independence veterans - Irish Times' broken record on veterans
I read in the Irish Times last week that the last two surviving veterans of the War of Independence are to receive a 50 per cent pension boost. No mention of 104-year-old Dan Keating of Castlemaine, who fought in the War of Independence in Kerry, but also against the Free State Army in the Civil War (a force whose brutality more than matched that of the British Black and Tans and Auxiliaries in the county.
Surely Dan Keating's additional courage in fighting against three sets of brutal militias in two consecutive wars would at least merit a mention? He may be an unrepentant militant Republican and revolutionary who would never accept what he would consider a "Free State" army pension, but he cannot be airbrushed from the historical record, even if Defence minister Willie O'Dea does not seem to know about him.
Or are Dan Keating's views on today's Republic – which he considers a sell-out of the Republic he fought to establish over 80 years ago – a bit too inconvenient for Fianna Fáil's apparent reclamation and rediscovery of the Rising? Perhaps his omission from Willie O'Dea's knowledge and the Irish Times article is an error, which would be surprising given Dan Keating's recent media profile. But if this is a form of revisionism, it is biting off more than even the Tans, Auxies or Free Staters could chew, in attempting to erase the great and legendary Dan Keating.
I wrote the above to the Irish Times, but the self-appointed "paper of record" has chosen not to publish. Dan, incidentally, has appeared again on television since the Irish Times' unsuccessful attempt to erase him from Irish history, in his role as a War of Indepence and Civil War veteran on RTÉ's Black Sheep documentary.
Beware the "paper of record" – selective or broken records might be more apt.
Máiréad Bean Uí Phléimionn, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16
Home Rule - UK was quick to renege on agreements
Home Rule was an empty promise.
We will never know whether the 1916 Rising "killed off any prospect of home rule for Ireland", as has frequently been asserted. However, as the world marks the 58th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, it is worth examining if the UK regarded diplomatic agreements it reached with other independence movements at the time as binding.
In 1915, Britain secretly promised to support the establishment of an independent Arab state, including Palestine, if the Arabs rose against the Ottoman empire and their German allies. Capt TE Lawrence "of Arabia" and Faisal Husayn led a successful revolt that put great strain on Germany in a territory they had regarded as safe, thereby greatly helping the allies win the war. In 1916, Britain signed another secret pact, this time with France, to divide the Arab territory between them, after the war. In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour declaration, announcing support for the establishment of a "Jewish national home in Palestine".
Of these three agreements, the betrayal of a war promise made to an ally at a time when Britain had its back to the wall, seems the most disturbing. If Britain could break such a promise, it has been argued, it could break any. This was one of the most damning charges levelled at the 1916 leaders: that they were stabbing Britain in the back during a time of war, despite the fact that Home Rule was already "on the books", even though it had been "suspended" until after the war.
We will never truly know whether the 1916 Rising "killed off any
prospect of Home Rule for Ireland". But to baldly state this thesis as fact is at best unwise, especially in the light of what we now know about the nature of concurrent promises made elsewhere in the British empire.
One thing we can state as a fact is that, purely in terms of its
legality, the 1916 Rising was a crime but one which within weeks achieved "retrospective legitimacy" from the majority of the Irish people.
This familiar concept is usually referenced by way of the ancient epigram: "Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
Mike O'Kelly, Leeson Street, Dublin 4
1916 - Redmond was as bloodthirsty as Carson
The latest Pierce Martin letter rejects Redmond's statement in the House of Commons that the British position in Ireland was maintained by physical force, not consent or democracy. But in his Dublin speech of 19 July 1912 Prime Minister Asquith admitted Ireland was held by compulsion and against its will: "The House of Commons has by a large and significant majority passed the Second Reading [of the Home Rule Bill]... We did our best in the past, we Englishmen, to Anglicise Scotland ... but Scotch nationality remains intact. That is nothing to what we have tried to do in Ireland. [We] have sought to transform the character of the whole population by wholesale expropriation, plantation and settlement... It is the attempt to ignore this ... that has doomed the Act of Union to continuous and disastrous failure... Ladies and gentlemen, we wish to make the tie no longer reluctant and compulsory, but spontaneous, voluntary, affectionate, real."
Readers can judge for themselves whether the Unionists were in earnest about fighting a war to block this scenario and prevent the Home Rule Act from coming into operation. Here is an extract from an interview with Sir Edward Carson in the Daily Telegraph of 20 April 1914. This was after the British Army mutiny against Home Rule just at the point when forcible compulsion was to be supplemented by a new, voluntary relationship: "Had the operations [of putting Home Rule into effect] started by the constabulary seizing the ... [Ulster Provisional Government] headquarters, it is certain that many thousands of [Ulster] Volunteers ... would have attempted to regain possession of the building. The Central Office of the Belfast Police is in the same block of buildings, and as a high percentage of Belfast's male population carry revolvers, it is doubtful whether the police could have held either the [Headquarters] or their office. Long before the troops could have arrived the streets would have been running in blood."
Redmond's introduction to Asquith's speech above shows that, even before he committed Ireland to the Great War slaughter, he was no more averse to blood sacrifice than Carson – provided the blood was sacrificed for the bloodsoaked British Empire: "I tell you, Mr Asquith, that when we make friends with England there will be no more loyal or devoted subjects than the people of that land who ... have willingly made sacrifices of their liberties and their lives in defence of the Imperial greatness of England."
Pat Muldowney, Derry
1916 debate - Enough is enough
I don't know about the rest of the readership, but is it time to put a stop to the 1916 debate between Martin and O'Connell. I enjoyed it at the start, but enough is enough
Pol Ó Deoráin, Cluain Dolcáin, Baile Átha Cliath 22
STATEMENT: SPIRASI Tall Ship Challenge against torture - Raising awareness about torture
SPIRASI, a support organization for asylum seekers and refugees in Ireland, will take to the high seas this summer in an exciting Tall Ship Challenge Against Torture.
This unique tall-ship venture will be launched on 10 June at 1pm from City Quay, Dublin by author Brian Keenan, himself a survivor of torture.
The Tall Ship 'Faramir' will sail into ten ports around Ireland with a crew consisting of SPIRASI clients (including refugees and survivors of torture) and school children from three Dublin schools. The event hopes to raise awareness about the incidence of torture throughout the world, whilst highlighting the role of SPIRASI as a support centre facilitating the integration of survivors of torture, living in Ireland today.
The upbeat and celebratory nature of the voyage will be supported by performances by PASSION, a new group comprising of Tony Norton (Three Irish Tenors & Druid), Pat Collins (Café Orchestra) and Drazen Djerek (guitarist with The Chieftains). A musical celebration of world cultures, PASSION will also perform in Liberty Hall, Dublin on 26 June at 9pm (Tickets €15 & €12) on UN Day in Support of Victims of Torture.
?More SPIRASI provides a range of services including medical services for survivors of torture, counselling and psychotherapy, English classes and IT training and health-service information for asylum seekers and refugees. www.spirasi.ie
STATEMENT
New Communities Partnership formed
A national network of over 25 ethnic minority community organisations gathered in Croke Park on Monday 29 May in the first national conference of its kind in Ireland. It was a day of multicultural colour and diversity as over 250 community members from over 30 countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe gathered for the New Communities Partnership (NCP) conference.
The NCP is a national network of ethnic minority organisations who have come together to work in closer cooperation with each other to address the challenges facing ethnic minority communities in Ireland – challenges such as racism and discrimination, barriers to work, difficulties accessing health and other basic public services.
The theme for the conference was 'First Steps to Integration-Building Participation' and it opened with a key-note address by Alpha Connelly, chief executive of the Irish Human Rights Commission, on the role of building participation in the achievement of human rights. There was an open discussion forum between NCP members and a panel of key policymakers on the barriers and solutions to supporting ethnic minority communities, with panel members from the Department of Justice, the Department of Rural, Community and Gaeltacht Affairs, Dublin City Council, and The Office for Social Inclusion.
It is not an easy task organising and uniting over 30 different ethnic or national groups. We have being working hard for the last two years to get to this point. We want the Irish Government to understand they must invest in small ethnic minority organisations if they want Ireland to become a healthy intercultural society.
Yes, we have a national strategy against racism, but only dialogue and more dialogue will change racist attitudes and that is why we need the NCP.
? More Patrick Connolly, Cairde, Dublin 1, 01 855 2111. www.cairde.ie/ncp.htmonto
Red Cross appeal
The Irish Red Cross is appealing for the support of the Irish people for the Red Cross operation to save lives and treat the injured following an earthquake in Indonesia on Saturday 27 May. Internationally, the Red Cross estimates that just under €8m is needed to help victims of this latest natural catastrophe. Red Cross officials who are already based in the most affected town, Yogyakarta, are working to provide clean water and medical treatment to the people. But official sources indicate that 200,000 people have been made homeless and the death toll has already risen to nearly 5000.
? More Donations to the Asia Earthquake Appeal can be made by calling 1850 50 70 70 or by logging onto www.redcross.ie
Bono and world poverty - Bono: assuming the role of arbiter
Colum McCann's defence of Bono's ongoing campaign to win the rich and powerful over to the cause of ending world poverty is spirited, but one-sided (Village, 18-24 May).
The danger is that Bono's tactics will simply legitimise and copperfasten the damaging anti-poor policies of leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair. Guardian journalist George Monbiot summarises the problem as follows: Bono and Bob Geldof, he says, "have assumed the role of arbiters: of determining on our behalf whether the leaders of the G8 nations should be congratulated or condemned for the decisions they make. They are not qualified to do so, and I fear that they will sell us down the river."
Such fears appear justified in relation to the much-trumpeted G8 debt relief package announced last year. Bono described it at the time as a "little piece of history". But the proposals are very limited indeed: only 18 countries are benefiting from the measure, and what is being written off is mostly the debt owed to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, with other debts unaffected. A further 20 countries may benefit down the line.
Even Bono now concedes that there is a danger of rich countries backsliding on the deal, but the leaders of the rich countries have already gotten substantial political kudos from it, so some of the damage is done.
Furthermore, the hoops the debtors have to jump through to get even this limited relief are onerous. Qualifying countries have to abide by certain conditions – they must "boost private-sector development" and get rid of "impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign". Major economic and social projects are to be "built and delivered in conjunction with the private sector".
These policies are often disastrous, typified by water privatisation that has usually resulted in price rises, reduced services to the poor, and falls in employment. Bolivians, for example, rioted to get underperforming Western water companies thrown out of their country, and they recently elected President Evo Morales in protest at the imposition of right-wing, anti-poor policies.
These policies constitute the price countries are expected to pay to get their limited debt relief, and the price is far too high. Might Bono, as Monbiot fears, be making the wrong judgement calls, and according G8 leaders praise where scepticism and criticism would be more appropriate, and perhaps even more effective?
Why, for example, is Bono silent on the diversion of US money supposed to combat the spread of AIDS to 'faith-based' groups who will not sanction the use of condoms? Such diversion will probably worsen the spread of the disease. Opposition to these policies by someone of Bono's stature (earned or not) could raise the political price to Bush of pandering to his hard-right Christian supporters.
It is perhaps easy to knock Bono, but that does not mean it is not the right thing to do. There is something deeply unedifying about his embrace of Western power and Western corporations. Why assume, as Colum McCann does, that Bono is biting back his true feelings for the sake of achieving gains for the poor? Why not assume, as is at least equally plausible, that the embrace of power for its own sake is itself at the heart of what Bono stands for?
There is one at least practical step Bono could take to show where his heart really lies. He could go to Venezuela and publicly commend the policies of Washington's enemy Hugo Chavez, policies that are actually lifting people out of poverty right now, not, as with the promises of Bush and Blair, at some undetermined future date and with strings attached. He could state that so long as such policies are being implemented by a democratic leader then his friend George W Bush should stop trying to destabilise the government of Venezeula. It would make it that much harder for Bush to contemplate action against Chavez, so it would be a practical boost to the fight against poverty.
But it might mean fewer cosy chats in the White House, and less chance of persuading Condeleeza Rice to tell him her ten favourite songs when next he's guest editing a newspaper. Is that a price he thinks is worth paying?
Andy Storey, Stoneybatter