The N.Irish Magyar Back-Catalogue

When Beano and myself wrote "A Better Union", we stated our belief in the "secular society". Now, "secularism "has become a bit of a dirty word recently in certain circles, what exactly did we mean by the "secular society?

Quite simply, in our version of secular society there would be the closure of all "faith-based" schools, abortion (and beer) on demand, the legalisation of gay marriages, the de-nqabing of Muslim females, the decriminalisation of drugs and brothels, Irish League matches being played on Sunday....and it should go without saying, the complete removal of Christ from Xmas.

*Stunned silence from the collective EU readership*

Before "Enraged of Bushmills" leaves an abusive comment, that last paragraph wasn't exactly(!) what we meant by "secularism" and anyway even if it was, that kind of scenario ain't going to materialise in N.Ireland anytime soon.....

In a modern western democracy, everybody has the right to believe anything they choose, no matter how reactionary or ridiculous those beliefs may be. Indeed, tolerance of such beliefs is the cornerstone of civilised society- but that is definitely not the same as saying that those beliefs should form the basis of that particular society. A person's religion (or lack of) should be their own private affair. The state's job is not to "safeguard" such beliefs, but solely to set the widest of legal parameters to govern society. Within those parameters, it is up to each individual's conscience and moral judgement how they conduct themselves.

What would all this mean in Northern Irish context?

Well, in practical terms, here's three examples: giving women the 100% freedom of choose whether to have an abortion or not, the removal of state support for "faith-based" education and the full implementation in N.Ireland of all UK legislation in areas such as homosexual rights. So, basically we're looking to set up a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah, right here, in our wee province? No.
By advocating the woman's right to choose (and obtain) an abortion, we do not say that it is the best option in each case, we are also not forbidding "moral guardians" from presenting their arguments to the individual. We are simply saying that, in the end, it is solely up to the woman's individual conscience, but she should have the option of terminating the pregnancy in her own country. Similarly, we, in no way, would deny parents their democratic right to send their children to a "faith-based" (be it Roman-Catholic, Free-Presbyterian, Islamic or Jewish) school. It should, however, not be the state's responsibility (using my taxes) to subsidise such schools. And if Westminster decides that in the 21st Century, certain rights should be granted to certain groups, then unless we want to live in some kind of fundamentalist, redneck ghetto, those exact same rights should also apply to Northern Irish residents.

But what would be the implications for the Union of such a secularisation of N.Ireland?

I should state, first of all, that the views in this paragraph are solely my own, we (Beano and myself) didn't cover this subject during our discussions on our document. I believe that in certain "non-national" areas (e.g. abortion), then more radical Unionists should not be afraid to make informal alliances with those we would normally consider our political opponents. I despise much of what Sinn Fein stands for, but in the area of the womens' reproductive rights, their views (now) are much closer to my own than the DUP's are. Apart from the fact that you should always follow your heart and not necessarily the rest of the herd in such matters of conscience, more Unionists getting involved in this type of campaign can only help our overall image in the rest of the UK. Also by building up a society model which is closer to what is found on the mainland secular, multicultural Britain than that in the Republic of Ireland, then we are ensuring that an even bigger proportion of our society feels more comfortable within the confines of Northern Ireland.

Even if could, we don't want to ban conservative "religion" from Northern Ireland, we're simply saying that it must share the open spaces of society with the rest of us. Secularism is the way we can both protect society from religion but also protect the right of all to practise their chosen religion within that society.

Do We Really Want a Pluralist N.Ireland?

Do you want to live in a pluralist society?
Can you tolerate living in a society where there are different types of people holding different sets of opinions or beliefs to yourself?

Put like that, the answer for the vast majority of people in any modern western society would be a theoretical “yes” .

Take it a bit further then, are you then prepared to countenance actually living, working and playing beside those of a different national/ethnic/ cultural/religious background?

Again I’d guess the answer would be “yes”, but maybe for some, this time, a qualified one?

But are you prepared to let those of a different national/ethnic/cultural/religious background to yourself to express their nationality/ethnicity/culture and religious practices, even though they run counter to your own beliefs? Now we’re approaching the crunch.

If we agree to living in an open and pluralist society, then we are also implicitly giving the assent to others to deliver images, statements and displays that ultimately may well upset and offend our own sensitivities and principles. But an open society which preaches pluralism and freedom of speech is unconditional; we don’t pick and choose what can be delivered according to our own standards.

So, in Northern Ireland do we live or do want to live in an open society, one where complete freedom of speech and (lawful) action is at least tolerated?

Of course not and let’s be honest, this is not solely the fault of one or two zealots on either side.

Speaking personally, having lived and worked amongst and beside people of a different culture nationality or religion to my own for nearly a decade, has been the kind of education that I’d never have received if I’d stayed back in Belfast. Bearing in mind that modern western European society is becoming more homogeneous and sterile, I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been able to swap ideas and thoughts with people that were moving on completely different cultural, political and intellectual plains to myself.

But each of those cultures and political beliefs that I've encountered hasn't attacked, denigraded or sneered at my own cultural background, my national identity and my own version of history. They haven't seen my country or the ethno/religious group from which I originate as their enemy. Do I really want to interact with people expressing those kind of viewpoints, even if it helps in some small little way to build the foundation for a truly open society in Northern Ireland?

Put even more bluntly, in the interest of "pluralism",for example, would I want my children to have access to a version of history that treats the Provos and the RUC/UDR/British army as moral equals, that paints people like Bobby Sands as visionaries or tells them that their ancestors were the enemies of the Irish people, interlopers brought in by a “foreign” power to help suppress the “native” people of the island where they now find themselves growing up?

My honest answer to all those questions is "no". But by giving that answer, I also then can't complain, if those in N.Ireland of a diametrically opposed point of view to myself, demand the same right not to give their assent to, or participate in a truly pluralist and open society. The end-result, of both of us employing this right, will inevitably be a complete neutralisation and sterilisation of our "shared public spaces" and a withdrawal of the right to openly express those aspects of our culture, beliefs and identity which may offend those of a different persuasion. It's certainly one solution to managing the increasing divide between the two communities, whether it's capable of building a strong foundation for a lasting peace is another question.

But until there is a widespread consent for a pluralist society in Northern Ireland, what are the other realistic alternatives?

God Bless Secularism

According to Wikipedia, “secularism”:

“asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.”

In 2006, shouldn’t this be one of the guiding principles behind any western liberal democracy?
Everyone has their own conscience and surely our government and politicians owe it to all of us to permit us to exercise it?

Having had the experience of both being brought up in a religion-obsessed society and now living in a completely secular country, I would give an unqualified “yes” to both questions.

In Hungary, the churches attempt to influence government policy and there are those, especially within the Reform Communion, who have aligned themselves too closely with Magyar uber-nationalism. The predominant church in the country, the Roman Catholic, has tried to input a religious significance into the 1956 Uprising commemorations this year, where quite clearly none existed and with the previous right-wing government, tried to steer social policy on such matters as abortion and contraception.

But in the state’s constitution and in daily practice, the country is 100% secular; 100% religious freedom and 100% freedom, if you want it, to ignore the moral teachings of the various churches on matters of conscience.

Bit of a contrast to my homeland.

As a child I lived in a DUP Fiefdom, which in practical terms meant no swings, swimming, pubs opening, shopping or basically fun on a Sunday. Although I was brought up in an evangelical household, my parents were (thanks be to Allah) liberal enough to allow the televison to be watched on the Lord’s Day; I daresay if the Mad Mullahs in Castlereagh Town Hall had had the power, that would have been blocked as well.
Did it strengthen my faith, make me a better Christian? Of course not. It primarily made us all a bit more devious to find whatever entertainment legal or otherwise we could have on a Sunday. My beliefs have been formed by what my parents told me,the example of their own lives and my own inate sense of what is morally right and wrong.

But let’s not be too hard on the oul FPs and Dupers, it’s not just them laying down the law.

Northern Ireland (like Hungary) is a deeply conservative place. But whereas in Hungary the religiously motivated don’t attempt to impose their values on the the rest of the population, in Northern Ireland, on many issues of conscience, the citizen is relieved of their responsibilty to decide for themselves what is right and wrong for them as an individual. Take for example the question of abortion, the law specifies:

“An abortion is only available in Northern Ireland if:

·The girl has a serious medical or psychological problem that is endangering her life if she continues her pregnancy;
·The girl has severe learning difficulties;
·The Doctor's detect abnormalities in the foetus;

In few cases, women will be offered an abortion if they have become pregnant as a result of rape”

Very narrow guidelines, away from which the woman is being denied her essential freedom of choice. And does it stop N.Irish girls from having abortions in England, Scotland and elsewhere? Of course not, so the attempt to restrict who can have an abortion is not, in fact, reducing the numbers who do so, simply transferring the *problem* onto other regions, which all seems a bit hypocritical to me.

By all means, as has happened in Hungary, be graphic about the physical and mental trauma that an abortion may involve, but in the end, everything being equal, the choice should be left with the person most affected, not the local MP or Priest, but the woman herself.

The question of abortion is, of course, only one of the battlefields in which the churches and their devotees are trying to impose their views on the wider population; in the Northern Ireland context, the segregation of the education system along religious lines, Sunday Observance and the Licensing Laws, are some of the others

Let’s have more information and open debates on these matters , more debate about our responsibilities to wider society, more information upon which to develop our own individual ethical and moral standards; but ultimately,as I said at the beginning of the post, in 2006 in every case involving personal conscience, I believe that the powers that be should trust their citizens to make the correct decision based on what their own conscience tells them is right.
11:32 AM | Permalink | links to this post

Brian Feeney and The Future of Unionism
“Unionism is a fraud and a deception. The people who have been most defrauded and deceived are the political minority on this island who have been deluded into believing that unionism offers the only salvation to their tribe."

Picked up this piece concerning Brian Feeney’s views on Unionism over at United Irelander. The debate has moved on a bit there and anyway I’ve more than enough to say about this matter to justify my own post, so here we go!

“Unionism is a fraud and a deception. The people who have been most defrauded and deceived are the political minority on this island who have been deluded into believing that unionism offers the only salvation to their tribe."

Fraud and deception?
The basis of Unionism was/is ensuring that Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom. Whatever else has happened, that is still the case. Bearing in mind that the Republic of Ireland (or Free State as it was) was not only an economic backwater and to all intents and purposes a theocracy until the mid 1980s, but also inherently and instinctively anti-British, there was no other viable alternative for Unionists, even if they had wanted one.

The Republic, however, has changed for the better economically and matured politically and this does pose questions and challenges for Unionism.

"The Republic of Ireland is a modern, skills-based, technological economy producing for example most Intel chips for Europe near Leixlip and all Dell computers for Europe, the Middle-East and Africa at Limerick. Ireland attracts about 10% of all US investment in Europe. In 2004 alone, there was 10 billion dollars of new US investment in the Republic, whereas the British taxpayer funds two-thirds of the North's salaries”

And the UK :

1. Is the 4th biggest economy in the world.
2. Is the 4th biggest exporter in the world.
3. Is the third biggest invisible trader in the world.
4. Has the 5th largest industrial output in the world.
5. Has the 4th largest service output in the world.

and so on.
Puts all Brian’s showboating on the Republic’s behalf into perspective doesn’t it?!
Now, I’m not for one minute deriding the Celtic Tiger, simply pointing out the fact that although Irish economic growth has been phenomenonal over the last decade, the UK economy is working on a completely different scale.

It can afford to effectively subsidise Northern Ireland, I’m not convinced that the Republic could. I’m also not convinced that a simple transfer of sovereignty would solve all our economic problems. It’s also interesting to note the reluctance on the part of any Irish nationalist party to commission from independent auditors, a full economic study of the consequences of Irish Unity. More often than not, it’s back of the envelope calculations that are delivered in the flowery reports of the SDLP or Sinn Fein. Let’s have it out in the open( if they dare!)- for a start, what will the Irish taxpayer have to pay for Unity and where will Northern Ireland’s public sector workers find new employment?

"Inevitably, time moves on. Now unionism has no future, only a past. Unionism has delivered its adherents nothing.”

As I said answering the first point, it guaranteed its "adherents" their British nationality and identity. Regarding the future...

"You never hear anyone, even a unionist, talking about the future of unionism. No unionist can tell you where he wants to be in 10 years. The closest you will get to an answer is that they want to be in the same place as they are now.’

Not,no Duper nor UUPer, but no Unionist full stop can tell you where he wants to be in 10 years! And how many ordinary Unionists exactly has Feeney asked (my comment section is always open, Brian!) to determine this “fact”? As per his weekly ”Bash-the Jaffas” column in the Irish News, he’s engaging in a bit of sectarian stereotyping here, but as I said earlier this week, I’ve come to expect this from the vast majority of nationalist and republican hacks. It's more the pity that it comes from Brian Feeney, who can be an intelligent commnetator and whose occasional pieces on BBC WOrld have been both thought-provoking and challenging but minus the sneering undertones.

But back to the original question(!), where do I want Unionism to be in ten years time?

Well, actually, slowly going out of business. I’d like to see class not religion becoming the main determinant of who people vote for in Northern Ireland. In the perfect world, this would be happening within a N.Ireland secure and comfortable with its two national identities and with its place within a multi-cultural, secular and liberal UK.

For that to happen, political Unionism has to wake up and realize its potential strength and the fact that this power will only be activated by a widening of its appeal. It has to forget about the old fault-lines in the political landscape and start attracting the “non-traditional voter”. Are either party capable of doing that? On present evidence “no”, but individual Unionists working outside the formal parties ,do also have a responsibility to sell the benefits of the Union and it may well be their efforts in the end that ensures Northern Ireland stays British.

“All change is viewed as debit, loss, negative. Yet change happens despite unionists””

Once again, stereotyping. Of course in “Brian’s World” we’re all mini- “Big Ian’s, shouting NO,NO,NEVER at any whisper of change. What Brian conveniently forgets is that the majority of Unionists did vote for change when they agreed to the Belfast Agreement.
I want change.
I want my children to grow up feeling comfortable with both their British and Irish identities, something that was denied to most Unionists of my generation. When they hear a Sinn Fein representative speak, I don’t want them to automatically think of the IRA terror campaign and I want them to think of Irish Unity as an interesting political concept, rather than a humiliating surrender to “themuns” who've been fighting us in one form or other for over 400 years.

Sadly, I don’t believe that political Unionism, or more importantly,Irish Nationalism in their present forms can deliver that kind of lasting change.
9:29 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Help Needed...Soon

“Working class Prods in the present day North are no better off than the Blacks during apartheid South Africa – powerless and penniless.”

Thought that sentence would grab the attention.
It’s from Dr John’s Coulter’s latest column in The Blanket. OK, there’s a distinct touch of the hyperbole there, but still as Coulter goes onto explain, the political disenfranchisement of the Unionist working-class is now almost entirely complete:

“While republicanism is striding forward into a movement which could have government ministers in two sovereign parliaments – Stormont and the Dail – within a year, working class Protestantism is rapidly running backwards to the politically meaningless existence which Northern working class Catholics found themselves enduring under the Brookeborough regime from 1946 to 1963.”

Their erstwhile defenders, the DUP, have donned the UUPs’ furcoats and are now the ones supping the Gs & Ts down the golf-club (or in the case of the Fundamentalists, drinking their wee cups of black tea with crustless cucumber sandwiches up in their Cherryvalley detacheds) knowing that they can still rely on the lower orders in places like Ballymacarret and Sandy Row to continue giving them their vote, even as their areas fall further into states of dereliction and despair.

There are two ways out for their present doldrums for the Unionist working-class.

The more unlikely is that Sinn Fein start, (from afar at first obviously) to move out of their own sectarian strait-jacket and work for the benefit of all the working-class, not just the ones who’ve traditionally given them their vote. Given that this is more than likely to seriously piss-off a substantial portion of their own support-base without any real guaranteed increase in vote for SF in areas like the lower Shankill, I think it’s highly unlikely that political republicanism will start to live up to the teachings of Wolfe-Tone or Connolly any time soon.

The alternative is that a positive political leadership starts to emerge from within working-class Unionism. Where this is going to come from and how it manages to steer clear of the corrosive influence of the paramilitaries, I’ve got no idea. It needs civil society; the church-ministers, school teachers, small business-men and youth-workers to start identifying and preparing those of the next generation who may have these leadership qualities required to eventually help their communities become politically and economically empowered.

Unfortunately, if by any small chance, such leadership does emerge then I’ve got to agree with Coulter when he says that:

“The main opposition will stem from religious Puritans who will brand such working class Protestants as Godless communist, and from the snobbish Unionist Fur Coat Brigade who will dismiss them as uneducated and uncouth fascists.”

But time is limited:

“Like it or lump it, this is make or break decade for the Northern Protestant working class. You task is simple – organise or go under it:”

The sad thing is, (and this is where republicans have become as complacent as the Fur Coat Brigade) it hasn’t really sunk in with the wider society that if the Protestant working-class does go under, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll do so without a fight, a fight which will reach far beyond the borders of their own areas and have destructive effects throughout the province.
5:46 PM | Permalink | links to this post

If I Were an Irish Nationalist.....
I've been reading about the "One Small Step" campaign which has the laudable aim of breaking down the barriers between the two communities in Northern Ireland and increasing the understanding of each other's tradition and culture.

I think it is important to recognise and acknowledge differences, rather than sweeping them under the carpet in an attempt to promote some kind of artificial peace and understanding. But it is also an instructive exercise to put your self in the shoes of your counterpart on the "other side" and attempt to analyse the Northern Ireland "problem"from a different perspective to your own. In that spirit, I am today going to change "sides" and become an Irish nationalist, commited to the unification of the two parts of the island.

First of all, when I speak about "Unification", what do I really mean?

A United Ireland of territory or people? Without a unity existing amongst a big majority of the people of NORTHERN Ireland( never mind the rest of the island), then the removal of the border would indeed produce technically a United Ireland, but it would be one which had very little chance of functioning as a modern, democratic state.

OK, so unity of the people has got to be the ultimate goal. That being the case, there are a host of rather difficult questions that I need to ask myself.

How realistic is my goal? At the minute, not very. Around 30% of the electorate are presently voting for parties who believe in Irish unity. That leaves 70% who are either, active Unionists, or those who are content/apathetic with the present status quo and no longer vote. A majority of the latter group have to be shown that a change in N. Ireland's constitutional status would be to their material benefit, whilst a sufficient number of Unionist would have to be convinced that their economic well-being AND national identity would be better served within a United Ireland than the United Kingdom.

Neither task will be achieved overnight, am I prepared to wait 10,20,50 years for my target to be achieved gradually in an organic manner?

In order to convince Unionists of my sincerity, how far would I compromise my definition of "Irishness"? The new state would no longer have one view of Ireland's turbulent history with Britain, or a single cultural identity. Along with other more recent immigrants, the Ulster-Scots do not share a common view of history, emblems or national culture with myself. Am I prepared to allow their often diametrically opposing views and national identity have equal standing alongside my own? In a nutshell, am I prepared to accept that the majority of people I need to persuade, just do not see themselves as the same "type of Irish" as I do?

Would I be prepared to see a new political system on the island? A federal solution perhaps, with a great deal of autonomy for North-East Ulster? How would I view a closer constitutional and political links with the UK? And would I be prepared to consider re(?)joining the Commonwealth?

On a more practical level,what would I be prepared to sacrifice economically to achieve Unity? A future United Ireland could not support the Northern Ireland economy as it is presently constituted. For example, if I worked (as a large % of the N.Ireland population does) in the public sector, would I be prepared to sacrifice my job for "unification", for the promise of a better long-term economic future? And how would I convince the apathetic/comfort sector of the electorate of the economic benefits of cutting the link with Britain?

In the end, it comes down to the fact whether I believe I have to sell my concept of the future or simply have it enforced. If it's the latter option, then it's a simple question of working above the heads of the people who are opposed to a united Ireland, talking at and about, rather than to them and continuing to chip away at their national identity and culture. It's quite possible at some time in the future that I'll achieve my goal this way, but it will only be a "United Ireland" in theory, not practice.

If I decide to follow the much more difficult persuasion path, then I should be looking to honestly answer the questions I've posed above. I should be reassessing my political beliefs and getting ready to sacrifice a few sacred cows for the sake of achieving a real unity, that is to say a lasting one of the vast majority of the people.
6:00 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Pressure? What Pressure?
If Ian Paisley and the DUP decide to call Tony and Bertie’s bluff and deliver the final deathblow to an Assembly, that the vast majority of their supporters have never wanted anyway, who exactly will be the losers?

If you listen to the various Republican hacks, then it’s obviously Unionism; no Executive by November then it's back to an increasingly “Green” Direct Rule, with the Dublin government also getting a carte-blanche to stick its nose into all kinds of Northern Ireland’s business. Coupled with the sectarian carve-up of the super- councils imminent then, we’re counting down to United Ireland (just checked Pakman’s clock, 3552 days to go!).

That’s the theory anyway.

Here’s a few facts.
Paisley and the DUP are merely reflecting the antipathy (or just plain apathy) amongst most Unionists towards any Executive which contains members of Sinn Fein. The majority of Unionists did vote for the Belfast Agreement in the belief that, with the goodwill of all parties, a new chapter in Northern Ireland was possible. Sinn Fein in the subsequent period have betrayed their trust and Unionists are not ready yet to give them a second chance.

Am I bothered that Northern Ireland’s economy, health service etc is being run by English, Scottish and Welshmen? Not particularly. Can Sinn Fein (or the DUP for that matter) be trusted to run the Province in a fair manner for the benefit of all its citizens?
No, not whilst they are the two parties who rely most on the sectarian divisions within our society to win votes and power.

Ah, but what about that implied “Joint Authority” threat, if there’s no Executive by November? Blair and Hain, like the rest of their Nu-Labour cronies, are moral bankrupts. What they promise, say and imply and what they actually do are, more often than not, two completely different things. First up,as Tango-Man Hain himself later admitted, formal legal Joint Authority cannot be brought in without an act of parliament.The British and more importantly,the Irish government know that the passing of such an act would be basically telling the Unionists that their days were numbered. What would be the likely reaction to such an announcement? Would Blair, in the last few months of his Premiership or Bertie living just a few miles south of the border be prepared to risk it? Whatever you may think of the man and his politics, Paisley knows exactly what the Unionist grassroot thinks and with that information in mind, he knows that the answer to the last question is “no”

I’m sure on an informal level that the Irish and British governments are working very closely on such matters as security and the economy. Also as the situation within Northern Ireland normalizes, then there will be a further natural “greening” of society ( as much from Protestants becoming more comfortable with *Irishness* as any of Sinn Fein’s forced “Gaelisation” Policies). Whether there is ever another Executive or not, both of these processes will continue.The DUP leadership is canny enough to know this, but obviously now as the leading Unionist party will not be so keen to advertise these facts as it would have been in the past.

So what exactly have the DUP got to lose if they don't comply by that lastest ever, no really this time, November deadline??

Sharing History

"I think the idea that people can have independent histories is interesting, and also wrong, i.e. your history vs. my history. History is simply what gets written and remembered by men or women. I think that both versions of history - the nationalist version and the unionist version - are simply that: subjective versions, to a large extent the result of contemporary concerns."

The comment above, made by Hugh Green a couple of weeks ago, came to my mind when I read about this development in The Economist:

"Next week in Saarbrucken, French and German officials will present a worldwide first: French and German-language versions of a joint history book, covering the period since 1945."

Bearing in mind that their joint history has been as equally turbulent, disputed and yet also shared, why could a similiar project not be tried between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland?

I would suggest that the period from the Famine until the outbreak of the First World War would be a good era to start with, with a group of teachers and historians from Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic discussing and arriving at a common interpretation, about such events as the various Home Rule Crisis and the Gaelic Revival of the late 19th Century.

Of course, it will be argued by those with strong (or entrenched) views that there is a very thin line between a shared and a compromised history, but to my way of thinking, there is absolutely no threat posed to anyone's cultural or political beliefs by this bringing together of the different interpretations of a single event into one objective version. The only possible danger I could see is, that in this attempt to produce a completely factual, emotion-less history, the importance of what people at the time believed to be true, as opposed to the reality is underplayed. And in the context of recent Northern Irish history, we know it is, more often than not, the former rather than the latter which goes onto influence future events.

On a related subject (especially bearing in mind today's date!), I'd like to recommend, especially to any nationalists or republicans reading,this post on the legacy of the Williamite Wars, by Brian Crowe on the Young Unionists site. Forget about the modern manifestation of Orangeism and the sectarian cul-de-sac in which it's parked itself, Brian's interpretation outlines very convincingly the overall political and social benefits the Glorious Revolution brought to 17th Century Europe. You may or may not agree with his arguments, but the more important question is whether this interpretation of 1690 and all that, should be allowed to influence the version of history being taught in Irish schools?

And if not, why not?

After all, it is one held many of your fellow inhabitants on the island of Ireland; what makes your version truer than theirs?

The Gary Mitchell Tragedy
This is a story that I first read about in several blogs early December and was then covered by the Guardian just before Christmas.

Despite being ,or probably because he is, one of the most “talked about voices in European theatre” Gary Mitchell and his family were forced to leave the Rathcoole Estate in Newtownabbey, after a campaign of intimidation by loyalist paramilitaries. The final threat that every Mitchell had to “get out or be killed in four hours” convinced him that for his own and family’s safety it was the time to leave the estate where he’d taken so much of his inspiration from.

Obviously at a personal level this is a tragedy for the Mitchell family, some of whom have lived in the area for over 50 years, but it’s also sad to think of the effect of his plight will have in stifling the emergence of similar talents in other loyalist areas. Seeing the treatment that both Mitchell and the journalist David Adams have received from the UDA/UVF, will potential articulate writers, playwrights, artists or even bloggers still be prepared to raise their head above the parapet and seek wider audiences for their work?

The loyalist communities of Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland are facing a time of great change, uncertainty and even turmoil. It’s in that kind of environment that truly innovative literature and drama can thrive, but only if it gets the chance. For the next generation of budding Gary Mitchells though, the reaction of the local hoods is only one barrier that they’ve got to face.

Loyalist areas like the Shankill and Sandy Row are areas of great educational deprivation. The benefits that 20% of the wider school population derives from the Grammar School system have passed the Protestant working-class by. From an early age, the school system writes them off as failures and to achieve the level of literacy needed for everyday life in a modern service economy, never mind to be able to write a book or a play, is a struggle for many of the children.

Unlike in the equivalent Republican neighbourhoods, there is a also a lack of suitable role models, people who’re writing or performing and at the same time having their work appreciated by the community that they’re living in and operating from. For example, there’s no equivalent of the West Belfast Festival on the Loyalist/Unionist side and to be honest, there is no pressure or perhaps self-confidence for such an operation to be set up. Too often the prevailing attitude is that culture is for the “taigs and faggots”, not the loyalist “lumpen-proletariat” as it ‘s sometimes disparagingly referred to.

The arts establishment in Northern Ireland is primarily a middle-class one, operating with middle-class prejudices. As I mentioned before working-class nationalists and republicans basically bypassed the formal structures of this establishment and set up their own arrangements, using their own rules. Due to the suspicion of “culture” that I referred to and the weaker community links, this hasn’t happened on the working-class Loyalist/Unionist side. A playwright like Mitchell, when trying to promote his work within Northern Ireland is faced with dealing with people who are from a different and maybe even hostile background to his own.


There will be not many writers, playwrights or artists who will have not only the talent, but also perseverance, stamina and courage to overcome these four barriers. That makes the very few that do precious, as they can provide the impetus for similar talents who just need the confidence of seeing someone from their own background succeeding before they too give it a go. As long as the intimidation of people like Gary Mitchell continues that’s unfortunately rather wishful thinking.

Why Northern Ireland was Never "Balkanised"

One person was seriously wounded by gunfire and six policemen were hurt in clashes when after the match rioting erupted in the ethnically and religiously split city.

Police said a large group of fans smashed cars and the windows of nearby buildings in a city square, which was a frontline during the period of the recent Troubles.
A group of youths from the other side of the divide confronted them and police intervened.
Police said there was considerable damage in the overnight violence and 26 people were arrested.

No, the trouble this time didn’t take place in Belfast nor Londonderry, but in the Bosnian city of Mostar and occurred between Croats and Muslims, after Croatia lost to Brazil in the World Cup. Most Bosnian Croats see neighbouring Croatia as their homeland and support the Croatia national team rather than Bosnia.

You can probably see certain parallels with the situation back in Northern Ireland and obviously different football team affiliations has caused similar violence on occasions. But too often, the "Balkans=Northern Ireland" comparison is used unthinkingly by lazy journalists, who can’t be bothered reaching beyond the obvious for their metaphors. The scale of the mass-murders, the ethnic cleansing and other related war-crimes which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Kossova during the 1990s, makes the tragedies of our own thirty years of troubles pale into insignificance.

There are many other less obvious differences also between the two situations.

If we were able to travel back less than thirty years to 1979 and compare everyday life in Yugoslavia with that which existed in Northern Ireland, we would see that, superficially at least, the former was a country which had been much more successful in coping with the religious and ethnic differences amongst its citizens.

In Northern Ireland, the Troubles were ten years old and the ethno/religious centuries-old hatred was manifesting itself in a never-ending cycle of bloody violence. For a tiny country, with a population of just over one and a half million, to be capable of spawning enough evil men and women to cause events like La Mon, the Abercorn, McGurk’s bar is shocking; the fact that these evil men and women got enough tacit support from their communities to enable them to continue their campaigns is an even worse indictment of the collective morality.

Northern Ireland had never been a “mixed” community, the vast majority of people lived, worked and played amongst their own kind. Mixed marriages were rare, integrated schooling non-existent. And whilst there was optimism in the 1960s that maybe one day, normal class-based politics would arrive in the Province, it very much turned out to be a forlorn hope. By 1979, the IRA’s economic campaign had effectively destroyed the country’s industrial base and any potential tourism industry. Not surprising then that the unemployment rate was the highest of any region in Western Europe. Domestic politics was a sick joke (not much change there, then) and unaccountable direct rule from Westminster was the only practical way to govern the Province. Most tragically of all, divisions at a ground level between the two communities were the deepest that they had been at least since the formation of the State.

In contrast in 1979, the Yugoslavs appeared to be riding the crest of a wave.

Amongst the younger generation in the more cosmopolitan cities and towns like Belgrade, Novi Sad and Sarajevo, a distinct Yugoslav (as opposed to Serb, Bosniak,Croat etc) identity and even nationalism had been forged. Out of a total population of twenty-two million, over three million were in either a mixed marriage or were the children resulting from such a partnership. In the most mixed regions, such as Voivodina and even Krajina, the different ethnic communities lived, worked and played together; Serbs bought holiday homes on the Croatian coast, Slovenes and ethnic Magyars white-rafted together in Montenegro.

Economically as well the country thrived, with Tito’s decision in the 1948 to break with Stalin and the subsequent expulsion from Cominform proving to be a masterstroke. Western financial aid rolled into the country and more importantly Washington supported the loans from the IMF and World Bank that would prop up the country’s economy and build up an infrastructure that was unrivaled in the region.
With the loans also came a form of liberalisation that was unparalleled anywhere else in the Eastern Bloc. Tito was the first to adopt the attitude,(later followed by Kadar in Hungary), that “whoever is not against us is with us”, a laissez-faire approach, which led to Yugoslavs enjoying, not only much more domestic freedom, but also the right to travel and work in the West.

Yet, despite all these outwardly positive signs, within ten years of Tito’s death, not only had the Federation started to fall apart, but the first of three vicious wars had begun between the various ethnic groups that had previously lived together, reasonably peacefully and harmoniously for over thirty years since the end of World War Two. Within the space of over ten years, the whole region had descended into an orgy of ethnic conflict not seen in Europe since 1945; in Bosnia-Herzegovina alone, it is thought that over 175,000 lost their lives. Huge population movements of threatened minorities took place in Croatia, Bosnia and later Kosovo with the ethnic cleansing of whole communities where different groups of people had lived together often for centuries.

So, the eventual scale of the conflict which occurred in the former Yugoslavia ,obviously dwarfs that which took place in Northern Ireland during the period 1969-1996. But like Northern Ireland, it’s roots lay in ages-old national and religious enmities and again, like in Northern Ireland, it had periodically exploded into bouts of blood-letting at different crisis-points in the country’s history.

But given this one similarity between the two regions, why, relatively speaking, was the bloodletting so much more severe in this part of the Balkans than in Northern Ireland?

I think the answer is pretty clear.

Unlike in the former Yugoslavia, the central controlling power (i.e. the British government) in Northern Ireland and its armed forces, by and large, played a heroic role in keeping the two warring sides apart. Milosevic, on the other hand, used terrorists such as Arkan, Karadzic and Seselj to carry out a proxy war against the Croats and Bosniaks; they were organized, directed and supplied with weaponry from the Belgrade authorities. The JNA (the former federal Yugoslavian army) also openly fought alongside the Serb paramilitaries in both Bosnia and Croatia. Without this substantial support from the centre, it’s hard to believe that the ethnic Serbs in both Bosnia and Croatia would have had the capability to carry out the various attacks and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted and which provoked the other ethnic groups into an ever-spiralling round of retaliation.

If at any stage, the Westmionster government had played the same role as Milosevic and effectively allowed it's armed forces to join with the UVF,UDA and the other loyalist gangs in an all-out onslaught against the Republican terrorists and more importantly, the areas they operated from; then I’m convinced that we would have had a civil-war every bit as bloody as occurred in Bosnia.

That's not to say that on occasions, collaberation did not take place between certain elements of the British military and both loyalist and republican terrorists. It's also not to condone in any way the murders of innocent people that such collusion caused. But despite the immoral actions of individuals within the armed forces, the long-term aim of the British government and its military forces was always pure and simple, the defeat of the various terrorist groups with the least possible citizen casualties possible.

Republicans will of course argue the validity of this last statement, but think back or ask how bad things were in Northern Ireland in 1979; how bad the inter-communal hatred had become, how many ruthless and psychopathic murderers were operating on both sides, how many attrocities were taking place on a daily basis and answer the question, what or whom prevented Northern Ireland from having its own Srebenica or Sarajevo?

Why Not an Open Society?

According to Wikipedia “an open society” was:

“ a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society.”

Karl Popper in his book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, later developed the concept further and along with Bergson’s his ideas helped to influence the thinking of organisations such as The Open Society in the Central and eastern Europe and old Soviet states, as after the change of system in the 1989/90, they tried to help with the laying the foundations for a fully operational transparent, democracies.

But go back to that original definition, especially this bit:

“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.”

Having castigated Republican bloggers and journalists yesterday for failing to take intellectual risks I’m going to take the Unionist establishment to task today (that’ll have them shaking in their sheepskins).

This interview with PUP spokesperson Dawn Purvis last week raised the old question of how certain of the DUP’s leadership have *liased* with the loyalist paramilitaries over the years. Now I’m a humble blogger, I and I’d guess, the vast majority of people who’ve had their say on this topi,c do not know for sure how close this involvement was.
But over the years, from information that I’ve read and one or two things that I’ve heard personally, I’ve developed strong suspicions.

Now just imagine tomorrow, somebody rather high up in the DUP comes clean and says "yes, I had contacts with Mr X of Organisation Y and did this, this and that”

The impact?
Republicans hated him before, republicans will hate him after.
They will have accused him of being a hypocrite before, they’ll accuse him of being a hypocrite (albeit an honest one now after).
Nothing lost there.

But amongst Unionists?
This is where it’s interesting I think. Such an admission would work to the politician’s as well as the wider society’s benefit. His core supporters will have suspected such a dalliance with terrorists before and been prepared to vote for him regardless. Such a public disclosure would have very little effect on their loyalty therefore.

For people who don’t vote for the DUP for reasons other than their supposed prior links with the loyalist terrorists, I don’t think there would be much of a switch in support. To my mind, they (the DUP as a whole) are too tied in with Protestant fundamentalism and the “not an inch” version of Unionism which is taking us up the hill and down again fast. That view wouldn’t change, if the guy in question or indeed the whole party spilt the beans, I would however think more highly of his integrity and honesty, which is obviously a good although rather intangible benefit for him personally

For the waverers, the people in the middle, a definite chance that he’ll garner a pick up in support. How many times do you hear people saying about politicians (especially the Ulster variety), “Sure there all the same, I’ll put my “X” against the same people that my neighbours, my family and work colleagues do because...just because they’re all the same, it doesn’t matter..ad infinitum”

Someone who proves that he’s not “the same”, well, that’s going to jolt Mrs Complacent Voter and make them think. And we need a lot more thinking.

So, perhaps it’s a naïve thought, but actually no, it's not; I think if there was to be a mass outbreak of honesty amongst the Unionist politicos, the movement and society as a whole would benefit.

As I’ve shown, I believe that there would be very little to lose for the individuals in question. And when the voter lives in a “society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.” then politics has got to move away from the present stale and sectarian state it’s stuck in. Unionist voters wouldn’t be voting any longer out of fear, supposition or rumour, but for positive reasons with the full knowledge of what the consequence of their vote would be.
Got to be a good thing surely?

Now with regards this bit:

“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense”

I’ll be examining how Peter Hain and the rest of the NI Office live up to their responsibilities to keep “political mechanisms transparent and flexible”

Not a very long examination was necessary, I'm afraid.
They don’t and this lack of transparency and obsessive hoarding of secrets is one of the main causes of existing instability within the Northern Ireland political system.

And again (and again, yes I know it’s a naïve question) how exactly are we all better off for not been able to trust a word that Hain and his Cohorts tell us?