Tomás Ó Flatharta

Looking at Things from the Left

Violent Legacy of Irish Troubles, British Double-Standards – Boston College Row Revisited

leave a comment »

Ed Moloney’s Irish Echo Editorial (an Irish-American Newspaper) on the Boston tapes controversy is required reading for all people genuinely interested in dealing with the violent legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles (1969-1998, signing of the Good Friday Agreement).

Two key quotes :
Number 1 :

But the war has now ended, peace reigns and there is a desperate need for dealing with the past in a way that solidifies that peace and ensures an untroubled future.

The British have chosen a way that does the opposite. The Boston College subpoenas symbolize an approach to this issue based on revenge and the view that alleged combatants in that war should be dragged before the courts, convicted and jailed.

Number 2 :

There will be those, of course, who will say that if Gerry Adams did order Jean McConville’s “disappearance” then he deserves to be prosecuted. In a normal society, one ruled by a normal government, that would be a difficult argument to answer. But Northern Ireland is not, even with the peace process, a normal society and nowhere is this more evident than in the administration of justice.

The plain, undeniable fact is that there are double standards in the way justice is doled out in Northern Ireland.

Read, Circulate, and Act.

The Broken Elbow's avatarThe Broken Elbow

Irish Echo
Editorial | By Ed Moloney | March 14th, 2012

Slowly, but inexorably, the penny is dropping, both here in the United States as well as back in Ireland.

The Boston College subpoenas seeking access to oral history interviews with former IRA activists on behalf of the police in Northern Ireland are about the dumbest things that have ever happened in the long relationship between the United States, Britain and Ireland.

The difficulty is not how to describe why they are so dumb, but in counting the ways in which they are so dumb.

First of all, this is not the way in which to heal a conflict like that in the North of Ireland.

Over 3,000 people died and tens of thousands were scarred, physically and mentally, by a war that was undoubtedly one of the longest and most violent, if not the most violent in Irish history.

But the…

View original post 1,543 more words

A Government Starting to Crack? Are we over-optimistic?

leave a comment »

Perhaps we are over-optimistic, – and the little voice should always say “optimism of the will, pessimism of the spirit” – we think that was Antonio Gramsci’s advice to activists – but it looks like the Kenny- Gilmore government is on the slide downwards towards a Cowen-Gormley meltdown – let’s hope!

WorldbyStorm's avatarThe Cedar Lounge Revolution

By now most will have read the comments Leo Vardkar made about RTÉ, and I’ll get to them in a moment. But let’s start with his less than opportune timing as regards this remark:

He also said RTÉ was “encouraging people to break the law” by giving access to campaigners urging people not to pay the household tax. He claimed RTÉ would not give access to groups advocating that people refuse to pay the television licence fee.

Well perhaps they would if there was a campaign of mass non-payment on the TV license.

But what if instead of ‘law-breakers’ being the problem, the truth is the law itself is broken?

According to The Journal.ie

THE HIGH COURT has granted leave for a challenge to be made against the household charge because the necessary legislation and the statutory instruments are in the English language only – and have yet to be…

View original post 1,029 more words

High Court allows Household Charge challenge

leave a comment »

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 15, 2012 at 10:44 am

Posted in Ireland

Phil Hogan gets go-ahead to use bills because of household tax mass boycott

leave a comment »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/phil-hogan-gets-goahead-to-use-bills-for-taxdodger-hunt-3046675.html

Government admitting non-payment of household tax is supported by a vast majority of the population.  Read below biased headline of a right-wing newspaper.

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 13, 2012 at 10:32 am

Debate on the United Left Alliance – Proposal for a Branch Delegate Council

with 9 comments

We continue the discussion on how to take forward the United Left Alliance (ULA) with this contribution from Henry Silke (Dublin Central ULA Branch)

Proposal for a Branch Delegate Council

by Henry Silke (Dublin Central ULA)

Introduction

There is some frustration in the ULA on a several fronts: one has been the lack of cohesion of the organisation, with the component parts continuing to act separately; a second has been the lack of representation of members who are not aligned to the founding groups; and finally a general lack of development of branches and structure. The steering committee of the ULA has proposed a number of policies to deal with these issues. Firstly it has proposed to give non-aligned members representation (on the steering committee) which is a very welcome step forward. It does remain problematic in that it only gives non-aligned members an annual vote on representation (at conference) with no detail on how the representatives may stay in contact (if at all) with their constituency. The Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) opposes this and are instead calling for a one person one vote annual conference where a steering committee (and I presume policy and strategy) would be voted on. This too is problematic for reasons already attested by Conlon and Young (see below), the main problem being that it could lead to passive if not active divisions and an alienation of the non aligned membership. Moreover even if a simple one person one vote conference did work without leading to a fight for delegates between the SWP and the Socialist Party (SP); it remains again only an annual vote without recourse, something which does not move beyond passive concepts of democracy where members are given a voice once a year. On a more long-term structural development the steering committee has also established a sub-committee on the structural development of the alliance and it is with this in mind that I have formulated this proposal. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 9, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Greece – The urgency of an independent women’s movement against debt and austerity measures

leave a comment »

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2468

Solidarity, Greetings, to all friends – International Women’s Day 2012

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Watch “Andy Storey on the new EU fiscal treaty” on YouTube

leave a comment »

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 8, 2012 at 10:31 am

‘”The ULA badly needs a ‘third force’…”

with 6 comments

There has been little enough feedback on the 24th January article Where to now for the ULA? by Eddie Conlon and Brendan Young. But better quality than quantity. The quality of this response from John Cane prompted Tomás to invite it up as a guest post. Tomás would not use all the terminology, like “democratic centralism” or “Leninist”, in the same way, but let’s not quibble.

ooOOoo

It seems to me from your analysis that both the SWP and the SP have proved incapable of changing their spots – and that they are not going to anytime soon. They are both irredeemable “vanguardist” groups and thus must always put “party-building” first.

I would think this is a major problem for the “non-aligned” groups and individuals in ULA due to the combined weight of the SWP and SP in the organisation (though, of course, I understand that they rarely operate in concert). Frankly, I don’t see any chance of progressing the ULA “project” (of establishing a viable “revolutionary/reformist” grouping in Ireland, as I understand it) as long as it is being driven by the politics of either or both of these “vanguard” revolutionary groups.

The ULA badly needs a “third force” to counteract and challenge the SWP and SP. This can, surely, only come from organising the “non-aligned” groups and individuals on a separate basis within the ULA, to pursue separate goals (when necessary), by separate means (when necessary) – all within the ULA framework, of course. It’s a good step forward to see a separate meeting for the “non-aligned” at your forthcoming conference.

In my opinion, the sooner a new “third force” begins to define itself the better. It should have a name (how about Independent Left?). It should agree on why it thinks it needs to be separate (the rejection of “vanguardism”?; the rejection of “democratic centralism”? ; the rejection of “revolutionism”?). It should decide how inclusive it wants to be (surely very inclusive i.e. anyone not in “parties” or groups espousing the above).

The new grouping (“tendency”?) would, I think, only be able to challenge the SWP and SP (never mind supersede them) if it actively seeks to become a pole of attraction both to those inside the current ULA (i.e. all “non-aligned” and disillusioned SWP and SP members) and, critically, lefties of all stripes outside the current ULA (i.e. disillusioned LP members, groups like Plan B and Occupy, and local-based organisations).

One specific problem in establishing “Independent Left” is, perhaps, the existence of PBPA (especially the “Crumlin group”). It seems to me that there is no point to the PBPA as it stands now. If it is effectively controlled by the SWP then all “non-aligned” groups (including “Crumlin”) and individuals should simply leave it and join Independent Left if they wish to.

All going well (!), the great majority of currently “non-aligned” groups and individuals in ULA would see the value of setting up and working within an “Independent Left”-style “tendency” along the lines above and, this accomplished, it’s hard to see how SWP or SP would have any other option than to accept it as a “third force”. If they didn’t, they would have to fold the whole ULA “project” (and be seen to be doing so). “Independent Left” is, after all, an entirely legitimate exercise in left political plurality (in contrast to the “democratic centralism” of both SWP and SP). As such, its establishment, if conducted openly and fraternally, would be hard for even Leninists and Trotskyists to oppose.

If you could get away with all this, then, I would think you’ll be well on the way to “building” a viable “revolutionary/reformist” left ULA grouping in Ireland (though not a “new mass workers party”, I think!). Perhaps something along the lines of the old SLP and other “Two-and-a Half International” groupings, with “Independent Left” providing the essential (and hopefully, before long, dominant) broad, pluralist, non-vanguardist input.

And even if you don’t get away with it, well, would you be any worse off? There’s no future much for the ULA “project” as it stands now.

22nd February 2012

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 7, 2012 at 12:36 am

Dublin Council of Trade Unions: a campaign against austerity; no to the Fiscal Treaty ; non-payment of the household and water charges.

leave a comment »

Motion from UNITE passed at the DCTU delegate meeting on Tuesday 28th on austerity, the fiscal compact and the household and water Charges.

It calls for a united campaign against austerity, for the trade unions and the ICTU to oppose the Treaty and for support for the household and water charges non-payment campaign.

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 6, 2012 at 4:53 pm

United Left Alliance Galway and X Case – Public Meeting 7th March, 2012

leave a comment »

From the ULA/Galway…(via The Cedar Lounge Revolution)


ULA Galway to hold public information meeting to mark 20th anniversary of the X Case and to highlight legislation campaign

The Galway branch of the United Left Alliance will hold a public meeting to mark the twentieth anniversary of the X Case and to publicise the Medical Treatment Bill 2012, which will give legislative effect to the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case.

The public meeting will take place this Wednesday (7th March) at 7:30pm in the Kirwan Lecture Theatre in NUI Galway.

Wednesday marks the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, which held that a woman, whose life was endangered by a pregnancy, could legally avail of an abortion in Ireland. The meeting will also coincide with International Women’s Day.

The ULA TDs and some of the Dáil technical group TDs have brought forward the Medical Treatment (Termination Of Pregnancy In Case Of Risk To Life Of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012 in order to provide a legislative basis for the legal termination of a pregnancy in the very limited circumstances where such treatment is deemed necessary to prevent a woman’s death, including the threat of suicide. This was the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney General v. X in 1992.

The public meeting will hear from three distinguished speakers, and will be chaired by local activist and ULA chairperson Dette McLoughlin.
Dr. Niamh Reilly, who is a senior lecturer at NUI Galway and a co-director of the University’s Global Women’s Studies programme will speak about the political, legal and social contexts that led to the X Case.

Midwife and activist Mary Smith has worked as a nurse with Dublin’s Well Woman Centre and as a research office with the crisis pregnancy agency and will highlight the experiences of women who have affected by the lack of legislation and clarity with regard to lifesaving abortion.

Therese Caherty is co-convenor of the Open Feminist Forum and a member of the Action on X campaign group. She will discuss the Bill and its provisions, as well as the political process that will be required to see it become law.

The meeting will end with a question and answer session,

Speaking ahead of the meeting, Galway ULA chairperson Dette McLoughlin asked “why has this Supreme Court ruling been ignored? The electorate has twice urged the Government through referendums to act on the reality of crisis pregnancy and relate this judgment into law. We have had six successive Governments and yet shamefully we still do not have legislation in place. It appears that the vast majority of elected representatives choose to ignore the will of the people rather than speak out for legislation.”

“The most basic level of reproductive rights is still being denied to women in Ireland. Twenty years on, despite women having the right to an abortion in Ireland in limited circumstances, the State has failed to give legislative effect to the Supreme Court ruling. This means that all women living in Ireland who need to terminate a pregnancy are forced to travel abroad to access this medical procedure.”

“This has gone on long enough.”

The “X” case involved a 14-year old girl who had become pregnant by rape. The girl, known as “X”, was barred from travelling abroad for an abortion. Amidst anger at the court’s injunction and sympathy for the girl’s situation, the case convulsed the citizens of Ireland. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that abortion was legal where there was a “real and substantial risk to the life” of a pregnant woman, including suicide.

Over 60 organisations and individuals – including several TDs, trade unions, and doctors, have called for immediate legislation in line with the ‘X’ case.

“This bill is in line with the constitution, with the 1992 Supreme Court ruling and with the wishes of the people as expressed in two referendums. If passed it would represent an historic step forward for women, and for the country as a whole. There is no excuse for Government or opposition TDs to oppose this Bill. We must put pressure on politicians to support this bill. We cannot allow them to play the coward with this vitally important issue. Come along on Wednesday and add your voice to the campaign.

For more information visit http://www.unitedleftalliance.org or find ULA Galway on Facebook.

Written by tomasoflatharta

Mar 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm