Hearing the Other Voice from the Grave: Why Should we Listen to David Ervine’s Stories?
Ed Moloney’s Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland has received considerable attention in the press and in the public realm since its publication earlier this year. Although the book relates the experiences of the Provisional IRA’s Brendan Hughes and the PUP/UVF’s David Ervine, much of the discussion has focused on Hughes’ stories about Gerry Adams.
This book review will not delve into the Adams-related stories in detail, as I think they have by now entered our common consciousness and there is little new to say about them. It will suffice to recall that Brendan Hughes identifies Adams as the key figure in the Belfast IRA, the man ultimately responsible for Bloody Friday and ‘disappearing’ Jean McConville. Hughes also died believing that Adams double-crossed his comrades in the IRA, taking the republican movement in a political direction that – unbeknownst to his foot soldiers who were putting their lives on the line – betrayed them to a peace process that left them too far short of their political goals.
For those few readers unfamiliar with it, the basis of the book, also detailed in an RTE documentary, was a series of interviews with key paramilitaries by Boston College researchers between 2001-2004. The interviews were conducted on the condition that no materials could be used until after the deaths of the participants. The early deaths of Hughes and Ervine meant that their voices have entered the public realm much sooner than was expected.
Moloney skilfully interweaves their personal stories with the key events of the Troubles, using a deft, unobtrusive style that truly allows both men to speak for themselves. But what is striking about the book is its imbalance: 285 pages devoted to Hughes, just 179 to Ervine.
This may well be because what Hughes had more to say was more intriguing – that seems clear from the debate (and finger-pointing) that the Adams revelations have provoked. But that has meant that much of what Ervine had to say has been overlooked or ignored.
That’s unfortunate. Especially right now, when there is a lack of communication between so-called ‘loyalism,’ and the middle unionism of the main unionist political parties and the unionist chattering classes.
Of course, Ervine achieved a respectable status within unionism with his turning away from violence. But this book makes clear that he very much retained what you might call a loyalist interpretation of the peace process, one that put the strategizing and the actions of not just the PUP, but also the UVF and the UDA, at the centre of it all.
This loyalist interpretation of the peace process is currently either unacknowledged or wilfully ignored by mainstream unionism.
And what is that perspective? It is encapsulated in a quote from one of the interviews, where Ervine describes the UVF’s 1979 document ‘Sharing Responsibility.’ This document ‘advocated a devolved power-sharing government in Belfast made up of Unionists and Nationalists, the latter assumed to be of the SDLP variety’ (p. 396). This is what Ervine said,
In the period of time before I joined the PUP the party presented Sharing Responsibility to the Secretary of State at the time, Jim Prior, and he told them that he was very interested in it but they were twenty years ahead of their time, and I think they were, absolutely. Every Unionist political party nowadays effectively advocates exactly the line that the Progressive Unionist Party, the UVF, if you like, was advocating in the mid-1970s, and I find it absolutely fascinating that those who had the time and space to evaluate and offer leadership chose not to do so, [while] those who very often are spurned … because of the paramilitary origins of their leadership, but maybe more because they were working class, were beavering away through a thought process by themselves but also in conjunction with prisoners in the jail. I think it was of some significance, in fairness, that the UDA, through the Ulster Political Research Group, had created their Common Sense document, supposedly the brainchild of John McMichael. I don’t know whether it was fully his brainchild but it certainly indicates a process of thinking in the paramilitary ranks of Loyalism far beyond that of the serried ranks of besuited politicians on the Unionist side. There’s no doubt in my mind about that, absolutely no doubt that had we waited for rational politics from Unionist constitutional politicians we’d have waited forever. (p. 396-397).
Ervine also related how the ideas and language of loyalism were reflected in the text of the pivotal 1993 Downing Street Declaration. Having recently given a lecture to students on our Master’s in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation programme about how the ideas and language of John Hume and the SDLP were reflected in the Downing Street Declaration and the Belfast Agreement, I was very much struck by how Ervine fore-grounded the role of loyalism (p. 430). I have to admit that this perspective hadn’t made it in to my lecture on unionism and loyalism. This is how Ervine described it,
So the Irish government became vital and Chris Hudson [a prominent participant in the Peace Train movement] was actually headhunted by the leadership of the UVF for a specific role in mediating with the Irish government and was tested in late 1993 in terms of insertion of material provided by Loyalism for the Downing Street Declaration. The six key principles that were included verbatim in the Downing Street Declaration was our indicator very clearly that we were being heard, that not only was the conduit in place but it was open and working. (p. 430-431)
A similar perspective to Ervine’s was very much apparent at a one-day conference Ulster Loyalism: Past, Present and Future, at Queen’s on 19 November. The conference featured both academics and former loyalist paramilitaries as speakers. The comments of some of the former paramilitaries followed pretty much the same line as Ervine. There was a significant former UDA representation at the conference and they talked extensively about Common Sense (a pro-power sharing document from 1987) and an earlier document, Beyond the Religious Divide.
There was a sense that these documents, like Sharing Responsibility, had been forgotten or were being written out of the history of the peace process – with big house unionism sweeping in to take all of the credit and all of the votes.
Indeed, the general lack of wider knowledge about these documents is reflected in a structural feature of Voices from the Grave: Although Sharing Responsibility and Common Sense are discussed in the text, they don’t merit a mention in the Index. After all, who would think of looking them up?
The key point that I take from this is that many loyalists would appreciate some sort of acknowledgement for the risks they took, and the contributions they made, during the peace process.
This doesn’t mean that so-called mainstream unionism – or others in Northern Ireland, for that matter – have to whole-heartedly accept loyalists’ interpretations. But just listening to this perspective – it is now easily accessible in Voices from the Grave – would be a good start.
Turgon, you often make insightful comments. Don’t you think it’s time that we from the unionist tradition recognise that NI iteself only exists because we, i.e. our ancestors, threatened and sometimes perpetrated terrorism in order to bring it into being? Surely an honest history of 1912-21 acknowledges that? That being so, can we honestly, fairly, decently, wash our hands of David Ervine, or indeed – I appreciate this is a challenge – decline to take credit for the distance he travelled?
I personally am coming to the view that it is time for an all-Ireland accommodation as part of a more general renegotiation of relationships in these islands (my family is as much Scottish as Ulster). But if partition is to remain, and republicanism tells us it is accommodated to that if it is what 50% + 1 in the 6 counties want, then it behoves us to tell the truth of how we got here. And I do not think that truth is one that allows any of us so blithely to disown David Ervine, his crimes or indeed his achievements.
Joe Bryce,
Up to a point I can see where you are coming from. I could point out that the unionists of the Home Rule crisis did not take part in major criminality. Odd as it may seem importing guns was not then a criminal act in those days I believe. Furthermore and more importantly the unionists of then did not indulge in a sectarian murder campaign.
However, despite all the above I admit to a certain anxiety about the events of 1912 and how they might otherwise have turned out.
The situation of 1969 onwards is completely different. I agree that there was considerable discrimination against Catholics. It may not have been quite as much or as organised as republicans at times claim but it was there none the less and it was completely unacceptable. We as unionists need to accept and apologise for that.
Moving on there was no cause in the last fifty years here which justified the murder of a single one of the victims of the troubles.
The truth of how we got here is that the likes of David Ervine murdered Catholics for pure reasons of sectarian hate: yet we are told he was a peace maker. Utter rubbish: he was no more a peace maker than the dentist Howell was a life saver for the last ten years. Just because Howell has murdered no one in the last number of years does not make him laudable. Just because Ervine had ceased his vile campaign of bigotry that does not make him a hero. A true hero would have completely repudiated his crimes and attempted to help to bring to justice the perpetrators of the vile crimes of the UVF. It is in that context we should view the “achievements” of Ervine. he “achieved” at the end what almost all of us had done previously: not hating and murdering our fellow countrymen and women because they go to chapel rather than church.
As a final remark let me remind you that Ervine’s mentor Gusty Spence first committed murder in 1966 at a time when there was no IRA. For the UVF to claim to be retaliating for IRA crimes is utter nonsense. They were a bunch of fascist bigoted thugs. the fact that Ervine could sort of (and only sort of) speak in a semi articulate fashion does not make him any less a thug.
I appreciate so much of what many posters have written in their assessment of Ervine and the UVFas little more than sectarian murderers, particularly Turgon’s present and earlier post in this thread.
However I question the accuracy of this statement
” Furthermore and more importantly the unionists of then did not indulge in a sectarian murder campaign”.
A glance at any history book will show that
sectarian rioting and murder of Roman Catholic subjects has been endemic to NI, particularly Belfast, since the mid 19th century.
Fear of Nationalists achieving places in government even made a hostile mob, many armed as Carson later admitted, surround Winston Churchill when as a Liberal he was invited to talk about Home Rule in September 1912. The 1920s and 1930s were regularly interupted by sectarian attacks on Catholic areas and individuals. (Bibliography available if anyone is interested)
I know it is very hard for Protestants to question the myths that inform the political background of NI but if Turgon is an example of how far some have travelled towards what I call normal British values of tolerance and acceptance etc, I believe there is hope for us all in NI
Turgon,
I know that it is impossible for anyone to know what another individual is thinking, but where does repentance and forgiveness figure in this for those who have declared repentance and sorrow for their horrible actions?
joe,
Repentance and turning away are very valid. I do not think one has to be religious necessarily to turn away from horrible crimes in a valid fashion. I say that because Ervine was an atheist and that is in no way my complaint about him.
The problem is that Ervine claimed to have turned away from crime but continued to help and succour those who continued criminality: all the while claiming to be helping bring them from crime. However, after years and years they were (and are) still committing crimes yet Ervine still made a virtue of supposedly bringing them away from crime. At some point one has to state that Ervine was not bringing the criminals away from crime but rather giving them political cover.
Had Ervnie truly turned away from the crimes of the loyalists he would either have broken with them completely when they continued murder or best of all would have gone to the police and helped in their arrest and prosecution: that would have been truly courageous.
Furthermore Ervine’s turning away from crime was given the lie by his stating on television that he had not forgotten how to make bombs and describing the murder of men, women and children as “returning the serve.” A man who truly regretted his criminal past would not be making that sort of remark.
Ervine’s conversion to the path of peace was partial, incomplete, self serving and dishonest. The fact that some in the media lauded him and some misguided people like Mr. Blacker seem to regard him as some sort of secular saint should not blind us to his loathsome reality as an unrepentant sectarian thug and criminal.
Ervine and his ilk make me at times ashamed to be a unionist. My only defence is that I totally opposed those sectarian criminals from as early as I can remember. I note as a matter of pride that the overwhelming majority of Protestants and Catholics I know here rejected totally the murderous ways of the sectarian bigots who proclaimed that they murdered their neighbours on our behalf. In that I have hope that maybe we can have peace. however, we must forget neither the victims nor the loathsome perpetrators.
anne warren,
I know we agree on little but thank you for your kind remarks about me
Regards
Turgon,
It must be great to know everything about every subject even when you make the things up and then start to believe it. Your judgment of the Late David Ervine proves you are ignorant about the life of this man. Try and educate yourself about facts instead of spewing these vile lies to satisfy your own failings. Before you piss on someone’s grave at least have the courtesy to speak from a position of knowledge.
Fact: convicted criminal; had been attempting to plan murderous bomb
Fact: mouth piece of murderers
Fact: stated murder was “returning the serve”
Fact: gloated on television that he had not forgotten how to make bombs
Fact: never helped in the apprehension of loyalist murderers
Fact: continued to be mouth piece for murderers after repeated murders and no sign of decommissioning
Fact: claimed to be willing to die for Ulster; a total lie.Hhe was keen to make others die for his vision of Ulster: there is a world of difference
Those are the facts Mr. Blacker. You can tell me all you want about your experiences of your secular saint. However, they are merely your claims and I have seen you produce absolutely no evidence for any of your claims. Indeed I begin to wonder whether you are as naive as you appear or whether you are just another lie telling cheerleader for criminality. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and regard you as a fool rather than a liar.
Finally I will go beyond the facts re Ervine and suggest: Reasonable suspicion; probably a murderer himself
Turgon,
Thanks for your thoughts on than. I don’t think I have the right to judge an individual other than,
as always I guess, it’s actions rather than words that reveal the inner nature of someone..
Another individual that I can’t reconcile myself to regarding repentance is that man who claims that he is sorry for (some) things that PIRA did even though he was never a member of that organization and has no difficulty participating in “remembrance” ceremonies/
+
Turgon,
I would hate to see what murder and mayhem there would be heaped on Northern Ireland if the thinking of the TUV ever got its way. People like the Late David Ervine were drawn into the conflict like lots of others and he tried to use his experences to help the situation.
His statement about returning the serve is a fact of our dirty terrorist conflict. It is only your idea of “gloating” & “mouth piece” – your blind hate stops you thinking anything else.
I do not understand what you mean when you said the Late David Ervine “was keen to make others die for his vision of” – (I guess you ment to say) “Northern Ireland”? Not anywhere close to the man I knew.
I may be classed a fool by some people and that would be their democratic right but I would class myself a fool if I decided to follow the TUV. I can tell you of the Late David Ervine but as you say it is falling on closed ears, a trait that was perfected by the TUV.
Stephen:
So in that way of thinking anyone who is not elected cannot represent a group or community – strange thinking in a society like ours.
Why is it strange that our representatives be those that we select at the ballot box ?
We need to be very clear about this – working class unionist communities have had many opportunities to formally appoint loyalist politicians as their representatives. In the vast majority of cases they have rejected those opportunities and voted for representatives in the DUP/UUP instead. It’s completely ridiculous to say “yes, we know you voted for the DUP guy, but we’re going to allow this other bloke that you voted against to act on your behalf, because he killed a few people once and now says he’s sorry”.
I’m not saying that your intentions are anything other than genuine, but if that’s all that we needed the British and Irish governments would just ignore the election results and negotiate with the Alliance Party. I doubt many would stand for that.
Turgon:
Odd as it may seem importing guns was not then a criminal act in those days I believe.
No, but treason was, as Mr Casement found out, and the Ulster volunteers threatened to overthrow the government if it did not act as they wished.
We as unionists need to accept and apologise for that.
It is genuinely good to hear you say that.
Comrade Stalin,
When I said what i did it was because we have resident groups and other similar groups and their spokespersons are mostly not elected. The Late David Ervine was elected and did look after the interests of voters from East Belfast.
I think with your last post I must have misunderstood your overall point.
Stephen Blacker,
You told me to educate myself about the facts surrounding David Ervine. I pointed out a series of facts and you have ignored or tried to minimise them. You keep referring to the man you knew as different to the known publicly stated comments of Ervine. Now either you are lying about Ervine or if he were so reasonable in private we can add the term hypocrite to sectarian criminal, bomber and accomplice of sectarian murderers (if by some chance not a murderer himself).
You say Ervine was drawn into the conflict. That is nonsense. He had free will on this subject (unless you want to adopt an ultra Calvinist position that none of us have free will). Most people in working class unionist (as with working class nationalist, rural unionist and rural nationalist) areas had no part in the crimes committed here.
Had Ervine wanted to use his experiences later he could have named names and helped the police arrest the murderers: he chose not to do so.
If it had not been for people like Ervine there would have been no conflict. Remember Ervine’s mentor Spence was murdering people long before Adams and co started. We can state with absolute certainty that but for Billy Hutchinson there would be two more people alive here today. I suspect that that is a conservative statement and I would be surprised if the same or more cannot be said for the vicious sectarian thug Ervine.
Turgon,
You talk about the Late David Ervine’s publicly stated comments, well so am I, you never listened to anything he said or if you did you took what you wanted out of it. He was drawn into the conflict after Bloody Friday when all the bombs went off in Belfast. I know your black & white world does not allow for that.
The facts you quoted at 11.48pm mostly make good sound bites – 1 & 3 are widly known, 2, 3 & 6 are your interpretation, 7, I dont understand, as I stated earlier.
Number 5 is one I will answer, the Late David Ervine wanted to stop anyone from taking the life path into the paramilitary world he did & to do this he had to talk to the people committing the crimes. This would be a lot easier from within, so to start naming people would have made this impossible. If the Late David Ervine had named people it would have lead to a “Super Grass” trial and none of them have been successful to date. Evidence is needed, not the word of the person you discribe time and time again as unworthy or words to that effect.
Your ideas of the history of the “Troubles” is a lot different to me, I have seen and talked to people that would be DUP come TUV supporters that were happy when the “serve was returned” strange as that might seem to you that is a fact too.
Turgon,
Here is a speech made by one of those much hated people you love to castigate.
Long Kesh 12th July 1977.
We never tire of celebrating the advent in history when William of Orange achieved for us in 1690 Civil and Religious freedom. We, the Protestants of Ireland, were the persecuted in those days and now things are somewhat reversed. But is persecution necessary for the establishment of the inherent freedoms of mankind? Has persecution ever changed a person’s views? Do we really want freedom and the pursuit of happiness at the expense of some other unfortunate soul?…I submit that it is fear which makes one people oppress another…We are living in the most socially and legalistically oppressive society in the Western Hemisphere…Polarisation complete with one section of the community cut off from the other except for some middle-class contacts which appear to be more concerned about their class than community…WE are a police state with the accompanying allegations of torture and degrading treatment to suspects undergoing interrogation…Even yet we still have men nonsensically counselling that victory is just around the corner. Victory over whom – the IRA? Or do they mean victory over the Roman Catholic community?…The fears of Roman Catholics will not go away because bigoted Unionist politicians say so.
We in Northern Ireland are plagued with super-loyalists…If one does not agree with their bigoted and fascist views then one is a ‘taig-lover’, or a ‘communist’…Unfortunately, we have too many of these people in our own ranks. No fascist or bigot can expect sympathy or understanding in the UVF compounds…The sooner we realise that our trust has been abused, and the so-called political leadership we followed was simply a figment the sooner we will attempt to fend for ourselves politically and to commence articulation in that direction…ours was a sick society long before the fighting men came on the scene. Life in Ulster before the troubles was artificial…We want employment and decent homes like all human beings, and Loyalists will no longer suffer their deprivation stoically lest their outcries be interpreted as disloyalty…The politicians seemingly cannot or will not give us the peace we so earnestly desire, so I therefore call upon all the paramilitaries to call a universal ceasefire. To open up dialogue with each other in order to pursue ways and means of making such a ceasefire permanent. Eventually Loyalist and Republican must sit down together for the good of our country. Dialogue will have to come about sometime, so why not now? There is no victory in Ulster, not for the IRA, or the UVF, the police or the army. There is only victory for humanity and common sense.
Gusty Spence
This speech is held in the Linenhall Library, Belfast.
Stephen Blacker,
A more revolting and self justifying load of nonsense I have rarely read: except of course I have read the speech before. It is, however, always worth repeating it to see the depths of self justification Spence was about. Let us just take a few points:
Stephen I am interested in your comment: “Your ideas of the history of the “Troubles” is a lot different to me, I have seen and talked to people “
What age are you? Do you know anything about the troubles apart from what some “old soldiers” (actually terrorist criminals) told you. The simple reality is that the overwhelming majority of people here from all classes and creeds had no part in and no support for the violence. There were a number of sectarian murder gangs and your heroes Spence and Ervine were leading members of one of those murder gangs. That makes them sectarian thugs. I suspect you are too young, too naive and too brainwashed by hero worship of Ervine et al. to see that. Evil bigots try to seduce impressionable young men into their way of thinking. It seems that Ervine was remarkably successful in your case.
By all means continue to worship Ervine. Hopefully the electorate will ensure the cleansing from Stormont of all the PUP/UVF mouth pieces past and present. If I could choose that over a single TUV MLA I would glady do so. The sooner the vile oppressors of the working class unoionist community are purged by the electorate from Stormont the better.
Turgon,
Your dismissal of Gusty Spence’s speech is no surprise. I dont think this was the first speech Gusty made but I think it proved to be 20 years ahead of its time.
I am old enough to know that the history of the “Troubles” is not the same in County Antrim as it is in Fermanagh, according to the information you report. The evil bigot you refer to when talking about the Last David Ervine was a very strange person because he showed me how not to be a bigot and racist and I know a number of others he did the same thing to.
It is a shame you have no reconciliation or forgiveness in your world. No doubt the TUV will get a few MLA seats especially up here in North Antrim and make no mistake a lot of TUV votes will come from closet loyalist paramilitary supporters.
Stepher Blacker,
Odd that you comment about the troubles in County Antrim. I was born and raised in County Londonderry where there was little loyalist terrorism: sadly not none and I very vaguely knew Torrens Knight (and was pretty scared of him even as a child). However, in rural South Londonderry there was very little supprt for loyalist terrorists and in Coleraine little more.
Moving on I went to secondary school in Ballymoney (Co. Antrim of course) where again there was precious little support for loyalist terrorists. Maybe there was a bit around Ballymena I do not know though the complete lack of support for the PUP etc. would indicate against that (yourself as a dishonourable exception).
The simple reality is that there was very little support for loyalist terrorists throughout Northern Ireland. There was a bit in Belfast and a bit in Craigavon. However, overwhelmingly more was the problem of tiny numbers of criminals ruling working class estates and holding their population in a form of thralldom; unable to prevent the extortion rackets, prostitution, drug dealing etc. etc. Many of the working class unionists who could moved out of those areas and gradually many became sink estates.
Whilst this depressing dynamic of urban decay was not in any way unique to working class unionist estates in NI, the loyalists paramilitaries, again not the sole problem were certainly a major part of it.
Ervine and co claimed to help these working class communities but seemed throughout much more interested in helping their friends in the UVF / UDA etc. That is presumably why on the only occassions when working class unionists got to pass judgement on them (the ballot box) they failed so dismally.
I am very in favour of reconcillation and forgiveness. However, reconcillation and forgiveness are provided by the victims and not the perpetrators.
As I said above I see no hint of remorse in Gusty Spence’s speech. Did he publicly beg forgiveness from Mr. Ward’s family? If he did Mr. Ward’s family could have forgiven him if, and only if, they chose to.
In terms of true repentance that requires turning away decisively from previous actions. Did Spence (or Ervine) sever all links to the UVF: no they did not Spence was there announcing their ceasefire (after which they murderd several dozen more people).
At that time Spence apologised to the innocent victims. However, that was mealy mouthed and weasel worded. He should have done it years before when he supposedly renounced violence and in addition he should have clearly admitted that he murdered Mr. Ward.
Furthermore all the victims of the UVF / UDA were innocent: not what Spence meant at all. Even on the extremely rare occassions when the loyalists murdered an IRA man they were still murdering an innocent: no one set up the UVF as judge and jury in this state and we do not have the death penalty.
I agree with Turgon’s view above. I have always had huge difficulties with some fellow unionists who admired Ervine but hated Gerry Adams. Those unionists were and are opposed to violence in very strong terms but saw Ervine as one of the good guys. As I saw it, the good guys were the ones who never lowered themselves in the first place. The ones who never engaged in a phoney war driven by hate but clothed in ‘aspiration’ and ‘protection’. The bad guys could become the good guys, but not just by saying that any more violence is wrong. They had to recognise that the violence before that was wrong too; that it was always wrong. They had to turn away from those who wished to carry on and do whatever it took to stop them. The old argument is that Ervine could not have led loyalism to peace from ‘without’, he had to remain ‘within’. But every man has his own choice to make, and if they all did the right thing and decided to move ‘without’, there would be no need for leadership ‘within’, as there would be no one there. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation where those still ‘within’ think they are owed something, just for behaving more like the rest of us always have done.
On another note, it is a sad indictment of nationalist blindness that unionists like Turgon will continually be seen as the flip side of violent dissident republicanism, when on the important issue, i.e whether people should be killed or not, his views are about as far from that as you can get.
Turgon,
History will show that the Late David Ervine did more to bring peace to Northern Ireland than most other politicans on the unionist side.
We have run in different circles and in my world there is a lot of people that supported the violence of loyalist paramilitaries but would never vote for anyone who was seen as connected to them. This is also something that you seem to not grasp because the PUP were not a paramilitary group and condemned violence from any quarter.
As I stated in previous posts the Late David Ervine’s efforts were made more difficult by the actions of people (not all) who ended up having the law on their side with the help of MI5 so much so that some people got away with murder – disgraceful in the extreme. Even the RUC complained but were powerless according to the Ombudsman.
The reason why Turgon has his panties in a bunch over the late David Ervine, hearkening back, of course, to Turgon’s discussion with John from East Belfast over “Irish”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tamf5CI1yVY
One can otherwise know from whence Turgon comes when one considers that Big Gerry, Mark Durkan, Peter Robinson, Reg Empey, Lord Trimble, Albert Reynolds, Dermot Ahern, Peter Hain, Hugh Orde, etc., were all in attendance at the late Mr. Ervine’s funeral. Absent were Jim Allister, David Vance and Turgon. Pretty much says it all. Well, almost all. The other relevant item, of course, for those who pay attention to such things, was the embrace between the late Mr. Ervine’s widow and Big Gerry. That well and truly said it all, but Turgon, little Jim, and David Vinsanity can’t seem to grasp the moment.
JW!
What measure is that? DeValera put on his top hat and went to the German embassy to offer his condolences on the untimely death of their leader. bah.
Steoher Blacker,
So eventually your attempts at argument collapse and you are left with nonsensical assertions such as “History will show…” along with claims based solsely on personal experience which I cannot therefore refute (nor can you validate) such as “a lot of people supported paramilitaries”
You are correct of course that the PUP were not a paramilitary group. No they contained huge numbers of members of the UVF, spoke for and defended them, argued against the arrest of UVF members and helped and succored them. However, I agree at some level they were separate just at a level which we normal people cannot see.
I can only refer you to my previous remarks and skintown lad’s above where he points out that Ervine’s claim that he was more effective “inside” rather than “out” is a self serving lie. From Ervine lying is I suspect the least of his crimes. (Incidentally I think skintown lads is one of the best debunkings of Ervine’s claims that I have seen).
At some level I despair of you Stephen. It is almost farcially easy to pick your arguments apart. However, you seem (though I suspect young and naive) far from stupid. You are left hero worshiping a man whom most in Northern Ireland regard as a loathsome terrorist godfather and very probably a murderer. Since he is dead Ervine cannot even behave in his loathsome way and so show you the error of your idolisation. Hence, you are trapped in thralldom to a dead terrorist, worshiping at a shrine which the rest of us regard with contempt. I can only hope that one day you will see the foolishness of your views. You might be able to offer your community (the working class unionist community) something but instead you are trapped: one of Ervive’s last acts of hatred towards the people he claimed as his own.
slappymcgroundout,
Posts crossed. I believe you are an American and as such probably do not understand the funeral thing. Attending a funeral here is a mark of respect centrally to the family of the deceased. I am a bit dubious about all those people attending but it will have been respect for the family as well as people feeling it was “the right thing to do.” Such attendance should in no way be seen as support.
My own father in law attended the funeral of one of his neighbours many years ago. The deceased was a known IRA man and when his body was removed from the chapel his berret and gloves were placed on the coffin. My father in law had absolutely no time for the IRA (or loyalist criminals) and he knew that would happen but still attended the funeral as a mark of respect.
As I said I believe you are not from here so you probably do not understand.
This argument has probably run its course.
It seems to be a waste of time trying to convince Turgon that his assessment is wrong. He has put forward a good case that Ervine was only partially repentant and his argument is consistent with the TUV’s central thesis that there is no place for terorists in government. Regardless of whteher you agree with that, and I belive that people elected have to be accepted, Turgon should be applauded for his consistent condemnation of “unionist” as well as “republican” terrorists. This is is sharp contrast with other mealy mouthed politicians.
Joe – you re mistaken if you think it is only Turgon who holds this assessment of DE – I for one do also.
No Granni,
I know there are lots of others.
Turgon,
It is more a case of going around in circles. I cant imagine that you would ever believe that an upright citizen who would claim to be a TUV supporter would be happy that a “return of serve” happened and again you would dismiss anyone who suggested it, I am just telling you the facts of life as I know it, see it and live it.
During the Late David Ervines life he had given a selective “historian” like you plenty of ammo to castigate him, he knew this would happen and still he put himself and his family through this, the snide remarks and hurtful sentiments for the overall good of our Peace Process.
It is a lot more difficult to lead from the front and try to change mindsets, something that the Late David Ervine achieved with a lot of people but sadly not all. The main unionist parties would not even sit in the same building as the “Enemy” for years, something the Late David Ervine and others did as they knew there was no other way. Sure look at the stance of the TUV have taken in the build up to this election even they realise Sinn Fein cannot be ignored.
I guess you despair of me more because I dont think like you, I am proud and honoured to have known the Late David Ervine, unfortunately it was all to brief for me and Northern Ireland. I understand when you state all your nasty and unchristian remarks, that is the nature of our twisted society but your thoughts do not fit with the comments made from every walk of life during the time of this man’s funeral.
When you gleefully say the “rest of us” I know that it is a group that are in the minority. I do smile at your last sentence, again and again and again you prove that you never knew or wanted to know about this remarkable man who had a vision for Northern Ireland that was capable of getting the two main communities here to live together in peace.
Stephen,
Let me tell you one of my life’s stories. I was a manager in a large firm. The firm made a mistake, in my opinion, by agreeing at contract negotiations that Union steward would be released from work duties to better be able to represent the workers. Well, they had all day to do so and sometimes , again in my opinion, came up with frivilous stuff which interferred with the smooth running of the plant. They were elected, of course. One, the Chief steward, was just a pain in the arse. He was British and adherred to the philosophy that management and workers had completely different agendas. He caused a lot of grief and took up a lot of our time.
But here’s the thing; I liked him. We drank together, paired in a pub quiz team (almost always winning), we golfed with our wives, their baby coming along in a pushchair and we entertained them in our house.
So don’t confuse someone being likeable with any agenda they may have.
Stephen,
I know Ervine was a criminal who intended to murder people: something you never properly address.
I know Gusty Spence is a murderer something again you never address.
Still keep worshipping at the throne of Moloch.
joeCanuck,
Thanks for the wee story. The way I read the meaning is you are trying to tell me just because the Late David Ervine was likable it was all a con?
I am not that naive if that is what you are saying,
Turgon,
Guess you never read my posts, but I understand that Gusty and the Late David Ervine admitted those facts on a number of occasions, they were in Long Kesh as a result. Also people like yourself would never let them forget it even after they did their time and bent over backwards to reform, your democratic right of course. What more would I need to add?
Thank you – I will.
Stephen Blacker,
Another lie. Gusty Spence has always claimed he was innocent of the murder of Mr. Ward. However, to be released a life sentence prisoner must admit his guilt. Hence, again we see the loathsome lying hypocrisy of Spence.
I would be happy to accept their repentance if they admitted their crimes: again it is hard to believe that Ervine was only a failed bomber. Then after admitting their crimes they should turn away completely from the previous path and admit that all their actions in it were wrong. Skintown lad has above pointed out that Ervine’s half in half out nonsense does not cut it as any form of repentance. Then I would want the families of the murdered to accept the bone fides of the likes of Spence.
If all that sounds excessive even ridiculous remember these people for no good reason ended another human being’s life. It was no accident but a concious decision based on Spence’s own loathsome bigotry.
I do not believe in the death penalty but a murderer should have his or her life ruined for the ghastly crime they have committed. Prancing around receiving plaudits for now obeying the same laws the rest of us never broke is not what I would call a ruined life. Nor is gloating that you have no forgotten how to make bombs or that murder was returning the serve. Had Ervine or Spence really turned away from violence it might be fair enough. Only cheerleaders and those gullible enough to be deceived believe he had really adopted the path of peace: the one most of us never left.
Truly you are worshipping a Morloch in Ervine.
Stephen,
No. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that because someone is likeable, it doesn’t mean that they are not a con. I know nothing much about Ervine. I have been away from N.I. since 1981 and, until SOT came along, was pretty much bereft of any detailed knowledge of what was going on over there. So, I have no personal opinion of Ervine.
Did you read his comments in VftG?
He talks of the bombings in Dublin that killed 30 innocent people with no regret whatsoever. Basically saying they had it coming etc. He passes over the mass murder of innocent people drinking in pubs or taxi drivers tortured. In his whole narrative he seems to come off as proud of his position or the role he played. He was a terrorist who admitted his goal was solely to cause terror and death–he didn’t even bring up ‘legitmate targets’ or any of the other crap other terrorists do to ease their consciounces. He obviously enjoyed the life.
Yet he gets all heated about the Late Billy Wright because he challenged his authority or his reasoning. He shows little emotion when talking about loyalists bombs that maimed and killed dozens but can get worked up over the King Rat.
I don’t know him personally, and maybe he did some good in the peace process. However, IMO, he was most likely little more than another sectarian murderer who never regretted his crimes…albeit one who happened to be somewhat articulate (a rarity on the loyalist side to be sure).
Its very hard to square Christian beliefs, or at least the beliefs and teaching of the JC I was taught about, with the views of the JC that members of the TUV seem to have a hot line too. Twas ever thus – I recall from my teenage days in the 70s that the born agains seemed then the most bigotted and unloving of people. It doesn’t surprise me years later than Vance and Turgon cannot bring themselves to have a smidgeon of respect for the dead that they disagree with.
If I may adapt an old joke:
- What do you call a busload of TUV supporters driving off a cliff?
– A good start.
When I said what i did it was because we have resident groups and other similar groups and their spokespersons are mostly not elected.
Stephen, that all depends what they are doing. If they’re complaining about bins not being emptied or streets not being swept it doesn’t really matter if they’re elected or not. If they’re presenting themselves as representatives to help the government make informed decisions about where to direct resources (for example) that’s very different.
Skintown :
On another note, it is a sad indictment of nationalist blindness that unionists like Turgon will continually be seen as the flip side of violent dissident republicanism, when on the important issue, i.e whether people should be killed or not, his views are about as far from that as you can get.
What some of us object to is the simple depiction of politics and violence in NI being a matter of two kinds of people – those who actually fired guns or detonated explosives, and those who did not. That’s why I have a great deal of trouble with Turgon’s view that the “terrorists” are all bastards, and that nobody else bears any responsibility for the violence.
It’s not like the duplicity is anything new. Turgon resorts to whataboutery; he still can’t explain to me why another TUV member felt it appropriate to call for the release of Torrens Knight despite being a member of a political party which claims to have a forthright and unambiguous position when it comes to opposing terrorism. When Jim McDaid was beaten to death in Coleraine, Jim Allister’s website had a statement about what a bad man Martin McGuinness is. It took him about a week to put up a statement condemning a sectarian murder that took place in his own constituency.
Turning to other places, in Newtownabbey the DUP found it appropriate to place Tommy Kirkham, a man linked to the UDA, to serve as deputy Mayor despite the fact that he is the only loyalist-linked representative in the chamber, and despite the fact that the UDA haven’t disbanded or disarmed. Meanwhile it steadfastly refuses to entertain the notion of electing anyone to that role who is non-Catholic. Back in the 1990s, unionists voted in Hugh Smyth to represent the City of Belfast as Lord Mayor right while loyalists were actively murdering civilians.
Earlier in the thread I described other historical instances where unionism stood in the background nodding while militant loyalism spread violence, instability, and sectarian death. Instances such as the UWC strike, the 1978 strike, the period around the Anglo Irish Agreement, the point at Drumcree where unionists stood back and said nothing while a tanker was wheeled in front of British soldiers and threats made to spray the army with petrol and set it on fire. Ian Paisley arrived, not to urge the crowd to disperse and be calm, but to turn up the heat, and he did so again in 2005 at the time of the Whiterock riots.
I find it hilarious on one level, and outrageous on another, to hear Ian Paisley and other unionist leaders talk as, Paisley did, a few years ago about how the dealbreaker was that decent democrats were required to uphold the law and support the police. This is the man who yelled to police officers “don’t come running to me when they burn you out of their homes”; likewise the images of “law abiding” David Trimble negotiating with Billy Wright and wagging his finger at the front line of RUC officers doing their duty.
It’s frustrating that unionists here on Slugger run away rather than deal with the above points. I suspect that is why a lot of people warmed to David Ervine, and others such as Gary McMichael, Davy Adams, Billy Hutchinson and so on. Instead of trying to lie and bullshit and be two-faced about it they put their hands up and said yes, look, we did these bad things, they were wrong, let’s try to fix them. That’s infinitely preferable to people the people who try to lie about their part, about how they organized rallies and used all kinds of language to urge loyalists to stand up and fight, and then melted away into the background when things became rough.
Comrade Stalin,
Cant disagree with you on that one.
Comrade Stalin,
I explained the issue of Torrens Knight and indeed have condemned him and the individual who supported him. I have done so on a number of occasions. Hence, telling lies which has always been your wont is demonstrated once again.
I might ask why your deputy leader helped and supported Dawn Purvis when she was still in the PUP. You denied it at the time (another lie) and when it was proven true have not been able to give an explanation.
However, despite your repeated lying I do regard you as innocent of the violence of the troubles. I also regard the vast majority of people here as innocent. I am one of them.
Alternatively Comrade if we were all to blame explain how the likes of a policeman was responsible for his own murder. Or maybe Marie Wilson was responsible for her own death. I suspect you will be unable to say she was but that is the logic of your argument. Your loathsome “Alliance are the only ones with clean hands” is a lie and always has been.
The reality is that there were vicious murder gangs: they bear responsibility for the crimes of the troubles. If you wish to proclaim that you were guilty by all means do so. Wallow in the self righteousness of your own self appointed guilt by all means. However, no that is not what you do (that might have some semblance of perverse righteousness – though pretty perverse). No you proclaim that you and those whom you regard as innocent alone are righteous. Tell us Comrade who set you up as judge of us all?
Now run along and tell some more lies about the rest of us.
Turgon you have bluntly misread CS’s points. I have read all of this thread and was broadly sympathetic with your position but it has come unstuck. Very few in Northern Ireland can call themselves clean in this whole affair. Even if people have moved viewpoints in the meantime, in the heat of what was going on there was oppression, there were garbled words of condemnation or condoning, there was sympathy, inappropriate songs and jokes. It was as if for many years we had to read what wasn’t being said as much as what was being said.
You wouldn’t believe the ire that was raised in Catholic homes when Ian Paisley went on TV rants, we felt the stirring of sentiment he was effecting across Northern Ireland and we were intimidated by it because we knew there would be people listening to it and becoming harder in their attitudes because of it. he didn’t have to pick up a gun but no one is in any doubt that there was violence in his core. While he had the intellect to not get involved directly he was responsible for raising fools from their pits to go out and act on his words. While he and others spoke those words he and others were directly creating the conditions for acts of violence. This has been unrecognised as yet and must come out before we move on. It’s a sore that is still running and the stronger the denials come the longer it will continue. All communities and sections of society are complicit unless you were out there manning peace marches and actively establishing projects and initiatives that brought people together in peace. I understand many were doing that such as the Quakers – but believe me the majority weren’t.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for Turgon but I could not disagree with his points here more.
No harm to you Turgon but when you metioned your perceived support for loyalists in L’derry and Antrim it showed that either you led a sheltered life or you are in denial.
The activity in those areas is easily supported by a quick net search.
On a more general point, those of us who lived throught the loyalist (you would say terrorist) lead ulster woprkers strike, have NO doubt about the level of support these guys had.
Mind you, these guys in masks, the UDA,, escaped proscrip[tion by the British for decade after this.
As for Ervine, his guru, Spence could see how the wind was blowing (the cliche of the republicans in the library while the loyalists were in the gym) and at some point they decided to try the franchise.
The difference was that they never really took the guys with the guns with them.