Gerry Kelly: “we’re not living in the past, we’re not living in the past”
The Belfast Telegraph has a transcript of what happened when BBC NI’s Martina Purdy asked Sinn Féin’s Gerry Kelly about his party’s recent “mixed messages”. [Another 'stupid' question? - Ed] Indeed. From the Belfast Telegraph report
Ms Purdy ‘tweeted’ after the interview that Mr Kelly had been “exceptionally annoyed” with her, but did not want to comment further yesterday.
A Sinn Fein spokesperson said: “Martina Purdy chose to take this opportunity to insult Ireland’s patriot dead as republicans across the island were commemorating the sacrifice that these men and women have made. Sinn Fein will always, strongly and robustly, defend this sacrifice against those who attempt to demean their memories, or the families and friends of Ireland’s patriot dead.”
A BBC statement hit back: “Our BBC Northern Ireland correspondent was asking a legitimate question about the impact of commemorations of this nature on young people in the context of current events.”
And, along with more mixed messages, another Sinn Féin candidate has been encouraging that political psychosis…
[Pat Sheehan] said that Sinn Féin is trying to send a positive message by building organisational and political strength in Ireland.
“We see no partition on this island, we see it as one country and that’s the way this project will continue,” he said.
["I can't see anything"? - Ed] Indeed. Again.
Topic: Government, Politics, Society and Culture
Region: Ireland, Northern Ireland, UK
The fact that Kelly had to hum and haw and get into a verbal game of tennis with Purdy instead of defending straight out the right to commemorate the Republican dead, says it all about just how shackled they are to the system.
They can only say what is expected of them. And before long commemorations will be seen by the shinners as a hindrance to politics anyway.
The IRA killed and injured many innocent people – just like the UDA/UVF as well as the RUC and British Forces. So they were all guilty of terrorism at some time.
The British Armed forces currently terrorise supporters of Gaddafi while the Americans terrorise Pakistanis and Afghans with their drones.
Most Irish nationalists did not support the IRA during the troubles. Shamefully, a majority of them now do support Sinn Fein – the apologists for IRA violence.
Based on their past actions, Sinn Fein cannot justify their condemnation of the violent activities of IRA remnants. It is understandable that their leaders get themselves in a bind at this stage as they try their best to be ‘respectable’ politicians.
Much as I enjoy watching Kelly and his ilk tie himself in knots there is something disingenuous in the implied premise that there is anything he could possibly say or do which would have the slightest impact on the pondlife.
“So they were all guilty of terrorism at some time”
Nonsense. At attempt at an apples and pears comparison and you totally ignore intention and motive
” I look forward to a good relationship with Britain once Irish independence and unity is complete. ”
Well, sorry but not in your lifetime, I am afraid, so you will have to keep watin’ and hatin’,
and
“Enough of the attempts at revisionism, it is really pathetic”
I agree. SF’s revisionism has been disgraceful and the rise of the Dissers has really exposes it for what it is …blatant lies to attempt to eulogize murders and child killers
“says it all about just how shackled they are to the system.”
I think it says more about how weak poor Gerry is. When an awkward question is asked hes just not fast on the old feet and gets himself in no end of trouble
“Is there an alert button in Connolly House that is pushed when a SF mouthpiece puts their foot in said orifice? The button-push must light-up drones’ keyboards across the country summoning them to action to defend the hive. A sort of Ministry of Truth intranet kinda thing.” – Zachariah Tiffins Foot
Priceless.
“It’s a simple question, have you ever done it? Have you ever asked the question of a British politician? Now we’re very clear, I am very proud of my history, I am very proud of it, I will always be proud of it, I will die a republican. And people in this area have suffered massively…”
Ms Purdy said: “I didn’t ask you that, I asked you should you rethink it.” Mr Kelly responded: “And you think that I should not come here and praise the people who stood against sectarianism?”
Kelly has to pretend that the sectarian murder campaign had the aim of ending sectarianiam (a strategy of putting manners on protestants by the expedient of randomly decapitating them or of promoting civil rights by violating human rights) because if they say that the aim was to end British sovereignty over the jurisdiction then they have, rather obviously, failed abysmally in that aim, given that they are now useful idiots promoting the legitimisation of British sovereignty and the normalisation of it – and being well-paid by the British state for the privilege.
And that’s the rub for their supporters. They have traded their former right to national self-determination for a few extra comforts within the British state, and are left with the de facto acknowledgement that they supported a murder campaign that was, they assert, about internal reform. That strips them of the fig leaf of asserting a right to national self-determination by violent means, and leaves simply as supporters of murder gangs with nothing more idealogical to justify thousands of murders other than vulgar sectarian self-interest. They’re not republicans at all – just a catholic murder squad that was of invaluable assistence to the British state in consolidating its sovereignty over NI.
They now pose as a localised version of Martin Luther King with Semtex – with nothing to justify it other than some sick claim that they were entitled to free houses from the British state and entitled to cause mayhem until they got them.
“They’re not republicans at all – just a catholic murder squad that was of invaluable assistence to the British state in consolidating its sovereignty over NI.”
They didn’t do any such thing. Their campaign didn’t change the fact that NI would be part of the UK until a majority of the 6 counties wants otherwise. Your hatred is distorting your perception.
I know you’re gonna talk about Eire’s constitutional changes, etc, but that was just pointless words. The situation is as it would have been without the Provos….
Mainland
Terrorism is a tactic. It has been employed by the British Army, the American Revolutionary Army, the Red Army, even the Salvation Army.
Some terrorist acts obviously are much more evil than others, some aren’t evil at all, and some can be justified if they stop further deaths/violence.
So calling someone a terrorist without going further may be true, but it doesn’t help anything. Grouping the PIRA with Al Queda makes as much sense as grouping the British Army with the PIRA.
I think, Cynic2, that in response to Thomas Mourne, it is you who ignores the intention and motive of those Crown agencies who promoted, permitted and even participated in actions whereby Loyalist gangs murdered innocent Catholics solely for the purpose of terrorising the Catholic population as a whole. Or am I wrong and you believe that their actions had a higher purpose? If that is the case perhaps you would like to tell us from what purity of intent their motivation sprang.
“if they say that the aim was to end British sovereignty over the jurisdiction then they have, rather obviously, failed abysmally in that aim”
Indeed, Alias.
And a reminder of what Sinn Féin’s position previously was, as articulated by Martin McGuinness
No respect for ‘mandates’ there…
And, as I said in that post
It looks like we’re beginning to find out the answer to that question.
And how long does Martin McGuinness, et al, think they can keep repeating that line…
“And how long does Martin McGuinness, et al, think they can keep repeating that line…”
How long have they been repeating it already, Pete?
Robinson and McGuinness appear to be quite relaxed about their current mutual vetoes. The all-island bodies continue to evolve whilst the links to the rest of the UK are not being developed in tandem; they’re being allowed to wither. If SF is getting it a bit tight a few words in the right ears will lead to a few more sweeties from London – in co-operation with Dublin. It will be interesting to see what happens if Dublin is forced to renege on its financial promises.
The rest of us can thrash around but unless the MSM are prepared to a bit of heavy lifting our efforts will go largely unnoticed by the public.
“How long have they been repeating it already, Pete?”
It looks like we’re beginning to find out the answer to that question.
So, Martina Purdy chose to insult Irelands patriot dead, is this a joke? The only people that insulted Irelands patriot dead were the SF’s that stood on their graves and told (any idiot that cared to listen), that the way forward was “British democracy”. The people beneath their well heeled shoes (suits, holiday homes, villas in Portugal and Spain etc.) were fighting for a united Ireland, NOT an internal settlement that would see “Stormont” up and running again, with SF’s cosying up to the DUP, which will see cuts in jobs across the board (watch and see) and SF venerate a bigot like Paisley! My heart goes out to the famillies of those dead young men and women that listened to these traitors in the first place! I would still like an answer from any member of what I call the “Stoop Further” party, what was the difference between what happened to Ronan Kerr and what the Stoop Furthers military wing did in the 70′s 80′s and 90′s. Are SF’s all idiots, have they never read 1984? Doublespeak and Doublethink and so on. I wish more journalists had the balls that Martina Purdy has, and keep putting these wasters (with plenty of money) on the spot! Kelly, like the rest of them, (Adams, McGuinness et al) don’t like it when a direct question is put to them, (just like their mates in Westminster). I just hope the next time it’s a question about Jean McConville, ask any one of the above, or their underlings, to condemn her killing, call it murder, condemn the people that did it, call it a crime, and ask people to tout to the cops about the people that carried it out. To this day, not one member of SF has ever done so!
fordperfect
“The only people that insulted Irelands patriot dead were the SF’s that stood on their graves and told (any idiot that cared to listen), that the way forward was “British democracy”.”
- When did they do this ?
“The people beneath their well heeled shoes (suits, holiday homes, villas in Portugal and Spain etc.) were fighting for a united Ireland, NOT an internal settlement”
- How do you claim the right to speak on their behalf ? You don’t and can’t know that some of them wouldn’t have come to the same conclusion.
“My heart goes out to the famillies of those dead young men and women that listened to these traitors in the first place!”
- Indeed, embarassment rather than anger might be a more appropriate response. Maybe what some of them realise was/is that they were wrong to begin with, politically if not morally, that what they killed and died for wasn’t worthwhile (a conclusion they may well have come to even had ther effort resulted in ‘victory’) and that, given the chance to relive it, they’d have realized that it was a waste of time, life and energy.
“the links to the rest of the UK are not being developed in tandem; they’re being allowed to wither”
have you any examples?
“not one member of SF has ever done so!”
Given who ordered it that might be a wise decision. More importantly, the Police have the evidence in Maloney’s book and other sources but have never even questioned certain key people about their roles. Why not?
Well, we all know the reason for that.
“So there’s one major change. People like you, motivated by a brutal hatred for nationalists, no longer have unfettered control of the place. ”
Look dear Billy, the general rules of a discussion here are:
1 someone makes a comment
2 others analyse and sometimes expand or challenge
3 the other poster responds
This is called ‘a conversation’ .
You made a post in which you made sweeping assertions. I asked you to explain and your response is to call me names
1 that doesn’t work here
2 it doesn’t answer the question
3 it reflects more on your character and beliefs than mine
You also accuse me of a ‘passive / aggressive’ response. By that I assume you mean that I dared to question your logic and analysis. Well guilty as charged on the challenge but if you dont want to be challenged here your posts just amount to a rant.
Now, I suggest that you either stay and engage with the rest of us or try venting your anger by spraying SF (or perhaps even just Anti Unionist) Graffiti on walls.
And just for the record you say that you assertions are based on the ‘nationalist analysis’ of NIs situation in the past. That again is a pretty sweeping statement. Is there just one such analysis? What on earth makes you think that all ‘nationislsts’ think the same way about a 35 year murder campaign by those whom I assume (my assumption you note) you support? What makes you think they all share the same political analysis?
“the guerillas are in government”
A nice piece of sophistry by Danny.
The ex-guerrillas (he left the first part out for electoral reasons) are in Government because they had the wit to realize that they were beaten and chose a political path instead.
And they were welcomed supported and actively encouraged by the Brits as part of a sophisticated strategy to try to create a long term peace and marginalize those who would still want violence.
Rory
Let me make my position clear, Murder is murder. If they did as you suggest they should be investigated and, if there is the evidence of what you allege, charged and brought before the courts. Period.
But so should those politicians who committed murder and ordered others to murder.
There should be one law for all.
“It looks like we’re beginning to find out the answer to that question.”
There are an awful lot of trees there, Pete! Can you give us a guesstimate, please?
The royal wedding party is over, but the PETER-AND-I party is set to continue after the anniversary of Bobby Sand’s death.
Of course, the irony of this is lost on erstwhile physical force republicans and loyalists, who supported death and destruction to destroy the power-sharing Sunningdale government, and is also lost on the present first and deputy first ministers until they, themselves, got crowns of office – after outright obstruction of the present Stormont Assembly. Remember the “brawl in the hall” –“no guns, no government” – “not a bullet, not an ounce” etc.
Oh! The sweet irony for the erstwhile SF/DUP opponents – “with not even a wafer thin cigarette paper now between them – all now happily joined at the hip in the PETER-AND-I party.
“the PETER-AND-I party.”
It’s an arranged ‘marriage’, jb; it has lasted longer than the DAVID/SEAMUS-AND-I one. The latter pair lacked the qualities and capabilities of dictators
I’m sorry we didn’t get to see a ‘brawl in the hall’ between Declan O’Loan and John Dallat re. the Rathlin saga. Perhaps they’re too civilised to indulge in fisticuffs!
Nevin: Verbal disagreement is the stuff of politics. Violence is for thugs. No matter the cause, deliberate fatal violence puts a permanent badge of shame on the perpetrators. The mark of Cain is never erased
As the murderous Lady Macbeth said: “Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand”.
jb, I suspect some of the violence is never just as simple as that; I wouldn’t be surprised if some who were responsible for heinous crimes came from homes where violence was never advocated or practised.
We’ve had a very turbulent past where careless, never mind dangerous talk could lead to the loss of lives. Those who sought to provoke a fight – to let the world see who the real aggressor was – are also culpable.
Nevin: Yes. Words can be dangerous. So can the words of “rebel” songs, like “My sons have sons.” I have known such songs to beguile young bar-room republicans into losing their lives planting a bomb, while not quite sober.
John
You forgot the Daddy of them all
“Ulster Says No …No….No”
Blisset,
“What isnt really fine, or logically sound is that what was wrong in 1970 was wrong because whats going on now is wrong.”
I really don’t hear that point being made by any one, so you’re pushing at an open door there. You’re right it would be facile. Murdering people was wrong then and is wrong now.
“Am I to take it from that that you are a unconditional pacifist, and you do not believe in the concept of a just war?”
No. I believe in a monopoly on the use of force within democratic countries by the police and armed forces of the state, elected by the people. Pretty much everyone does, unless you’re a survivalist in Utah doing target practice on cut-outs of FBI men, or a supporter of some weirdo violent extremist group. Same as in any country in the world, including the Republic. No democratic state can tolerate private armies, for good reason – it’s a subversion of the will of the people and of basic political and human rights to have armed groups seeking to influence government in this way, not to mention the obvious harm they do to their victims. Yes, the state can be responsible for extra-legal violence and this obviously shouldn’t happen, but it does not make the state a terrorist organisation. I can see why Republicans, drowning in ignominy, would want to portray some kind of moral equivalence between the two, but it is legally and morally vacuous, I’m afraid. I’m sure you’ll claim Northern Ireland wasn’t democratic because Republicans kept losing elections now, or people in Cork weren’t allowed to vote, or whatever. But it was and is democratic, imperfectly so – but not in a significant way. The unionist party in Stormont were in power because they won the elections and the cheating that did happen made little or no difference to the outcome. Nationalist parties didn’t get into government because nationalism was wildly unpopular with most people, that’s the hard truth of it.
“… actually the violence isn’t what makes it morally wrong, its the violence in the absence of an alternative peaceful means.”
You mean, I think, what is morally wrong is violence in the presence, not absence, of alternative peaceful means. That was the situation with the IRA throughout the Troubles – there were always alternative peaceful means available. But as Republicans, they believed in taking a violent course. Their choice – and they must take full moral responsibility for it.
I’m not saying all violence is immoral, of course – pacifism is absurd in my view. Liberal states have to reserve the right to allow their police forces to use reasonable force. And when they are up against terror gangs, that force will even be lethal sometimes. There is such a thing as a just war, such as that against the Nazis (the IRA’s allies). Though in the Troubles, we’re obviously not talking about a “war” situation, but ultimately one of violent crimes motivated by ultra-nationalist hatred (on both sides). Violent protest is just not acceptable in a liberal democracy, even an imperfect and discriminatory one, if other avenues of peaceful protest are available. The SDLP showed there was another way and most nationalists supported them. None of the violence was necessary.
Then you refer to the “(frankly banal and useless) word ‘terrorism’.”
We’re used to apologists for terrorists objecting to the use of the word terrorist. This is exactly why it is important to keep using it.
Whatever the penumbra of greyness around this word (it’s in the nature of language), the activities of Northern Irish paramilitaries fall squarely within any definition of it. I am aware of the attempts to stretch “terrorism” to cover police or army violent crimes, where they have acted in excess of their powers. To not use the word terrorism for state violence is not to condone it; but few people without a stake in the outcome would describe security force action in NI as “terrorism”. It’s just not how the word is commonly used and understood.
We reserve the more pejorative word “terrorism” for systematic violence by non-state groups because there is a moral difference between state and non-state use of force. It boils down to this: the state has a DUTY to use force to protect its people and the rule of law where necessary. Non-state groups are not so obliged and have other options available. If they choose to use violence, they are morally culpable. Apart from anything else, they are claiming for themselves superior bargaining power in democratic debates, over people who don’t use violence. This is clearly unfair.
It cannot be an excuse that the state also uses violence. The state has to, because it needs to be able to protect society from the violent. All states do this, this isn’t some victimisation of Irish Republicans. They just feel the brunt of it because they believe in the use of violence against the state – in which they are both wrong and morally bankrupt.
Even if you stopped using the commonly understood term for paramilitary activity – terrorism – you’d only be changing the signifier, not the signified. We’re not so angry about language as innocent people getting killed – so semantic debates are fine but are a bit of a sideshow. The fact is Republicans killed loads of people and still try to justify having done this. Call it what you want: the crime remains the same.
But it is important that we do have a strong element of moral judgement when we look at paramilitary killings. I’m afraid apologists for Republican and Loyalist killers exploit the indeterminacy of language to obfuscate for their own ends. Moral relativism had an easy ride for 20-30 years, but the Al Qaeda phenomenon has, thank God, changed things in the public discourse now around terror. Arguments like yours sound very pre-9/11 now. We know conflicts are complex – but the days of indulging glib pseudo-academic evasiveness around words like “terrorist” are over. People have got sick of letting people who use “political” violence off the hook. So I’m calling it terrorism and most English speakers are with me, which is all that really matters linguistically.
Nun,
I never once claimed to be speaking on behalf of dead volunteers. But I knew a few vol’s and never once did I hear them say that they were fighting for an “internal settlement” every one of them to a man and woman, said they were fighting for a UI before they were killed. As for you asking me about SF saying “British democracy” was the way forward, well, do you live in a cave? Have you not got a tv or radio? Any of SF’s Easter commemorations I had the misfortune to see on tv or hear on radio were full of the platitudes you usually hear from the likes of the SDLP, the peace procezzzzzzzzzz, the only way forward… and lambasting people for doing what they doing only a few years back. And no, I’m not embarrassed, but I am angry. Angry at listening to lying hypocites.
Nun,
By the way, the people I see using images of dead vol’s more than anyone is SF, so how would they know if James Connolly, Bobby Sands etc. would support their actions now?
“how would they know if James Connolly, Bobby Sands etc. would support their actions now?”
Important to stay true to the values of those jokers … question is, would Bobby Sands support the actions of Randy Lerner?
fordperfect
Now you’re making some sense. Appropriation of the dead makes for very bad politics and there is opportunism galore in play here. Some of the language used is also highly suspect and is always a bit of a giveaway I think. It can be argued legitimately for example that the hunger strikers gave their lives for the 5 demands and, in a sense, for their jailed comrades; it can’t in reality be said that they did so for anything else though. Message manipulation left, right and centre.
Someone who lost their life wgile on active service did not give their life at all; their life was taken from them. They may have been in pursuit of a military objective at the time and the military organization of which they were a part would have had political objectives. To say though that they died ‘for Ireland’, that’s another argument entirely.
ford
Haven’t been living in a cave but as I suspected you’ve been unable to cite when SF have said that “British democracy” was the way forward. That may be your take on what they’re doing but my point was to what they have been saying and I don’t recall them every saying that. I don’t think you can recall it either.
I can well understand you being angry but isn’t at least part of that anger self-disappointment i.e. that you allowed yourself to be conned by these guys in the first place and that you feel fairly foolish about it ? You’d only be human if you were angry and a bit red-faced about such a misjudgment.