Thursday, May 21, 2009
Upcoming Debate: “What is the Truth Behind the Hunger Strike?”
Briefly: This Saturday, 7:00 at the Gasyard in Derry, an open meeting organised by Republican Network for Unity is to be held examining the events of the 1981 hunger strike, specifically the contention that the prisoners accepted a deal that was overruled by the outside leadership, after which six further men died on hunger strike. Confirmed speakers include Brendan Duddy, Willie Gallagher, Richard O’Rawe, and Liam Clarke. Danny Morrison refused to participate. Invitations were also issued to Bik McFarlane and Gerry Adams, who have not responded. In a taste of what is to come this weekend, earlier today, Richard O’Rawe and former (1980) hunger striker Raymond McCartney were interviewed by Sarah Brett on Radio Foyle. This interview will be available on the BBC website for a week (it is also archived on YouTube: Part 1 & Part 2), and starts close to the beginning of the programme. In yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph, Brian Rowan quotes Brendan Duddy and an un-named source with “considerable knowledge of the Mountain Climber initiative” who puts forth the Morrison argument in regards to the controversy - the semantical, chimeric word play of the difference between an ‘offer’ and a ‘deal’ and how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. Duddy, it seems, holds to the view, initially relayed by Eamonn McCann, that the outside leadership was incompetent, and, like Raymond McCartney in the Radio Foyle interview, endorses Sile Darragh’s talking points, which first emerged, in part, in an anonymous comment on Anthony McIntyre’s blog. Sile Darragh, like Morrison, McFarlane and Gibney, is a member of the Bobby Sands Trust and her letter seems to be the newest leadership line, as it is pushed in Rowan’s article and McCartney also followed it in today’s radio discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn’t offer much beyond Morrison’s semantical argument which seems to get destroyed bit by bit as more information continues to come out. Meanwhile, in Rowan’s article, the anonymous source shifts the blame to the prisoners themselves. This shift is interesting as O’Rawe claims that the prisoners accepted the deal, and now a source close to the negotiations claims that the prisoners were naive, inexperienced and incapable of “making a judgment”, which seems to be a backhanded defence of why the outside leadership would have over-ruled them - because they thought they knew better than the prisoners themselves. Inch by inch, are we getting closer to the truth of what happened in July, 1981?
Earlier on Slugger:
When in a hole… Contrasts between Danny Morrison’s position and previously published accounts of the time
What were the hunger strikers told? Questions emerge that cast doubt on what the hunger strikers knew when about what negotiations were being conducted on their behalf by the Adams subcommittee.
“Let’s have the whole truth” - Danny Morrison and Richard O’Rawe statements
Did Thatcher Kill All 10 or Only 4? - contains statements and interview excerpts
Links and background:
1986 excerpt from interview with John Blelloch, Mi5, by Padraig O’Malley (Bobby Sands Trust website)
“The Blelloch Interview”, Anthony McIntyre
Sunday 5 April 09:
‘Adams Complicit Over Hunger Strikers?’
NIO Documents on Sunday Times website
“The Thatcher Intervention”, Anthony McIntyre
- IRSP Statement in response to NIO documents
Monday, 6 April 09:
Irish News: Hunger Strike deal ‘must be disclosed’
Irish Times: SF denies claims on hunger strike deaths
Radio Foyle, The Morning Programme (link lasts a week): Willie Gallagher, IRSP and Danny Morrison, begins @ 8 mins
- Response from Kevin McQuillan to comments made by Danny Morrison in the Radio Foyle interview; scroll down a bit.
Tuesday, 7 April 09:
Irish News: Morrison rubbishes renewed claims of Hunger Strike deal
Bobby Sands Trust: Documents Still Withheld
Previously on Slugger:
O’Rawe’s account confirmed: Hunger Strikers Allowed To Die (28 March 08)
Eamon McCann verifies Richard O’Rawe’s account of the 1981 hunger strike in which he alleges that six of the hunger strikers need not have died as the prisoners had agreed to accept an offer from the Mountainclimber, only to be over-ruled by Gerry Adams.
Hunger Strike Controversy Has Not Gone Away, You Know (17 April 08)
Many background links
O’Rawe and the Derry Journal (18 April 08)
Crucial question still unanswered
Blanketmen, by Richard O’Rawe
Danny Morrison
Jim Gibney
O’Rawe response to Gibney
Brendan McFarlane
Brendan Hughes
Interview with Richard O’Rawe
Further reading:
Irish News: Allegations of a rejected deal spark fury among republicans (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Was my father’s death PR exercise? (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Monsignor Faul regrets his ‘late intervention’ (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ lives not sacrificed — family (2 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: Hunger Strikers Story Brought to Book, Danny Morrison (2 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ deaths must be fully explained, says author (3 March 2005)
The Guardian: Hunger strike claims rile H-block veterans (4 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: McFarlane denies Hunger Strike deal was struck (4 March 2005)
Irish Times: Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises, Danny Morrison (5 March 2005)
The Village: H-Block Hypocrisy (12 March 2005)
The Village: For the cause or caucus, Hugh Logue (ICJP) reviews O’Rawe’s Blanketmen (19 March 2005)
Rusty Nail @ 04:19 PM
Rusty Nail, I’d be interested to know what affect the revived chewing over the hungers strike is having on politics today. Is it just about getting the story straight now that “the war ( against the Brits, that is ) is over ” and genuine soul-searching has begun; or is it partly about subtle attempts to question SF orthodoxy, either on merit, or for the benefit of the so-called dissident republicans? I genuinely ask.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 06:33 PMI’ll answer from my point of view, and in the spirit which you ask, as honestly as possible.
The nub of the matter is that there are allegations from, initially, Richard O’Rawe (who was a PIRA prisoner at the time) that an offer was on the table which would have met most of the demands of the hunger strikers, at a time when an end to the hunger strike would have saved the lives of a number of these men. This deal was, it is alleged, rejected by the leadership of the Provisional movement outside the prison in order to further a political agenda outside.
Further information that has come into the public domain, initially via Liam Clarke of the English Times, and also via Willie Gallagher of the IRSP that all adds weight to the idea that a number of the prisoners were allowed to die because of PSF’s political ambitions outside. The recollections of INLA prisoners at the time seem to back O’Rawe’s version of events too.
With all that in mind, and the importance of the Hunger Strikes in Nationalist communities, it will be scandalous if it turns out that some of those men were sent to their deaths to aid PSF’s political project. The meeting this weekend should see many more facts come out, and it’s interesting that while the likes of Eammon McCann and Brendan Duddy are happy to speak, nobody from PSF is.
I hope this helps people from different backgrounds understand just how important this is to those involved.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 07:19 PM“it will be scandalous if it turns out that some of those men were sent to their deaths to aid PSF’s political project.”
Are you joking - what else do you think they were sent to their deaths for? The obsfucation that still hangs over this issue, centres around the fact that most of those that declare themselves to be truth seekers, do not have the foggiest idea what truth it is that they are seeking. At its most basic, this would seem to constitute a failure to undestand the very foundations upon which the hgunger strikes and the IRA’s miliatry campaign rested.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 07:46 PMI am very closely connected to people who were involved in this at the time and a lot of people feel Gerry has a lot to answer for.I personally do not think he cared one ounce about bobby and simply used him for his own purposes.
Bik is simply trying to settle down now in peace in the south away from all this and but he does still seem mentally scarred from 1981.The guy should be left in peace.
As in previous posts i said Gerry was going to retire last november but postponed it and alledgedly he plans to now go at the end of this year when by ‘coincidence’,further information about the 1981 hunger strike comes out.Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 07:52 PMMy interest in revisiting the hunger strikes is to deconstruct myths and a version largely of SF making up.Many of us saw at first hand the bullying in Andytown to make shopkeepers close when a hunger striker died or written signs in shops telling people that the Ra were now the police and that you had a chance to come to them with your misdeeds or they would come for you.
Intimidation was the name of the game. I also object to the portrayal of Bobby Sands as a man of courage - kids need better role models who do not turn to suicide - living,not dying for Ireland takes guts. Aside from Thatchers intransigence, I blame the godfathers outside the jails for the dead - they were not caught up in prison dynamics - they could have found a way forward instead of exploiting the situation.Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 08:20 PMTo be honest, I have read more than enough on the Hunger Strikes. Articles, books, etc. I don’t want or need to delve any deeper. I know how I feel about those men who gave their lives, and I know how I feel about Gerry (to politicians, much more so than Generals these days, foot soldiers are just pawns). Nothing that could come out which would change my opinion about either party.
Except for those closely connected to some of those affected by the event, I think it’s time to move on.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 08:25 PMMove on -Forgive and forget on both sides . Not easy I know but it’s the only way forward .Remember the hunger strike dead respectfully. They are not coming back . Just make sure there’s no more .
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 08:28 PM“Inch by inch, are we getting closer to the truth of what happened in July, 1981?”
Well no. Not really. But with this relentless campaign by the politically rejected we are becoming tiresomesly aware of how resentment at that rejection has made them uncaring of even their own previous sensibilities.
From some of those involved in this desperate revisionism it seems quite sad, for those other grubbing political opportunists it would seem to be shameful were that not a concept lost to them long ago.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 08:30 PMThe criticism of the project to discover the truth is not hard to accept from Unionist contributors, but to describe the project as ‘desparate revisionism’ is telling indeed asbout people’s motivations.
Liam Clarke, Eamonn McCann, Richard O’Rawe, Willie Gallagher and Brendan Duddy are all going to be on a platform discussing what went on, and PSF are nowhere to be seen. If it was a table of RSF, Eirigi, IRSP etc, then maybe I could buy the line that it’s people who are bitter about the peace process, or PSF’s successes. Clearly that’s not the case.
What on earth do those people share, if not a desire to see the truth? Who is there that fears what will come out?
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 08:47 PMRory,
Isn’t the point that there is still a question mark over whether or not young men were sacrificed by leaders who, if this were proved true, would then themselves be shown to be the worst kind of shameful grubbing political opportunists.Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 09:12 PMlatcheeco,
‘Isn’t the point that there is still a question mark over whether or not young men were sacrificed by leaders’
There is no question mark . That was always the case . In every war . They young are always ‘sacrificed ’ be it by General Hague in the trenches or Admiral Tojo.
The best thing young people around the world can do when their leaders urge ‘war’ is to say after you Sir , Colonel/Feldmarschel etc .
Get them young -get them brainwashed and then you can even get them to believe that water boarding is not torture -that jews are not human -that fenians are expendable and that jaffa heads have no soul. You can even get them to believe in the heavenly magician and the 7 houris they will meet in heaven just as soon as they press the button that blows their bodies to smithereens. Some will even believe in the TUV ffs .I’m not an SF supporter but in comparison to all the other ‘liberators/freedom fighters / terrorists / rebels / revolutionaries ’ who have graced the planet in post imperial times the SF record is far from being the worst . Sri Lanka just finished a 25 year uncivil war with 80,000 dead and thats a small body count compared to whats happened in the Balkans , the Congo , Liberia etc . Some 100 million have been killed over the past 100 years and thats including the Jewish Holocaust . Funny you never hear as much about the 94 million ? Wonder why ?
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 10:13 PM“Some 100 million have been killed over the past 100 years and thats including the Jewish Holocaust . Funny you never hear as much about the 94 million ? Wonder why ?”
Tell us, GF. I’m all ears.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 10:33 PMWhy the finger pointing at PSF? I thought the hunger strikers were PIRA, etc.
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 10:35 PMGreenflag,
You are of course correct. Maybe instead of “sacrificed”, “bamboozled’ might have been a better term. The naivete of the young doesn’t excuse or absolve the calculated cynicism of their leaders though.Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 10:53 PMI was 15/16 when all this was playing out and I was deeply influenced by it at the time. I was in awe of people choosing to die for their principles. Of course, I wasn’t aware at that time that those ‘principles’ involved rather mundane and selfish demands or, if I was, I glossed over that part, preferring the romantic version of martyrdom for the people. There was also the obvious juxtaposition between the media depiction of these folks as vile murderers and the vision of people making that ultimate sacrifice. Or, at any rate, 11 out of a few thousand of them making that sacrifice and the rest climbing up on their backs for a free ride to glory.
There is a lingering sense of betrayal among those who may have had some conscience or principles (however flawed the ideology that gave rise to them) and they’re fully entitled to it. After all, and I say this with absolute certainty, Bobby Sands would not have given up his life as part of a ‘struggle’ to assist in the administration of British rule. However expedient his explicit demands were, there was an implicit progression toward the termination of British rule in Ireland and not the consolidation of it. The right he wanted was the right to national self-determination as a member of the Irish nation, not the right to national self-determination as a member of the engineered Northern Irish nation, with the former being formally renounced and the latter formally replacing it.
That said, they made up their own minds on the basis of the information that was available to them at the time. That information should have ruled out ever trusting their own leadership or trusting the vast bulk of their own ‘comrades.’ I’m not referring to the fact that the Shinners were infiltrated from top to bottom by touts and agents (since they were to know that Gerry and Martin had appointed British agents to run the ISU). They should have looked at Jean McConville, Bloody Friday, La Mon, etc, and accepted that the man who ordered those human rights atrocities (Gerry Adams) could never be trusted to attach any value to human life - including their lives. But perhaps, if they reflected on what a psychopath devoid of conscience is capable of, they may have thought that the lives of their victims outside of the cult had no value but that value was attached to the lives of members of the cult. If so, then that was a fatal error of judgement on their part. As James Taylor sang, “A king who would slaughter the innocents will not cut a deal for you.”
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 11:41 PMTypo: (since they weren’t to know that Gerry and Martin had appointed British agents to run the ISU).
Posted by on May 21, 2009 @ 11:44 PMI’m puzzled by this. The prisoners no doubt had no difficulty with idea that innocent lives of others should be sacrificed to advance the project, so on what basis could they bleat about their own being thrown away in the same cause?
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 12:19 AMWhat on earth is the “English Times”?
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 01:16 AMWell, technically, dead men don’t bleat. ;)
There is no basis that I can think of if they attached the same discounted value to their lives as they attached to the lives of others. Others seem shocked that a psychopath could be organising their campaign or that a psychopath might not possess the conscience that would prevent self-serving calculations from jeopardising their safety. But then they always were a cult.
As Bertrand Russell said, “Homicidal maniacs would be well employed killing each other.”
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 01:19 AMMust be an election coming up ?
Must be an election coming up ?
Must be an election coming up ?
Must be an election coming up ?
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 05:40 AMTheres a lot of question marks around this ‘new’ evidence.
Are people really looking at this in context, I think my first question to the panel if I was there is “why was there a second hungerstrike, considering a deal was made with Thatcher to end the first one
To be blunt let O’Rawe and Co. explain why there was a deal offered and accepted to end the first hungerstrike, which on reflection they didn’t like and a second hungerstrike ensued, as with the 1st a deal was offered which was less than their demands and it was rejectedO’Rawe a couple of decades on decides he didn’t like this scenario either. The only scenario that is left for Rawe to actually say he would have been happy with is if Thatcher had agreed to their demands, this didn’t happen and if it had SF and the hungerstrikers would have accepted it.
From my understanding neither SF or the Council was in favour of a Hungerstrike, however, when it happened had to be onboard, they were reacting to events as they happened, was the offer retracted at some stage as the obvious reation when families started taking the hungerstrikers of their fast would have been to grab what was on the table?
Did conditions improve in the H-Blocks after the hungerstrike?
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 08:08 AMIt’s a pity Danny Morrison refused to participate as he was actually a player in these events.
Still, don’t fret, they got Liam Clarke - and it’s just a pity Gerry Fitt has passed away as he would have made another worthwhile contributor.
Did anyone put out a call to Margaret Thatcher? I know she’s stopped speaking in public, but if this was held behind closed doors, she might just be keen.
She’d be in good company.
As Leonard Cohen once sang:
That’s right, it’s come to this,
yes it’s come to this,
and wasn’t it a long way down,
wasn’t it a strange way down?An offer and a deal. Daragh has it spot on. And Rory Carr.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 08:48 AMReluctant to take part in this discussion because for myself nothing should ever take away from the heroic sacrifice of the men and women onthe 80/81 hunger strikes; we should all be concious of the impact til this day of the families and friends of the hunger strikers; and nothing but absolutely nothing should ever try and take away the onus on the British Government for what happened here in Ireland.
Someone keep me right here and try and satisfy my curiosty in a constructive fashion please.
Deadmanonleave ( point 2) ‘This deal was, it is alleged, rejected by the leadership of the Provisional movement outside the prison in order to further a political agenda outside’.Was it not obvious from the EU elections in June 1979 and the amazing performance by Bernadette Mc Aliskey ( despite the outright opposition / hostility of SF) that if any organisation wanted to use the prison protest ‘in order to further a political agenda outside’ then the local government elections in April 1981 would have been the perfect platform in which to further this political agenda? Despite the fact that it had been known for years that these elctions would take place during April 1981, SF at their previous Ard Fheis decided not to contest them with the result that any other individual or organisation that did stand on an anti H Block Armagh manifesto during these elections did remarkbly well with many getting elected. These local govt elections could have been predicted many months in advance - the death of Frank Maguire ( RIP ) could not have been predicted at all.
After Bobbys election and death the Britiish Government brought in a law that prevented ‘convicted felons’ standing in elections - if i was able to attend the meeting in derry I would like to know was this also part of the SF agenda?
When Joe died on the 8th July there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that the British Govt were going to call a by election at all for Bobbys seat. Much speculation in the papers at that time was that the Brit Govt were prepared to leave the position unfilled til the end of that Parliament. The writ for the by election for Bobbys seat was not moved ( by a Tory MP?) until 31st July - was this also part of the SF agenda?Unfortunately I can not be at the meeting in derry but I hope that nothing is ever taken away from the role of the Britsh Government in the deaths of Mickey and the other 9 men.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 08:52 AMMore to the point:
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knowsEverybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just diedThats how it goes
Everybody knowsPosted by on May 22, 2009 @ 09:08 AMOC ,
‘Tell us, GF. I’m all ears. ‘
There are many reasons including states no longer in existence , finance , power interests etc etc . Some other thread’s subject . BTW when you are all ears it could be a mistake to close your eyes, wear gloves and block up your nose at the same time ;)? .
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 10:20 AM
