TELLING
MOMENT AT TOOME
It
was a profoundly telling moment. Years earlier,
Laurence O'Neill had pledged to resist British
crown forces and remove British rule. He had risked
much, suffered a fifteen year sentence in Long
Kesh, and fought a hunger strike in 1972 against
a British attempt at criminalization. He could
name fellow Republicans murdered by the Royal
Ulster Constabulary directly, or in collusion
with pro-British loyalists or informer agents
from within the nationalist community. He knew
victims of Castlereagh torture and Diplock court
perjury. He himself was tortured in Palace Barracks,
Holywood, for 3 days and 3 nights, and had his
eardrums burst when blanks were fired into his
ears. He had been harassed for many years by the
RUC, and 3 attempts made on his life were facilitated
by the RUC. He had refused to be broken, silenced,
or intimidated.
Now
once more he was under threat because of opposition
to the British constabulary. In Toome last week,
that same pledge, principles and patriotism which
had always inspired him, moved him to defy this
latest attempt to silence him. Mr O'Neill stepped
forward to the platform to stand against voting
assent for the re-named crown constabulary and
attempted to pull the movement to which he devoted
so much back from the brink of becoming an apologist
for the RUC-PSNI. Irish News reporter Catherine
Morrison would describe the crowd's reaction as
a "rapturous reception" It was deserved.
Truly no carefully constructed political rhetoric
could have been as eloquent as the stand taken
by Laurence O'Neill to just say no to the British
constabulary.
GROUNDED
He
stood up as an independent Republican. Joining
him in marshaling the case against the British
constabulary were Francie Mackey, the leader of
the thirty- two County Sovereignty Movement and
Paul Little representing the Irish Republican
Socialist Party. Their analysis was firmly grounded
upon both Republican principles and pragmatic
realities.
Francie
Mackey analyzed the role of the RUC- PSNI in the
context of British rule and the denial of national
sovereignty. Slogans about nationalists accepting
a police force but not British force, recited
by rote in favor of embracing the PSNI, were nonsense.
Republicans were being required to pledge public
endorsement for a re-named RUC, the cutting edge
of British oppression. This was and is a British
force, imposing British rule by hauling Republicans
they deem in violation of British laws before
British courts.
Patten
had explicitly rejected the formation of a new
body to replace the constabulary which had murdered,
tortured, perjured and colluded in order to enforce
British rule upon unwilling Irish men and women.
The name and uniform dress might be altered as
a sop to ease the endorsement and assent of the
Republican community.
Meanwhile
PSNI recruits would be enlisted, officered, trained,
and indoctrinated by those who had risen through
the ranks of the RUC.A public pledge of acceptance
of this force would betoken a whitewash of RUC
collusion, shoot-to-kill, torture and criminalization.
Moreover,
there would be a future dimension underpinning
such a pledge. Republicans have long recognized
that because British rule is founded upon injustice,
further injustices such as sectarianism, repression,
sham courts etc. were inherently necessary to
prop-up that rule. It may serve British interests
in the lead -up to enlisting Sinn Fein as a political
cover, recruiter, and cooperator, to go softly.
The history of British rule illustrates that once
introduced and wedged in, repressive tactics will
be extended.
What
will be done by an emboldened constabulary after
Sinn Fein has given its pledge of backing? Will
a Sinn Fein minister of a crown force commanded
by someone accountable only to the crown, have
any real influence or will the presence of such
a minister merely be used by the British for political
camouflage ,and touted as tangible proof that
even former Republican opponents now stand behind
the RUC-PSNI ?
Paul
Little also opposed any backing for the PSNI as
a crown force which like crown courts would serve
only the interests of the British crown. He expressed
concern that any backing for the PSNI would co-opt
Republicans and harness them into the very institutions
they had vowed to replace.
Laurence
O'Neill highlighted the fact that the PSNI was
a re-named RUC and a tainted force which should
not be accepted by Republicans.
IRREFUTABLE
However
compelling, such arguments were preceded by damning
and irrefutable evidence which was provided even
before the debate began by the actions of the
fourth participant in the debate, by the party
he represented and by the British themselves.
Laurence
O'Neill, a founding member of the Provisional
IRA had merely called for an open debate on the
issue of endorsing the PSNI, and urged Sinn Fein
to give Republicans voters a platform to air their
concerns. He attended meetings to arrange such
a public and open debate.
A
meeting was arranged for Conway Mill. It would
be difficult to find a fairer or more respected
sponsor for such a meeting than Fr Des Wilson
or a more acceptable venue than Conway Mill. Here
was Sinn Fein's chance to reassure those Republicans
prepared to just say no to any vote of approval
for the British constabulary that all their legitimate
objections and disagreements could be answered.
Here was a gifted opportunity to show sincere
Republicans who had metaphorically jumped -off
the Sinn Fein bus, that the party drivers had
not diverted to a completely different and unwanted
destination If Stormont and backing the British
constabulary were truly some purgatory to be suffered
briefly before entering a united Ireland, many
would swallow their doubts, and be reassured .
Here was a platform to show that the fears of
Republicans like Laurence O'Neill were unfounded.
The
fear of many of those who sought the debates was
of course that Republican opposition will be bottled
up inside a British Stormont administration with
an institutionalized unionist veto wielded by
Paisley, and that Stormont was a stepping- stone
to nothing beyond cemented British rule. The fear
was that endorsing the PSNI would be a final step
down to the Kitsonian goals of Ulsterization,
criminalization and normalization.
DEFUNCT
Sinn
Fein has no shortage of spokespersons, like Declan
Kearney, capable of defending his party position
in an open debate. How many times did we read
in the now defunct Daily Ireland or in
the Andersonstown News that Sinn Fein longed
to debate with the so-called dissident Republicans
who were then misrepresented and dismissed as
being unable to make any political case. There
is an old saying about being careful what you
wish for because you may get it and not enjoy
the consequences.
CONWAY
MILL
Two
days before the Conway Mill debate, Laurence O'Neill
was confronted by men who ordered him not to attend.
One of those who visited him, Declan Kearney,
would represent Sinn Fein at both Conway Mill
and Toome. Others would also be confronted and
bullied. The heavy handed approach did not succeed
against Mr. O'Neill and others. On the night of
the Conway Mill debate it was unclear whether
the party would participate. It is believed by
many in attendance that the size of the crowd
forced Sinn Fein to come forward.
No
one imagines that Declan Kearney acted on his
own. The decision to attempt to intimidate Mr.
O'Neill and others would have been discussed and
decided formally within the party structure.
If
Sinn Fein truly believed that backing the RUC-
PSNI following a pre-determined Ard Fheis vote,
would serve Republican rather than British interests,
why send members to threaten Laurence O'Neill
and others. During the years of Section 31 RTE
and BBC censorship, Republicans rightly contended
that censorship was a tacit admission that British
rule could not withstand a full and open debate.
Did not the attempts to intimidate and silence
Mr O'Neill, show that the party fears a full and
open debate?
It
is ironic that those so anxious to engage with
the British, DUP, PUP or Fine Gael would feel
it should respond to an invitation to debate fellow
Republicans with threats and intimidation.
DERISION
Perhaps
one particular moment of the Conway Mill debate
reveals the basis of their concerns. Declan Kearney
at one point asked rhetorically whether we are
closer to a united Ireland and then answered in
substance that of course we were. The claim drew
loud calls derision. As one person in attendance
described it, he looked "gobsmacked."
Clearly,
this was the sort of hollow saying or slogan which
might be applauded uncritically by a coterie of
supporters or a gerrymandered party meeting. Before
an assembly of thinking and questioning Republicans,
there was not even a weak attempt to make reasoned
explanation why embracing Stormont and the RUC-PSNI
had brought us closer to ending rather than to
cementing British rule.
Clearly
the pledge of backing for the RUC-PSNI was conceded
years ago and was part of the package of concessions
offered to Trimble. Paisley had pocketed those
submissions for a start and demanded much more
as part of the price of sitting in a Stormont
headed by him. No realistic observer imagines
that the British have been negotiating for an
Ard Fheis that could vote no to the RUC-PSNI.
Claims that nothing had been decided within the
party were ludicrous. A public debate in which
veteran Republicans like Laurence O'Neill could
vote no, might place the party in a position where
it could not deliver on concessions already promised
to the British.
BRITISH
Meanwhile
the British were illustrating on several fronts
that while the uniform insignia might be changed,
the British crown constabulary remains much the
same. In Belfast, the Diplock court trial of Republican
Sean Hoey was an indictment of the RUC- PSNI and
any Republican who might pledge it fealty. Here
was an important case with top ranking RUC now
PSNI members in the witness box. In the past,
top crown constables felt it fair game to beat
a confession out of the Irish suspect then conspire
to commit perjury and cover-up to jail the Republican
for a lengthy sentence. Now the crown eschews
torture with its inconvenient telltale signs.
Instead these top-ranking constables merely planted
DNA evidence, using black tape taken from his
South Armagh home, and stuck the tape onto evidence
collected from various scenes. They then concealed
it by perjury and cover-up. Already a perjury
investigation has been ordered by the Diplock
judge. The ranking crown constable Baxter, directed
to initiate the perjury inquiry is the very man
named by subordinates as having solicited the
perjury from the top.
Other
planted DNA cases, including that of Mark Brogan
and Martin Carroll have collapsed. No one has
been demoted or prosecuted. The discredited case
against Sean Hoey has been allowed to proceed.
Already another Republican, Declan McGlinchey,
whose family may have encouraged the Toome debate,
has been picked up on discredited DNA evidence.
Was this coincidence? Are the RUC-PSNI sending
a message?
The
post-Patten RUC has no more qualms about perjury,
planted evidence and cover-up to jail suspected
Republican opponents of British rule than the
pre-Patten RUC. Is the relative silence about
blatant miscarriages of justice from many quarters
who loudly would have denounced such a conspiracy
in the past a sign of what full cooperation and
backing of the PSNI will entail?
In
Derry, a white line picket for Republican political
prisoners fighting criminalization at Maghaberry
by the Republican Prisoners Action Group was photographed,
harassed, and sympathizers intimidated. Attempts
have been made to recruit Sinn Fein members to
play a Denis Donaldson type role, informing and
undermining the party from within. Again does
the post-Patten RUC seem much different from the
pre-Patten version?
The
British have already marked off exceptions to
the abolition of Diplock court trials that will
allow them to use non-jury trials against Republicans
simply upon a crown prosecutor's request. A new
measure on a parole board may be widened to abolish
remission for political prisoners. The British
clearly believe that new means of repression will
be wielded in support of British rule in the future.
Once Sinn Fein backing for the RUC -PSNI has been
secured, will the RUC-PSNI feel emboldened to
take the gloves off its fist of repression? Will
Sinn Fein have become hostage to whatever injustices
are meted by a crown force it has backed and endorsed
in its campaign at the ballot box?
NEXT
The
debates will not be stopped. Already a number
of questions have been answered irrefutably. There
are Republicans who will just say no to backing
the re-named RUC. They can and will debate an
alternative strategy which begins with refusing
allegiance to a British constabulary imposing
British rule and law. The next step is to determine
whether such Republicans can cooperate without
any compromise of principle on this key issue.
Can Republicans seize the Republican ground being
left behind as Sinn Fein moves towards the British
establishment? Can Republicans highlight the link
between those who give fealty to the RUC-PSNI
and the injustices committed by that force? Can
Republicans, whose community has suffered so much
at the hands of the RUC-PSNI, show the community
that a vote of fealty for the RUC-PSNI in March
will be touted as a whitewash of all that past
injustice and viewed as a sign of willingness
to suffer more? Can Republicans in unacceptable
numbers just say no to the RUC-PSNI?
