February 27 2006 / The Day The Disenfranchised Ran Riot
While fringe elements of Irish Republicanism may have instigated the riots that occured in Dublin last Saturday, I don't think the main body of the rioters were politically motivated in themselves, aside from a casual identification with Republicanism. They were lashing out at a state that has let them down badly - the Irish state.
Let's take a look at what seems to be the typical rioter seen during the events - most of the photographs of the individuals rioting show this type of individual.
- Aged 13 to 35
- Male
- Lower-working class in origin
- Angry
- Highly aggressive
- Blindly violent
These individuals are, in a large number of cases, poorly educated. Schools in the inner city tend to suffer from a lack of funding. The drop-out rate from schools in these areas is high - in many cases the Junior Certificate is the highest educational standard achieved. This poor standard of education is the main reason why employment for these people is either non-existent or poorly paid. Before the economic boom things were more tolerable, but when society as a whole became wealthier and moved up in the world, a minority of society didn't. Now there is little room for them to move up in society, to earn a decent income and have a decent quality of life. Instead, these people and their communities are ravaged by poverty and substance abuse. They are perceived as "scumbags". As "knackers". As "skangers". As "gurriers". As "gougers".
These individuals are being ignored or dismissed by the state, visible only when they cause trouble, or are prosecuted for having caused it. They are, sadly, the underbelly of society and are seen as being of little consequence. Where is the outcry for inner city Dubliner and heroin addict Dean Lyons, who was, allegedly, forced by the police to confess to the Deansgrange Murders in 1997? Would Irish society have cared if Robert Holohan had been a child from the lower-income classes in Cork City? This was a riot borne out of anger and disenfranchisement, an expression of rage against a society that has left the least well off behind and then forgotten about them. The only common target during the riots was the state - the Love Ulster contingent were almost forgotten about 45 minutes into the riot, having departed from the scene.
I said earlier that the main body of the rioters were not politically motivated in themselves, aside from a casual identification with Republicanism. (Indymedia Ireland has also written about this) Two ways in which this can be seen is during Irish soccer matches, from the houses and flats decked out in Irish regalia. The second is the widespread and passionate support for Glasgow Celtic Football Club among the poor and disenfranchised - I have lost count of the number of times I've encountered young men from the inner city wearing some item of clothing that shows affiliation with Celtic.
Although a very weak form of Republicanism, when compared to the militant form, the idea that a group portrayed or perceived as being loyalist paramilitaries - a group understood as being opposed to anything Irish - could come and march through Dublin, allowed to do so by the state, was provocative enough to bring these people onto the streets. These reasons were able to be used as a reason for lashing out last Saturday - and that is what it was - lashing out at a society that couldn't care less about them.
It is clear that successive governments have forgotten about this part of society, and that to prevent this from happening again, very serious resources need to be put into education to ensure that individuals from low-income backgrounds stay in school and are able to use their education to go further in life. Without education, they are doomed to a bleak future.
It is also clear that society itself has forgotten about this part of itself. Perhaps the next time you encounter a "scumbag", " a skanger", a "knacker", a "gurrier" or a "gouger", perhaps, instead of dismissing them, thinking about how a segment of society has come to be as neglected and forgotten as it has, and how this neglect should be addressed, would be more worthwhile. After all, we ourselves are society - to neglect it is to neglect ourselves.
Trackback(0)
February 23 2006 / A Day in the Life of a Gladhanding Taoiseach
The Irish Times reports today on a day in the life of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who seems to have spent a large portion of that day at opening ceremonies. While the article provides details of his schedule, here's a quick breakdown.
At 1pm, Ahern officially opens a hardware store in Dublin 11. Subsequently he proceeded to Dublin Airport to be picked up by a helicopter belonging to the Air Corps, in which he flew to Druid's Glen, to unveil an award that been given to the hotel. Sometime after 2.30pm he was flown back to Dublin airport. The helicopter was then returned to its Baldonnel base. Later in the day, Ahern attended two other functions after his return to Dublin, presenting certificates and opening the new grounds of an athletic club.
Department of Defence records say the cost of the flights were around €2,100. That would be €2,100 of money coming from the taxpayer. A spokesperson from the Department of An Taoiseach is quoted in the article as saying that "Great care and attention is taken in relation to the Taoiseach's engagements to ensure that no impropriety of State funds occurs."
I suppose it's a mere coincidence that the hotel is owned by the Flinn family, with long standing connections to Ahern's party, Fianna Fáil?
Bertie needs to get his priorities in order. While I understand that the Taoiseach is expected to make appearances, using state property to go about the gladhanding of his party supporters is unacceptable. It could also be asked why he isn't doing what he's paid to do, namely, leading the country? I don't recall flying around in military helicopters to hotel ceremonies (not to mention hotels owned by fellow party members) being part of the job of Taioseach.
This kind of thing is unacceptable - in any political party.
Trackback(0)
February 22 2006 / What is the Big Deal with Gay Marriage?
United Irelander asks a few questions about gay marriage. My thoughts and answers are below.
1. What if some form of gay marriage was made law? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes, of course. To be quite honest, I tend to believe that anyone against gay marriage is, to one extent or another, a homophobe.
Much like divorce in Ireland (remember the anti-divorce lobby?), it will not destroy "our way of life" (is there only one way of life in Ireland?), as I've heard it claimed, nor will it have an affect on children that is any worse than other family models - that is to say, children affected by issues to do with parents will be the same in any two parent family unit, whether that two parent unit is heterosexual or homosexual.
Then there's the one about marriage being for procreation. Modern society tends to regard marriage as somthing done out of love and comittment between two people. To imply it is for procreation only really is nothing but blatant homophobia. Using that logic, I know several heterosexual couples who should never have been married in the first place!
2. What if there was a desire to allow gay couples to adopt? Would you be in favour of this?
Certainly. Some people I have heard opining on the subject seem to believe that all heterosexual unions that involve children are perfect, and that children involved in other unions are somehow abnormal because of it.
I've also heard talk from people who are anti-gay marriage that children in these unions will turn out to be homosexual themselves. Bear in mind here that any gay person I know comes from a home with two heterosexual (not to mention married) parents. Why don't people arguing against gay marriage on those grounds take this into account? And if they did turn out to be gay - who cares? Why is it that this subject is a big deal for people?
3. What if you found out you had a gay family member, for example your son or daughter? Would this make you uncomfortable?
In a word, no. To my knowledge no member of my family is gay, but if they chose to come out, I'd greet them with open arms, and woe betide any other family member who chose not to.
4. What if a TD you supported turned out to be gay? Would this affect your decision to back him/her?
Not at all. I support my TD because of his ability to represent the people that elected him, and for no other reason. Any one withdrawing support from their TD because he / or she was gay, would, in my view be nothing but a homophobe.
Trackback(0)
February 17 2006 / Sinn Féin - Socialist?
This weekend will see Sinn Féin gather in the RDS for their árd-fheis. Sinn Féin have come a long way in the past 20 years or so. In 1986, they were just the small political wing of an organisation that some would have said was fighting for freedom, and others would have said was a terrorist menace with no hope of political salvation.
The party may have a come a long way, but while ending the armed campaign its military wing has fought has been an admirable achievement, Sinn Féin have also been doing something else, something it would prefer people didn't realise - moving towards the right of the political spectrum.
It might be asked how it can be shown that Sinn Féin have moved to the right when they haven't even been in government yet. The thing is though, that Sinn Féin were in government for a short period of time - the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was suspended in 2002.
The two Sinn Fein members in the Executive of that Assembly did not distinguish themselves from the other Executive parties - Martin McGuinness rejected the claim of the term time workers to a wage over the school holidays. He then spearheaded the privatisation of schools.
The Hayes Report on the future of Northern Ireland's health service was commissioned by Bairbre de Bruin. Couched in the familiar terms of senior civil servants with their eyes on the purse strings, it recommended huge cuts in services and a massive increase in reliance on private finance. That report was welcomed in broad terms by Sinn Fein MLA Sue Ramsey. Another Sinn Féin member of the MLA, Francie Molloy (suspended from Sinn Féin last year) stated that he has no principled objection to private medicine. The Hayes Report proposed more or less what past direct rule ministers from London proposed - nothing has changed as far as social and economic issues are concerned.
Sinn Fein's strategy is to keep the Agreement in place and get the Institutions back up. They are making significant electoral advances across the border, and have nothing to gain by a return to war. Ultimately they hope to become the largest single party in the North and to enter into government in the South. Where Socialism is intended to unify people and not divide them, Sinn Féin's tactics of splitting the North under the guise of fighting for the rights of Catholics, could backfire and perhaps the Agreement institutions would never come back up. It could even be argued that Sinn Féin and the IRA's fascination with militarism and ultra-nationalism brought those same institutions down in the first place. So much for left-wing politics!
Over the border in the South, the Sinn Fein leadership want to become a party of government. Because of their past they are seen to be outside of the establishment and not the same as the careerist politicians from the other parties. To try to tap the anti-establishment mood they pose as defenders of ordinary people by putting forward populist ideas and even in the case of Ógra Shinn Fein mention Socialism. The party is set to grow in the next General Election, perhaps even double its number of seats in Dáil Éireann. Apart from their work on the ground, the key reasons for their potential to grow are, on the one hand, the removal of the obstacle that the military campaign of the IRA represented to extending their base beyond the most economically depressed areas and, on the other, the strong desire for a political alternative that exists generally.
But Sinn Fein is speaking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. As it has done in the past, populist and even Socialist rhetoric is put out for public consumption when it suits. This is then dropped when the serious business starts like the period before the negotiations with the British and Irish governments on the "peace process". Such talk is showboating, nothing more. There isn't a serious theoretical understanding or practical commitment to class struggle or Socialism within Sinn Fein. More than once in private conversations, long standing members have dismissed the possibility of a serious challenge to capitalism.
Yet another example of this can be seen with relation to Bin Charges in Dublin. When Dublin Corporation brought in refuse charges in 2001, there was a consensus among most of the sitting councillors from all parties to bring in the charges but, in order to try to confuse ordinary people, a deal was done whereby some of the parties would split their votes, so as to allow some of their candidates to say they opposed the charge while the vote was carried. Sinn Fein's contribution to this charade was to have two of their four councillors vote against, while the other two were absent and to oppose the recording of the vote for the public record when that was called for by Independent TD Tony Gregory. In 2005, Sinn Féin walked out of the Dublin City Council session when the Charges were renewed. They didn't vote against, they just abstained.
Some Socialists...
February 11 2006 / Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - Time to Merge?
When compared to party politics in other democratic states in Western Europe, Irish politics stands out. The traditional divide of left and right is not as evident as it should be. In Germany, the Christian democratic parties are the traditional conservative parties sitting to the right. The SPD-led alliance are the traditional liberal parties, sitting to the left. While a grand coalition has been formed in recent months by some of these parties, the lengthy and drawn out process that led to the forming of the coalition and the appointment of Angela Merkel as Chancellor, shows that a divide along traditional left/right lines does exist.
Similarly, in France, this divide is very clearly seen. The Front National, UDF and UPM sit to the right, and the Socialist, Communist and other parties all sit to the left. Even in Britain, although it could be debated that New Labour means that there is no longer any mainstream left-wing party in British politics, there is, in theory, the Conservative Party on the right, the Liberal Democrats in the centre, and Labour on the left.
But in Ireland, things are different, primarily due to the consequences of the Civil War. Events leading to the war brought about the splitting of the main political party of the day, Sinn Féin, its respective sides choosing to fight a futile and bitter conflict.
Twenty years after the war ended, Fianna Fáil had formed from the remains of the Sinn Féin / anti-Treaty side of the conflict. Cumann na nGaedhael, the new identity of the Sinn Féin / pro-Treaty side in the conflict, had merged with the National Front (the Fascist grouping also known as the Blueshirts) and the National Centre Party to form Fine Gael. These events led to the main divide in Irish politics, one that has lasted through the decades to the present day.
But when considering the politics of the modern Irish state, is there really - Civil War politics aside - all that much of a divide between these two parties? With Fine Gael having moved on from the Social Democratic path it followed under Garret Fitzgerald, it can be argued that together, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are traditional, conservative, right-of-centre parties, while the Fianna Fáil-derived Progressive Democrats are the solo neo-liberal right-wing party. The Labour Party, The Green Party, and the Socialist Party are the parties of the left, and smaller parties than their European counterparts. The modern Sinn Féin - not to be confused with the Sinn Féin of the pre-Civil War years - also exhibit some characteristics of a party of the left, but it remains to be seen whether or not that party will go towards the right, or integrate solidly into the left as it matures and develops into a fully democratic political entity.
One clear sign of this is in the recent efforts made by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution when updating the Constitution to reflect the realities of family life and social change in modern Ireland. The main issue discussed was the issue of an amendment to the Constitution to allow for a wider definition of the family, which the Constitution recognises as the key element in binding Irish society together. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, believed a constitutional amendment to widen the definition and be seen to provide for gay marriage would spark a divisive referendum along the lines of the highly charged abortion debates. Labour, the Green Party and Sinn Féin, disagreed, saying that the basic democratic value of equality should extend to all forms of family life, such as lone parents or cohabiting couples with children. While the end result was that recommendations for legislation that would provide financially for these families, the opposing sides show a clear left and right divide, with the two main political parties siding with each other. Socially, it can be seen that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael share similar social values.
Economically speaking, there is little doubt that Fine Gael, if elected to government at the next General Election, would not increase taxes. While it is politically unpopular to do so (hence Labour following more or less in the same direction, albeit for differing reasons), Fine Gael are also an economically liberal party, and would not, I believe, support the raising of tax as a general principle.
The only area where Fine Gael are gaining traction over Fianna Fáil in the duel to persuade the electorate where to cast their first preferences is essentially in political opportunism, as opposed to idealogical differences in policy formation. The health services, the spending and wasting of money, political accountability and to a lesser extent, the political situation in Northern Ireland, are all areas that Fine Gael have been focusing on. Criticising how these issues are managed or mis-managed is standard practice for any political party in opposition, and indeed, if Fine Gael find themselves in Government in the next 18 months, the shoe will be on the other foot. In reality, there is not a lot to separate the one party from the other. Perhaps, if they can put aside political rivalries, they could do the country a favour and merge, reforming the political landscape as it would have been if the Civil War had not been fought. If they did, it would allow politics in this country to develop a solid Left base in the Oireachtas and give the electorate some real choice in who is elected to govern the country and more to the point, how they govern.
Trackback(0)
February 08 2006 / Who are Irish Bloggers?
Fiona has come up with a meme for Irish webloggers to partake in. Inspired by Richard Waghorne, it's an attempt to get a grasp on what makes us all tick.
Here are my answers -
Gender: / Male
Age: (1-18; 19-30; 31-45; 46-60; 60+) / 19-30 (28)
Nationality: / Irish
Country of residence: / Ireland
Sexual Orientation: / Straight
Do you have a disability? / Yes (arthritis in left hip, a complication from an illness in infancy)
How would you describe your political philosophy? / Democratic Socialist
Level of education (primary; post-primary; third-level; graduate; professional) / Some third-level
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (Ireland)? / Labour
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (UK)? / Socialist
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (USA)? / Democrat
Where do you stand on the EU? / I am pro EU, but against the proposed (and now apparently dead) EU constitution.
Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? / Yes. The US had no choice but to act, or else become a target for terrorists the world over. However, it is deplorable that the country has been left to rot, and unforgiveable that the individual who oversaw the murders of over 3,000 US citizens has not been captured and brought to justice.
Did you support the invasion of Iraq? / No. It was based on lies, distortions and untruths. I believe that Saddam should have been removed from power, but there were ways of doing that and lying about WMD's wasn't it.
Do you continue to support either or both of those conflicts? / Afghanistan has been a disaster, thanks to the folly that is Iraq. I no longer support it, and as I never supported the Iraqi conflict in the first place, the question is moot on that point.
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing Irish politics? / The gaping chasm between wealth and poverty, the clear bias towards economic capital and away from social capital.
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing European politics? / Integrating millions of people of many different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing international politics? / The reckless unilaterism as practised by the neo-conservative United States of America.
Are you, have you ever been, and do you ever wish to be involved in politics in a party political manner? / I'm a member of the Irish Labour Party and actively involved on several fronts. I intend to put myself forward for selection as an election candidate in the (near-ish) future.
Who would you have voted for in the past US Presidential Election? / Kerry, but Gore was by far the superior candidate in 2000 and should have run in 2004.
Trackback(0)
February 06 2006 / The Abortion Debate
A debate on abortion has sprung up across the Irish blogosphere. Fiona de Londras weighs in with her pro-choice views, and then Auds responds. Red Rover then follows up with another pro-choice viewpoint. Low marks to Richard Waghorne, who seems to be suggesting that debating the abortion issue is not something that should be done on a weblog. In the interests of free speech, I could not disagree with him more.
I have always been pro-choice, for two reasons. The first is that the state should not be entitled to interfere with the reproductive rights of any citizen, be they male or female. I feel that as a democrat, the fact that we, as Irish citizens, continue to allow the state to interfere in that most personal of spheres is abohorrent. The second reason I am pro-choice is that I believe that the rights of a pregnant woman take precedence. It is her body that will carry the pregnancy to full term. Bringing an infant into the world is a life altering experience - so life-altering that the woman should be entitled to the right to decide, after conception, whether she wants to have that experience or not. When it comes right down to a termination, It is the business of nobody except the woman, not even the man involved - he is not pregnant.
While I would tend to believe that there are moral and psychological consequences to obtaining an abortion, the fact remains that it is for the woman to decide and nobody else. It is her body, her pregnancy and her choice. She should be given all information and then left alone to make an informed choice.
The people decided in 2002 to let the provisions in the Constitution made in the 1990's to remain. This means that abortion is legal when the life of the mother is in danger. However, there is no legislation for this. It is time that there was legislation for it. I call on all the parties in Dáíl Éireann to stop sitting on the fence for reasons of political self-interest and address the issue.
UPDATE / The Dossing Times is keeping tabs on the debate as it develops.
February 04 2006 / Religion and Public Education
Yesterday's Irish Independent contained an excellent article by the leader of the Labour Party, Pat Rabitte, concerning the issue of education (particularly primary education) being run by the church.
In the article, Rabbitte wonders that when attendance records at religious services are falling, when one third of all marriages are civil marriages as opposed to religious marriages, when the Ireland of today has a much greater mix of different ethnic backgrounds and religious persuasions, why is it that the state education system is so heavily based on religious domination?
This is something I've been thinking about myself. A portion of my income tax goes towards the salaries of teachers in public education, and another portion goes towards the running of publicly-funded schools around the country. And yet that money is distributed amongst and then spent by denominational groups. I don't attend any religious services and do not actively practise the rites of any religious denomination. And I don't want any particular religious denomination deciding how the young people of this country are educated, not only because I would be more inclined to support a secular education system, but because of the imbalance that religious denominations bring to public education - if you have one large denomination deciding how the public education system is run, then minority denominations are excluded. If a multitude of religious denominations have a say in deciding how the public education system is run, then the risk of segregating people of different religuous persuasions looms large. Better to educate all the children of this country's public education system equally and together, than to exclude on the basis of culture or creed. Let's leave religion outside the classrooms of our public education system, and leave it up to the parents and guardians of our students.
February 03 2006 / Return of an Old School Weblogger
Given the way the Irish Blogosphere has exploded in the 14 months or so since I went away, I had to make a return - there's been some great debate lately! I'm still in the middle of setting things up here, so watch out for dead links, but these will be sorted out in short order, if they're not already. Comments and trackbacks are off for the moment, but these will be turned on eventually.
I first started a weblog in April of 1999, one of the small handful of Irish bloggers at the time - there were 5 of us, if I recall rightly! I kept going until 2004, when I got tired of it, and posting became very intermittent, before stopping altogether later that year. It was a general purpose weblog and I became reticent about posting about my life so publically. (I did start This Is Diopter, a photoblog, and this is still running.) Since stopping the weblog that existed on this domain, the number of blogs started by Irish people has been phenomenal and has really caught on in a big way. What's very different about it is that there are now far more people blogging about current affairs and political issues and this is what I plan to be blogging about as well. Thus far, this sort of blogging has not been as influential here as it has been in the US, but it can only be a matter of time.
So, this is the first post on the new weblog, and I will be posting on politics and getting into debating (if anyone will deem me worthy of a debate, that is!) with other bloggers in the future. Hope you'll be along for the ride.