Daniel’s mask has slipped. This is quite a surprisingly clear apologia for Provisional IRA terrorism.
He even uses the language that jistifies the ‘legitimate target’, distinguishing between “combatants” and “non-combatants” (in an attempt.to sanitise the majority of PIRA murders). He dismisses the hundreds of PIRA murders of “combatants” in order to portray the PIRA death squads as morally superior to the Army, as though it were somehow OK to murder police officers, prison officers or (often part time off duty) soldiers.
I’m sorry to hear you feel my “mask has slipped”. What “mask” would that have been? What do you think I’ve been concealing until now?
You appear to be forgetting the fact that the British state also employed proxies in the form of loyalist paramilitaries to do its really dirty work, so this is no time to be getting on any high-horse.
You’re the second person who has felt fit to simplify the piece down to being a supposed instance of apologia for the (P)IRA’s campaign. I’ve not suggested anyone is morally superior to anyone else. What I did intend to do was challenge the arrogant double standard that infects the British right’s narrative of the conflict. They’ll reserve the label “terrorist” for the IRA exclusively, but they’d never ever consider applying the same principles to their own conduct. The state refers to its victims as “collateral” and that is generally accepted. The IRA are afforded no such luxury. Both should be open to criticism. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a two-sided thing. Not just a case of “everything the Brits did was right and everything the IRA did was evil”.
Maybe you have no issue with the British state’s sanitisation of its involvement, but I certainly do and I have no shame in expressing that.
I penned a response elsewhere to the other person who made the similar charge against what I’d written – that being that I was justifying the IRA’s campaign – and I’ll re-post it here too as it’s relevant:
It’s a difficult conversation to have; it’s sensitive, contentious, grey and riddled with nuance. The GFA recognised that there were two sides to it, rather than it being a case of “good versus evil”. Negotiation and compromise implicitly validated grievances, narratives or assertions of both sides by trying to reconcile them. That was difficult for both. It was to say that neither were all right or all wrong and it was the price of peace. It wasn’t all “take” by republicans or nationalists by any means.
The prevailing narrative in the Spectator piece simply denied the experience of many northern nationalists/Catholics. Violence is awful, always regrettable and ideally avoided, but it doesn’t arise out of a vacuum. There was a reason for it – people are products of their environments – and dubbing it “indecency” (along with those hundreds of thousands who supported Sinn Féin) just doesn’t cut the mustard. It’s simplistic, if not a crassly ignorant and arrogant analysis. People don’t resort to violence for no reason. Very few people commit “evil” for the mere sake of committing “evil”. People generally try and justify what they do in their own heads and try to convince themselves what they’re doing is right. It is worth trying to comprehend that rationalisation process seeing as we’re all party to the same society and it is in all of our interests that it is peaceful.
I don’t advocate violence and certainly don’t celebrate it, but we can still try to understand why people felt driven to resort to it and try to explain it. I wanted to counter Massie’s one-sided narrative and talk about it from a nationalist communal perspective. Maybe you’ll say my response is a bit one-sided in return, but they’re both there and up for discussion/critique. I wanted to add to that conversation.
A willingness to do that rather than condemn violence as “evil” or “indecent” doesn’t have to equate to justification. The politics of condemnation don’t tend to move anyone’s understanding forward. I would similarly try to understand why loyalists engaged how they did or why British soldiers did what they did (albeit with the heavy infrastructure of the state bolstering them). I do the same for criminals; I try to empathise/understand (rather than condemn) and work out how the societal system we have in place could have better ensured the conditions that contributed to their resort to crime were either less prevalent or non-existent. That’s not the same as approval, nor is it even offering a moral commentary. I try to look deeper into causes. Sometimes that involves detaching oneself morally.
To those who wish to condemn (despite having no experience of the circumstances that might have led to a subject’s actions), I would ask: “OK, if we wish to be constructive, then what was the viable or practical alternative for those you condemn?”
Or: “How would you have acted in their circumstances?” (Those circumstances often being poverty, discrimination, oppression, brutalisation, loss of loved ones, families, friends and relations…)
If there is any doubt in the answers, then there’s no place for pontification. You don’t necessarily know how you’d respond under those same circumstances or pressure.
The IRA did many things which rendered them and SF irreparably toxic in the eyes of many – indefensible things – but the British state did similar. Let that be known. People are very adept at compartmentalising. There were two sides to this but the British establishment is happy to cover that over; both committed terrible wrongs and atrocities but both also had arguments and concerns worth listening to. People didn’t join the IRA because those people were “evil” or “indecent”; it was a rational response to their material conditions. That’s very difficult for those who didn’t experience those conditions to understand but it doesn’t negate the reality of them.
I’m more interested in reality, causes and preventing future re-occurrences than academic moralising or working out whether something was “justified” or not. I’m more interested in restorative justice over vindictive retributive justice. “Justification” is a loaded, politicised term which is completely subjective anyway. It’s hotly contested, especially in the context of an inherently contested statelet, and both sides use it to delegitimise the other. It doesn’t really get us anywhere when the two conflicting narratives exist on separate spectrums. I’m not an omnipotent or omniscient arbiter either, so I’m not sure I’m qualified to make such determinations. Generally, the tendency in politics or conflict is that the party with the greatest power (militarily and propaganda-wise) happens to be seen as the “justified” one. Really, it’s down to who can better rationalise their use of force to effect their will. History is written by the victors, and all that.
Some republicans would read this and maybe see it as “justifying” the British army or state’s presence or role in Ireland. I certainly don’t think that’s what I’m doing but that’s the difficulty in trying to bridge two incompatible views through compromise. You’ll get those on both sides claiming that you’re justifying the other or making unjustifiable concessions. It’s perilous, but I think it a difficult conversation worth having. That’s how we learn from the other. Not by condemning; but by talking, and, more importantly, listening.
“I’m sorry to hear you feel my “mask has slipped”. What “mask” would that have been? What do you think I’ve been concealing until now?”
The mask of someone morally opposed to nationalist terror, and specifically that of the PIRA.
“You appear to be forgetting the fact that the British state also employed proxies in the form of loyalist paramilitaries to do its really dirty work, so this is no time to be getting on any high-horse.”
Poor attempt at diversion. I haven’t forgotten about that and I don’t see how it appears thatI have.
” I’ve not suggested anyone is morally superior to anyone else.”
Well, quite. And that is why your piece is an apologia for PIRA terror as you refuse to draw any moral distinction between the Provisional IRA and the security forces, all of whom you dismiss, using the language of PIRA apologists, as “combatants”.
“Both should be open to criticism. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a two-sided thing. Not just a case of “everything the Brits did was right and everything the IRA did was evil”.”
Of course both should be open to criticism. But that’s not all you’re saying. You’re drawing an equivalence between PIRA and security forces, thus seeking to confer legitimacy on the latter.
“It was to say that neither were all right or all wrong and it was the price of peace.”
Really? Which parts of the GFA said that some of the PIRA/loyalist killings weren’t wrong?
“I don’t advocate violence and certainly don’t celebrate it”
I have read a number of accounts of the Northern Ireland Conflict:” Lethal Allies By Ann Cadwalader and “Armed Struggle” The History of the IRA by Richard English and some personal anecdotal accounts of the conflict. This is because I really do want to understand the situation from all perspectives. I think what you say here is so important. “How do we prevent future reoccurrences? Otherwise those that were murdered so violently and needlessly will have died for nothing. I find your remarks balanced, well considered. It is information like this which can tear the blinkers placed on the eyes of the public and make us all truly understand the reality and to adopt an attitude of fairness. I think the purpose you have stated here an important and constructive one and the points are well made, Mr Collins.
“I think what you say here is so important. “How do we prevent future reoccurrences? Otherwise those that were murdered so violently and needlessly will have died for nothing.”
It will be of real comfort to the families of the slaughtered to know that their loved-ones were murdered to prevent other people being murdered in the future. How lucky they were to have been selected for such a noble sacrifice.
“I find your remarks balanced, well considered. It is information like this which can tear the blinkers placed on the eyes of the public and make us all truly understand the reality and to adopt an attitude of fairness. I think the purpose you have stated here an important and constructive one and the points are well made.”
So you agree with Daniel that there is no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services? The man planting the bomb or spraying the pub was morally equivalent to the policeman investigating such crimes or clearing the vicinity to protect citizens from the bomb?
“So you agree with Daniel that there is no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services? The man planting the bomb or spraying the pub was morally equivalent to the policeman investigating such crimes or clearing the vicinity to protect citizens from the bomb?”
What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?
What about the security forces planting bombs or spraying pubs or vans?
What about the security forces who setup RUC officers or solicitors for murder.
What about the security forces ignored serious crime including long term child abuse to run their operations,
Why do these people deserve to have evidence which is available, locked away and allowing them to not even have a tarnish on their name never mind justice, all to protect the people at the top who gave the orders good name of British justice.
You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall. Until that is acknowledged and the extent qualified by releasing this information and stop perverting justice, yes, there can be no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services.
“What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?”
Well, indeed. In Daniel’s world there is no moral distinction between him and the law-abiding police officer protecting the public.
“What about the security forces planting bombs or spraying pubs or vans?”
Not aware of any, but if they did, Daniel thinks they would have been morally equivalent to law-abiding security forces.
“You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall.”
Corrupt to their core? Goodness. Any evidence for this?
What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?”
Well, indeed. In Daniel’s world there is no moral distinction between him and the law-abiding police officer protecting the public. ”
MT, only you could consider a policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house to be a law-abiding police officer protecting the public.
There is no hope for you im afraid.
“You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall.”
Corrupt to their core? Goodness. Any evidence for this?”
There is plenty. Lets hope it is released sometime soon.
It is blatantly clear from our conversations, there can be and will be no reconciliation between our communities without the truth.
How can you understand why my community reacted as it did against the British if you don’t know and don’t want to know the truth about what the British did here?
I don’t believe that statehood necessarily or automatically confers some magical sense of moral righteousness, justness or even legitimacy upon the state concerned. Even when a state is acting within the bounds of its own laws – laws the state itself constructed in service of its own interests, conveniently – it doesn’t render the state’s existence, claims or actions necessarily righteous or just. Do you regard ISIS as righteous, just or legitimate simply by virtue of the fact they profess to possess statehood?
In fact, what statehood often does is create an imbalance or inequality in political, military, legal and bargaining power, thus limiting the tactics of one side (lacking statehood) to less conventional methods. We presently see this in the conflict in the Middle East, for example. I’d be more interested in seeing there the creation of a situation where oppressed Palestinians don’t feel cornered into employing desperate military tactics than sit here pontificating to them over their reactions to injustice. There are two sides to conflict. It’s complex, messy and certainly not black-and-white. You only wish to see one side. It’s a mindset that isn’t remotely conducive to resolution. You’re entitled to harbour such a mindset; it’s just the associated sense of moral superiority that grates. It’s hardly justified.
“I don’t believe that statehood necessarily or automatically confers some magical sense of moral righteousness, justness or even legitimacy upon the state concerned. Even when a state is acting within the bounds of its own laws – laws the state itself constructed in service of its own interests, conveniently – it doesn’t render the state’s existence, claims or actions necessarily righteous or just. Do you regard ISIS as righteous, just or legitimate simply by virtue of the fact they profess to possess statehood? In fact, what statehood often does is create an imbalance or inequality in political, military, legal and bargaining power, thus limiting the tactics of one side (lacking statehood) to less conventional methods. We presently see this in the conflict in the Middle East, for example. I’d be more interested in seeing there the creation of a situation where oppressed Palestinians don’t feel cornered into employing desperate military tactics than sit here pontificating to them over their reactions to injustice. There are two sides to conflict. It’s complex, messy and certainly not black-and-white. You only wish to see one side. It’s a mindset that isn’t remotely conducive to resolution. You’re entitled to harbour such a mindset; it’s just the associated sense of moral superiority that grates. It’s hardly justified.”
Not sure what point you’re addressing but any point that I would have made would have been in relation to democratic states.
“Neither is it well-known that the British army were considerably less discriminate statistically in who they targeted than the IRA were. A total of 54.4 per cent of the state security forces’ victims were non-combatants, whilst the corresponding total for militant republican groups was 35.6 per cent.”
What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, because PIRA also murderered around 1000 “combatants” thus making their non-combatant murders proportionately less.
MT
The deaths of civilians at the hands of security forces was terrible and each one deserves proper investigation.
The specious argument from statistics used by Daniel is very weak and carries unpleasant undertones,in my view.
As though all those deaths do not matter provided the data can somehow be presented to make the IRA look better.
jessica
Ho Ho’
Actually I have been consistent in that view in the past.
Because I may challenge the Shinner view of the world at times does not mean I support state wrongdoing and/or cover up.
Now how do you feel about all those civilians the IRA decided should give up their lives for the cause?
“Now how do you feel about all those civilians the IRA decided should give up their lives for the cause?”
I think the introduction of the gun into Irish politics was the worst thing ever happened.
I think the introduction of Para militarism in 1912, the importing of weapons in 1914 and the rejection of the democratic will of the Irish people for independence was evil if consistent throughout the history of British rule in Ireland..
I think the failures of British and unionist leaders in the 50 years after partition was shameful, and the events that led to the start of the conflict in 1968 was unnecessary and born out of unjustified unbridled hatred.
I believe the necessity for there to ever be an IRA ruined many lives not only the people killed by the organisation as a result, but the many, many wasted lives within the organisation and the wider community from which it came.
What I wont do, is blame the IRA for Irelands conflicts which were started by unionism, nor will I consider any victim, civilian or otherwise to be less deserving of sympathy over any other.
As you well know, the conflict was never an IRA cause, the cause grew out of their participation in a prolonged conflict which required internal and external support in order for combatants from a civilian population to take on an imperial global superpower.
You misinterpret if you think that’s what I was doing. The double standard is my main problem. I could just as easily say that your attempted sanitisation of the British state’s conduct is as unpleasant. Remember, this is a state that employed proxies to buttress its “legal” power.
“What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, because PIRA also murderered around 1000 “combatants” thus making their non-combatant murders proportionately less.”
So what you are saying, is that during the conflict, those killed by the PIRA were murdered but those killed by the army were simply killings.
I was thinking that must be down to it being a just war and there are no murders in a just war according to you MT.
But then you go on to make a comparison between non-combatant murders involving 200 by the British army. Wow, that is a lot of murder for a non terrorist organisation.
But that only got me thinking more about just war theory you keep going on about, with there usually being two sides to every story and all.
You said the Falklands was a just war.
Does that mean you believe the Argentinians were justified in going to war and killing to take back part of their nation from British rule?
Or is just war theory really just a biased excuse for conflict based on a narrow point of view?
MT; your use of the term “murder” to refer to deaths for which the IRA were responsible is telling whilst you refer to deaths at the hands of the British army as “killings”. Now that reads like apologia for the actions of a bent state. Why the crass double standard?
“MT; your use of the term “murder” to refer to deaths for which the IRA were responsible is telling whilst you refer to deaths at the hands of the British army as “killings”. Now that reads like apologia for the actions of a bent state. Why the crass double standard?”
There is no double standard, crass or otherwise. It’s simply factual that not all security force killings were murders. As well as some murders and other unlawful killings, some were lawful and others accidental.
It covers similar themes but looks more closely at the UK’s monopoly on violence and at how the legitimacy of violence is mediated in a hypocritical fashion by the state and establishment media.
“What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, ”
‘200 army killings’? It’s noticeable you don’t refer to them as murders M.T. Btw the killings/murders attributed to British army terrorism is debatable. For example, the figures not taken into account are the murders they carried out when ‘off duty'(nairac) or indeed the murders that they directed their proxies to do. Do you wanna open up that box Pandora?
A superb piece Jude. An article that at one moment can produce anger (remembered), followed by the satisfaction that while truth and honesty can be distorted by the “establishment” and their hacks, there are still people around like your cousin who can say “Sorry to disappoint you guys but this is how it really was”. An ageing lefty thanks your cousin.
Mick
It would appear that Mr Massie is labouring under a misapprehension.
“It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Féin and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency…”
It is more accurate, however, to state:
“Those living in working-class Catholic areas (within what was and still is an inherently contested territory created via an imposed process of gerrymandering before and once the conflict broke out…”
There is much talk about “drama” and “deadlines for the appointment of a Justice Minister” at Stormont. The acid test for the appointment of a Justice Minister will be the basis of his/her mandate.
It is strange inded that any reference to the six counties is regarded as being politically incorrect but when did partition become politically acceptable or decent?
It seems unlikely the Spectator was trying to suppress Daniel’s views given there are numerous comments appearing which contradict the opinion piece including at least one with similar points.
As far as I can see the points Daniel was trying to make were familiar and hardly new to anyone who has read anything about the ‘troubles’.
There can be no doubt that Corbyn appears naive now in his expressions of support for the IRA and it is not surprising he should wish to downplay that now.
Well, the comment was pending for a number of hours and then they simply deleted it, so someone from the Spectator censored it, whatever their reasoning was.
A brilliant and concise piece of writing, the problem with people like this Massie is they do not live here. They would probably need an atlas to find Ireland. Interesting statistics regarding the deaths of non combatants, reminds me of the UDA man told to shoot an IRA man but if he couldn`t find him just shoot someone who looks like one. The people in Britain have been fed a diet of propaganda about Ireland, same as they are ignorant about other areas of the world, their boys can do no wrong. The natives are bad .Arlene was right about the conflict being a struggle between good and evil or whatever, she just got the sides mixed up.
I think the media have withheld from the truth from the British public and I for one am very very tired of being lied to by the so called establishnent
Like most decent people I hate and abbhor violence but I understand the British army and other paramilitaries were involved in the needless deaths of innocent people including children shot in the head with rubber bullets and it sickens me down to my soul.Who doesnt want piece apart from the authors of murder who want to rewrite history to tell their lie. ?
“I think the media have withheld from the truth from the British public and I for one am very very tired of being lied to by the so called establishnent”
It is not really the media that is withholding the truth, it is primarily the British state under the guise of national security.
Events that happened over 40 years ago are not current matters of national security, I think enough evidence has slipped through the cracks that the whole world knows Britain was up to its neck in it and no one is willing to push them, not even our own nations government which is so sad.
“It is strange inded that any reference to the six counties is regarded as being politically incorrect but when did partition become politically acceptable or decent?”
It was nationalists who first advocated partition. Unionists only came to favour it in response to nationalist support for it.
“It was nationalists who first advocated partition. Unionists only came to favour it in response to nationalist support for it.”
That’s right, the Easter rising was really to divide Ireland, the bit in the proclamation ref an alien government fostering division was actually reverse psychology to force unionists into a false sense of insecurity so Catholics could persuade them to keep control over 6 counties so they could treat us like shit, and only after numerous cups of tea and Mrs Doyle style persuasion, go on go on, ya will ya will did they finally throw the towel in and agree to it.
“That’s right, the Easter rising was really to divide Ireland, the bit in the proclamation ref an alien government fostering division was actually reverse psychology to force unionists into a false sense of insecurity so Catholics could persuade them to keep control over 6 counties so they could treat us like shit, and only after numerous cups of tea and Mrs Doyle style persuasion, go on go on, ya will ya will did they finally throw the towel in and agree to it.”
Eh? The aim of the Easter “Rising” was to partition the British Isles. Just as was the aim of the home rule movement. It was only in response to that that unionists began to ga our the partition of Ireland.
And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them.
“And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them.”
I wasn’t ‘accusing’ them of anything, merely observing that they were partitionists before unionists were. I agree that the irony is amusing.
“And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them. I wasn’t ‘accusing’ them of anything, merely observing that they were partitionists before unionists were. I agree that the irony is amusing.”
Sure, nationalists partitioned the british isles.
Pity we couldn’t partition them a bit further and pull Ireland around to the Mediterranean for a spot of better weather.
I thought it worth sharing. As if Massie’s piece wasn’t hypocritical enough in its one-sided approach to the conflict and its violence, it transpires that he wasn’t actually so keen on the peace process himself back in the day. In fact, he was bad-mouthing it as late as 2007, yet has the gall to throw accusations at John McDonnell (who now fully endorses it).
“I’ve been following Alex’s output for years. We were acquainted – not friends, he wouldn’t remember me – in college and he’s a smart, agreeable man. I say this so as not to come across as a complete geek when I refer to how Alex is engaging in a bit of airbrushing himself when he speak of the peace as something worthwhile. He was quite scornful of it throughout the Noughties, routinely calling it the “peace process” (his exclamation marks). (http://debatableland.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00d83451b73069e200d83451b73269e2/search?filter.q=%22peace+process%22). You have to laugh at him now accusing McDonnell of opposing the peace process – no exclamation marks now, eh Alex?”
Daniel’s mask has slipped. This is quite a surprisingly clear apologia for Provisional IRA terrorism.
He even uses the language that jistifies the ‘legitimate target’, distinguishing between “combatants” and “non-combatants” (in an attempt.to sanitise the majority of PIRA murders). He dismisses the hundreds of PIRA murders of “combatants” in order to portray the PIRA death squads as morally superior to the Army, as though it were somehow OK to murder police officers, prison officers or (often part time off duty) soldiers.
I’m sorry to hear you feel my “mask has slipped”. What “mask” would that have been? What do you think I’ve been concealing until now?
You appear to be forgetting the fact that the British state also employed proxies in the form of loyalist paramilitaries to do its really dirty work, so this is no time to be getting on any high-horse.
You’re the second person who has felt fit to simplify the piece down to being a supposed instance of apologia for the (P)IRA’s campaign. I’ve not suggested anyone is morally superior to anyone else. What I did intend to do was challenge the arrogant double standard that infects the British right’s narrative of the conflict. They’ll reserve the label “terrorist” for the IRA exclusively, but they’d never ever consider applying the same principles to their own conduct. The state refers to its victims as “collateral” and that is generally accepted. The IRA are afforded no such luxury. Both should be open to criticism. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a two-sided thing. Not just a case of “everything the Brits did was right and everything the IRA did was evil”.
Maybe you have no issue with the British state’s sanitisation of its involvement, but I certainly do and I have no shame in expressing that.
I penned a response elsewhere to the other person who made the similar charge against what I’d written – that being that I was justifying the IRA’s campaign – and I’ll re-post it here too as it’s relevant:
It’s a difficult conversation to have; it’s sensitive, contentious, grey and riddled with nuance. The GFA recognised that there were two sides to it, rather than it being a case of “good versus evil”. Negotiation and compromise implicitly validated grievances, narratives or assertions of both sides by trying to reconcile them. That was difficult for both. It was to say that neither were all right or all wrong and it was the price of peace. It wasn’t all “take” by republicans or nationalists by any means.
The prevailing narrative in the Spectator piece simply denied the experience of many northern nationalists/Catholics. Violence is awful, always regrettable and ideally avoided, but it doesn’t arise out of a vacuum. There was a reason for it – people are products of their environments – and dubbing it “indecency” (along with those hundreds of thousands who supported Sinn Féin) just doesn’t cut the mustard. It’s simplistic, if not a crassly ignorant and arrogant analysis. People don’t resort to violence for no reason. Very few people commit “evil” for the mere sake of committing “evil”. People generally try and justify what they do in their own heads and try to convince themselves what they’re doing is right. It is worth trying to comprehend that rationalisation process seeing as we’re all party to the same society and it is in all of our interests that it is peaceful.
I don’t advocate violence and certainly don’t celebrate it, but we can still try to understand why people felt driven to resort to it and try to explain it. I wanted to counter Massie’s one-sided narrative and talk about it from a nationalist communal perspective. Maybe you’ll say my response is a bit one-sided in return, but they’re both there and up for discussion/critique. I wanted to add to that conversation.
A willingness to do that rather than condemn violence as “evil” or “indecent” doesn’t have to equate to justification. The politics of condemnation don’t tend to move anyone’s understanding forward. I would similarly try to understand why loyalists engaged how they did or why British soldiers did what they did (albeit with the heavy infrastructure of the state bolstering them). I do the same for criminals; I try to empathise/understand (rather than condemn) and work out how the societal system we have in place could have better ensured the conditions that contributed to their resort to crime were either less prevalent or non-existent. That’s not the same as approval, nor is it even offering a moral commentary. I try to look deeper into causes. Sometimes that involves detaching oneself morally.
To those who wish to condemn (despite having no experience of the circumstances that might have led to a subject’s actions), I would ask: “OK, if we wish to be constructive, then what was the viable or practical alternative for those you condemn?”
Or: “How would you have acted in their circumstances?” (Those circumstances often being poverty, discrimination, oppression, brutalisation, loss of loved ones, families, friends and relations…)
If there is any doubt in the answers, then there’s no place for pontification. You don’t necessarily know how you’d respond under those same circumstances or pressure.
The IRA did many things which rendered them and SF irreparably toxic in the eyes of many – indefensible things – but the British state did similar. Let that be known. People are very adept at compartmentalising. There were two sides to this but the British establishment is happy to cover that over; both committed terrible wrongs and atrocities but both also had arguments and concerns worth listening to. People didn’t join the IRA because those people were “evil” or “indecent”; it was a rational response to their material conditions. That’s very difficult for those who didn’t experience those conditions to understand but it doesn’t negate the reality of them.
I’m more interested in reality, causes and preventing future re-occurrences than academic moralising or working out whether something was “justified” or not. I’m more interested in restorative justice over vindictive retributive justice. “Justification” is a loaded, politicised term which is completely subjective anyway. It’s hotly contested, especially in the context of an inherently contested statelet, and both sides use it to delegitimise the other. It doesn’t really get us anywhere when the two conflicting narratives exist on separate spectrums. I’m not an omnipotent or omniscient arbiter either, so I’m not sure I’m qualified to make such determinations. Generally, the tendency in politics or conflict is that the party with the greatest power (militarily and propaganda-wise) happens to be seen as the “justified” one. Really, it’s down to who can better rationalise their use of force to effect their will. History is written by the victors, and all that.
Some republicans would read this and maybe see it as “justifying” the British army or state’s presence or role in Ireland. I certainly don’t think that’s what I’m doing but that’s the difficulty in trying to bridge two incompatible views through compromise. You’ll get those on both sides claiming that you’re justifying the other or making unjustifiable concessions. It’s perilous, but I think it a difficult conversation worth having. That’s how we learn from the other. Not by condemning; but by talking, and, more importantly, listening.
“I’m sorry to hear you feel my “mask has slipped”. What “mask” would that have been? What do you think I’ve been concealing until now?”
The mask of someone morally opposed to nationalist terror, and specifically that of the PIRA.
“You appear to be forgetting the fact that the British state also employed proxies in the form of loyalist paramilitaries to do its really dirty work, so this is no time to be getting on any high-horse.”
Poor attempt at diversion. I haven’t forgotten about that and I don’t see how it appears thatI have.
” I’ve not suggested anyone is morally superior to anyone else.”
Well, quite. And that is why your piece is an apologia for PIRA terror as you refuse to draw any moral distinction between the Provisional IRA and the security forces, all of whom you dismiss, using the language of PIRA apologists, as “combatants”.
“Both should be open to criticism. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a two-sided thing. Not just a case of “everything the Brits did was right and everything the IRA did was evil”.”
Of course both should be open to criticism. But that’s not all you’re saying. You’re drawing an equivalence between PIRA and security forces, thus seeking to confer legitimacy on the latter.
“It was to say that neither were all right or all wrong and it was the price of peace.”
Really? Which parts of the GFA said that some of the PIRA/loyalist killings weren’t wrong?
“I don’t advocate violence and certainly don’t celebrate it”
But you do seek to legitimise PIRA violence.
I have read a number of accounts of the Northern Ireland Conflict:” Lethal Allies By Ann Cadwalader and “Armed Struggle” The History of the IRA by Richard English and some personal anecdotal accounts of the conflict. This is because I really do want to understand the situation from all perspectives. I think what you say here is so important. “How do we prevent future reoccurrences? Otherwise those that were murdered so violently and needlessly will have died for nothing. I find your remarks balanced, well considered. It is information like this which can tear the blinkers placed on the eyes of the public and make us all truly understand the reality and to adopt an attitude of fairness. I think the purpose you have stated here an important and constructive one and the points are well made, Mr Collins.
“I think what you say here is so important. “How do we prevent future reoccurrences? Otherwise those that were murdered so violently and needlessly will have died for nothing.”
It will be of real comfort to the families of the slaughtered to know that their loved-ones were murdered to prevent other people being murdered in the future. How lucky they were to have been selected for such a noble sacrifice.
“I find your remarks balanced, well considered. It is information like this which can tear the blinkers placed on the eyes of the public and make us all truly understand the reality and to adopt an attitude of fairness. I think the purpose you have stated here an important and constructive one and the points are well made.”
So you agree with Daniel that there is no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services? The man planting the bomb or spraying the pub was morally equivalent to the policeman investigating such crimes or clearing the vicinity to protect citizens from the bomb?
“So you agree with Daniel that there is no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services? The man planting the bomb or spraying the pub was morally equivalent to the policeman investigating such crimes or clearing the vicinity to protect citizens from the bomb?”
What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?
What about the security forces planting bombs or spraying pubs or vans?
What about the security forces who setup RUC officers or solicitors for murder.
What about the security forces ignored serious crime including long term child abuse to run their operations,
Why do these people deserve to have evidence which is available, locked away and allowing them to not even have a tarnish on their name never mind justice, all to protect the people at the top who gave the orders good name of British justice.
You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall. Until that is acknowledged and the extent qualified by releasing this information and stop perverting justice, yes, there can be no moral distinction between the terror gangs and the security services.
“What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?”
Well, indeed. In Daniel’s world there is no moral distinction between him and the law-abiding police officer protecting the public.
“What about the security forces planting bombs or spraying pubs or vans?”
Not aware of any, but if they did, Daniel thinks they would have been morally equivalent to law-abiding security forces.
“You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall.”
Corrupt to their core? Goodness. Any evidence for this?
What about the policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house and hospitalising his family?”
Well, indeed. In Daniel’s world there is no moral distinction between him and the law-abiding police officer protecting the public. ”
MT, only you could consider a policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house to be a law-abiding police officer protecting the public.
There is no hope for you im afraid.
“You are still talking like the security forces were simply protectors of the peace, and while many were there for that reason, these organisations were corrupt to their core and right the way to Whitehall.”
Corrupt to their core? Goodness. Any evidence for this?”
There is plenty. Lets hope it is released sometime soon.
It is blatantly clear from our conversations, there can be and will be no reconciliation between our communities without the truth.
How can you understand why my community reacted as it did against the British if you don’t know and don’t want to know the truth about what the British did here?
“MT, only you could consider a policeman beating to death an innocent man in his own house to be a law-abiding police officer protecting the public.”
Please apologise and retract that scurrilous lie immediately. Unlike you, I oppose and condemn all unjust violence.
“Corrupt to their core? Goodness. Any evidence for this?” There is plenty. Lets hope it is released sometime soon.
If there’s plenty perhaps you could point to it?
I don’t believe that statehood necessarily or automatically confers some magical sense of moral righteousness, justness or even legitimacy upon the state concerned. Even when a state is acting within the bounds of its own laws – laws the state itself constructed in service of its own interests, conveniently – it doesn’t render the state’s existence, claims or actions necessarily righteous or just. Do you regard ISIS as righteous, just or legitimate simply by virtue of the fact they profess to possess statehood?
In fact, what statehood often does is create an imbalance or inequality in political, military, legal and bargaining power, thus limiting the tactics of one side (lacking statehood) to less conventional methods. We presently see this in the conflict in the Middle East, for example. I’d be more interested in seeing there the creation of a situation where oppressed Palestinians don’t feel cornered into employing desperate military tactics than sit here pontificating to them over their reactions to injustice. There are two sides to conflict. It’s complex, messy and certainly not black-and-white. You only wish to see one side. It’s a mindset that isn’t remotely conducive to resolution. You’re entitled to harbour such a mindset; it’s just the associated sense of moral superiority that grates. It’s hardly justified.
“I don’t believe that statehood necessarily or automatically confers some magical sense of moral righteousness, justness or even legitimacy upon the state concerned. Even when a state is acting within the bounds of its own laws – laws the state itself constructed in service of its own interests, conveniently – it doesn’t render the state’s existence, claims or actions necessarily righteous or just. Do you regard ISIS as righteous, just or legitimate simply by virtue of the fact they profess to possess statehood? In fact, what statehood often does is create an imbalance or inequality in political, military, legal and bargaining power, thus limiting the tactics of one side (lacking statehood) to less conventional methods. We presently see this in the conflict in the Middle East, for example. I’d be more interested in seeing there the creation of a situation where oppressed Palestinians don’t feel cornered into employing desperate military tactics than sit here pontificating to them over their reactions to injustice. There are two sides to conflict. It’s complex, messy and certainly not black-and-white. You only wish to see one side. It’s a mindset that isn’t remotely conducive to resolution. You’re entitled to harbour such a mindset; it’s just the associated sense of moral superiority that grates. It’s hardly justified.”
Not sure what point you’re addressing but any point that I would have made would have been in relation to democratic states.
“Neither is it well-known that the British army were considerably less discriminate statistically in who they targeted than the IRA were. A total of 54.4 per cent of the state security forces’ victims were non-combatants, whilst the corresponding total for militant republican groups was 35.6 per cent.”
What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, because PIRA also murderered around 1000 “combatants” thus making their non-combatant murders proportionately less.
MT
The deaths of civilians at the hands of security forces was terrible and each one deserves proper investigation.
The specious argument from statistics used by Daniel is very weak and carries unpleasant undertones,in my view.
As though all those deaths do not matter provided the data can somehow be presented to make the IRA look better.
“The deaths of civilians at the hands of security forces was terrible and each one deserves proper investigation.”
Take deep breaths gio, the light headedness will pass, just relax.
jessica
Ho Ho’
Actually I have been consistent in that view in the past.
Because I may challenge the Shinner view of the world at times does not mean I support state wrongdoing and/or cover up.
Now how do you feel about all those civilians the IRA decided should give up their lives for the cause?
“Now how do you feel about all those civilians the IRA decided should give up their lives for the cause?”
I think the introduction of the gun into Irish politics was the worst thing ever happened.
I think the introduction of Para militarism in 1912, the importing of weapons in 1914 and the rejection of the democratic will of the Irish people for independence was evil if consistent throughout the history of British rule in Ireland..
I think the failures of British and unionist leaders in the 50 years after partition was shameful, and the events that led to the start of the conflict in 1968 was unnecessary and born out of unjustified unbridled hatred.
I believe the necessity for there to ever be an IRA ruined many lives not only the people killed by the organisation as a result, but the many, many wasted lives within the organisation and the wider community from which it came.
What I wont do, is blame the IRA for Irelands conflicts which were started by unionism, nor will I consider any victim, civilian or otherwise to be less deserving of sympathy over any other.
As you well know, the conflict was never an IRA cause, the cause grew out of their participation in a prolonged conflict which required internal and external support in order for combatants from a civilian population to take on an imperial global superpower.
You misinterpret if you think that’s what I was doing. The double standard is my main problem. I could just as easily say that your attempted sanitisation of the British state’s conduct is as unpleasant. Remember, this is a state that employed proxies to buttress its “legal” power.
“What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, because PIRA also murderered around 1000 “combatants” thus making their non-combatant murders proportionately less.”
So what you are saying, is that during the conflict, those killed by the PIRA were murdered but those killed by the army were simply killings.
I was thinking that must be down to it being a just war and there are no murders in a just war according to you MT.
But then you go on to make a comparison between non-combatant murders involving 200 by the British army. Wow, that is a lot of murder for a non terrorist organisation.
But that only got me thinking more about just war theory you keep going on about, with there usually being two sides to every story and all.
You said the Falklands was a just war.
Does that mean you believe the Argentinians were justified in going to war and killing to take back part of their nation from British rule?
Or is just war theory really just a biased excuse for conflict based on a narrow point of view?
MT; your use of the term “murder” to refer to deaths for which the IRA were responsible is telling whilst you refer to deaths at the hands of the British army as “killings”. Now that reads like apologia for the actions of a bent state. Why the crass double standard?
And you accuse me of having let some mask slip?…
“MT; your use of the term “murder” to refer to deaths for which the IRA were responsible is telling whilst you refer to deaths at the hands of the British army as “killings”. Now that reads like apologia for the actions of a bent state. Why the crass double standard?”
There is no double standard, crass or otherwise. It’s simply factual that not all security force killings were murders. As well as some murders and other unlawful killings, some were lawful and others accidental.
MT, do you consider the MRF or FRU to be security forces?
They were, yes, of course. Why do you ask?
A fascinating piece of writing here, MT, that was tweeted to me by its writer after she’d read my own piece: http://thegreatrefusal.tumblr.com/post/131217896155/corbyn-the-ira-mock-outrage-faux-concern
It covers similar themes but looks more closely at the UK’s monopoly on violence and at how the legitimacy of violence is mediated in a hypocritical fashion by the state and establishment media.
Well worth a read.
“What Daniel appears to be trying to say here is that 700-odd “non-combatant” murders by PIRA wasn’t as bad as fewer than 200 Army killings, ”
‘200 army killings’? It’s noticeable you don’t refer to them as murders M.T. Btw the killings/murders attributed to British army terrorism is debatable. For example, the figures not taken into account are the murders they carried out when ‘off duty'(nairac) or indeed the murders that they directed their proxies to do. Do you wanna open up that box Pandora?
A superb piece Jude. An article that at one moment can produce anger (remembered), followed by the satisfaction that while truth and honesty can be distorted by the “establishment” and their hacks, there are still people around like your cousin who can say “Sorry to disappoint you guys but this is how it really was”. An ageing lefty thanks your cousin.
Mick
Many thanks for your compliments and words of appreciation, Mick.
It would appear that Mr Massie is labouring under a misapprehension.
“It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Féin and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency…”
It is more accurate, however, to state:
“Those living in working-class Catholic areas (within what was and still is an inherently contested territory created via an imposed process of gerrymandering before and once the conflict broke out…”
There is much talk about “drama” and “deadlines for the appointment of a Justice Minister” at Stormont. The acid test for the appointment of a Justice Minister will be the basis of his/her mandate.
It is strange inded that any reference to the six counties is regarded as being politically incorrect but when did partition become politically acceptable or decent?
It seems unlikely the Spectator was trying to suppress Daniel’s views given there are numerous comments appearing which contradict the opinion piece including at least one with similar points.
As far as I can see the points Daniel was trying to make were familiar and hardly new to anyone who has read anything about the ‘troubles’.
There can be no doubt that Corbyn appears naive now in his expressions of support for the IRA and it is not surprising he should wish to downplay that now.
Well, the comment was pending for a number of hours and then they simply deleted it, so someone from the Spectator censored it, whatever their reasoning was.
A brilliant and concise piece of writing, the problem with people like this Massie is they do not live here. They would probably need an atlas to find Ireland. Interesting statistics regarding the deaths of non combatants, reminds me of the UDA man told to shoot an IRA man but if he couldn`t find him just shoot someone who looks like one. The people in Britain have been fed a diet of propaganda about Ireland, same as they are ignorant about other areas of the world, their boys can do no wrong. The natives are bad .Arlene was right about the conflict being a struggle between good and evil or whatever, she just got the sides mixed up.
I think the media have withheld from the truth from the British public and I for one am very very tired of being lied to by the so called establishnent
Like most decent people I hate and abbhor violence but I understand the British army and other paramilitaries were involved in the needless deaths of innocent people including children shot in the head with rubber bullets and it sickens me down to my soul.Who doesnt want piece apart from the authors of murder who want to rewrite history to tell their lie. ?
“I think the media have withheld from the truth from the British public and I for one am very very tired of being lied to by the so called establishnent”
It is not really the media that is withholding the truth, it is primarily the British state under the guise of national security.
Events that happened over 40 years ago are not current matters of national security, I think enough evidence has slipped through the cracks that the whole world knows Britain was up to its neck in it and no one is willing to push them, not even our own nations government which is so sad.
“It is strange inded that any reference to the six counties is regarded as being politically incorrect but when did partition become politically acceptable or decent?”
It was nationalists who first advocated partition. Unionists only came to favour it in response to nationalist support for it.
Evidence?
“It was nationalists who first advocated partition. Unionists only came to favour it in response to nationalist support for it.”
That’s right, the Easter rising was really to divide Ireland, the bit in the proclamation ref an alien government fostering division was actually reverse psychology to force unionists into a false sense of insecurity so Catholics could persuade them to keep control over 6 counties so they could treat us like shit, and only after numerous cups of tea and Mrs Doyle style persuasion, go on go on, ya will ya will did they finally throw the towel in and agree to it.
Your head is a marley MT. It really is.
Excellent analysis Jessica. Don’t know why I hadn’t considered the reverse psychology bit :):):)
MT is obviously way ahead of the rest of us
“MT is obviously way ahead of the rest of us”
In the up direction anyway, his head is way up there in the clouds.
“That’s right, the Easter rising was really to divide Ireland, the bit in the proclamation ref an alien government fostering division was actually reverse psychology to force unionists into a false sense of insecurity so Catholics could persuade them to keep control over 6 counties so they could treat us like shit, and only after numerous cups of tea and Mrs Doyle style persuasion, go on go on, ya will ya will did they finally throw the towel in and agree to it.”
Eh? The aim of the Easter “Rising” was to partition the British Isles. Just as was the aim of the home rule movement. It was only in response to that that unionists began to ga our the partition of Ireland.
“The aim of the Easter “Rising” was to partition the British Isles.”
Only along the Irish sea MT.
You are a hoot, you really are.
M isn’t for moses by any chance, parting the irish sea.
“Only along the Irish sea MT.”
And?
“Only along the Irish sea MT.”
And?”
And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them.
As I said, you are a hoot MT.
“And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them.”
I wasn’t ‘accusing’ them of anything, merely observing that they were partitionists before unionists were. I agree that the irony is amusing.
“And I found it amusing that you were accusing Irish nationalists of seeking the partition of the UK between two separate islands and along the Irish sea which stands between them. I wasn’t ‘accusing’ them of anything, merely observing that they were partitionists before unionists were. I agree that the irony is amusing.”
Sure, nationalists partitioned the british isles.
Pity we couldn’t partition them a bit further and pull Ireland around to the Mediterranean for a spot of better weather.
Wait til fiosrach sees that one. spot
Excellent writing altogether Daniel, in both your main article and in your subsequent comments. Well done and keep up the good work.
I can’t make up my mind over which of the Collins’ is the better writer 🙂 Both fantastic I think and credit to you’s.
Thanks, Patrick, and glad you found the read worthwhile. Will do. I’ll take that as a compliment!
A poster going by the name of ‘deiseach’ left the following message under the piece on my blog: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/the-spectator-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-ira/#comment-383
I thought it worth sharing. As if Massie’s piece wasn’t hypocritical enough in its one-sided approach to the conflict and its violence, it transpires that he wasn’t actually so keen on the peace process himself back in the day. In fact, he was bad-mouthing it as late as 2007, yet has the gall to throw accusations at John McDonnell (who now fully endorses it).
“I’ve been following Alex’s output for years. We were acquainted – not friends, he wouldn’t remember me – in college and he’s a smart, agreeable man. I say this so as not to come across as a complete geek when I refer to how Alex is engaging in a bit of airbrushing himself when he speak of the peace as something worthwhile. He was quite scornful of it throughout the Noughties, routinely calling it the “peace process” (his exclamation marks). (http://debatableland.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00d83451b73069e200d83451b73269e2/search?filter.q=%22peace+process%22). You have to laugh at him now accusing McDonnell of opposing the peace process – no exclamation marks now, eh Alex?”