The mis-interpretations of our situation in the north of Ireland by the Irish Times and others were a large part of the reason why the conflict lasted so long. Nowadays, the Irish Times would be seen as a proponent of alternative truth – the “truth” presented according to what you believe and say about it now rather than according to what really happened. The Irish Times was quite an early fore-runner of the Trump era tactic. It used to be known as thoroughly bad history, or propaganda.
On January 7, 1988, the Irish Times published a patronising editorial titled ‘Excuses’ referring to a discussion document that Fr Des Wilson and myself had written and published a short time before. In our joint statement we gave an analysis of the ongoing violence in the north. We had both seen and witnessed a lot of violence and as priests in the community we felt it necessary to offer an explanation for why we thought the violence had continued for so long. We felt that as there seemed to be little or no prospect of an end to the shootings and bombings the issue of political violence had to be tackled in a serious way by identifying the root causes. We offered our analysis of the historical reasons for the IRA violence and stated clearly that we believed the primary violence came from the British side. We thought it was important to distinguish the different kinds of violence in our society and we suggested that until the underlying causes of violence were addressed, then it would continue. There was no reason to believe that the IRA was about to end the campaign and we, at that time, saw no prospect of the British and the loyalist paramilitaries accepting that they should fold up shop and that there should be a political initiative involving republicans. The situation pained us both as we had to attend many wakes and funerals of victims and we could see the harm the continuation of the violence was causing in our communities. We wanted an end to the violence and we did not think that it would come about as a result of repeated clerical condemnations of ‘the men of violence’.
We were prompted to write our analysis by the constant superficial reporting by the Irish Times and by RTE and others of a deep seated political problem. Condemnations were not working. We felt that there was need for another more honest approach that would try to understand the underlying causes of the violence inIreland. Of course this was regarded by the Irish Times as making ‘Excuses’. How sick was that! We expressed our concern about the unbalanced reaction in the media to the bomb in Enniskillen in November 1987. We were prompted to write because of the failure of our church leaders to adequately deal with the whole question of the underlying reasons for the years of violence that we had witnessed and experienced all our lives, one of us in Fermanagh and the other in Belfast.
The writer of the Irish Times editorial decided to attack us personally by making ignorant remarks like ‘these two priests are not typical of the Catholic priesthood.’ How would they know? They never bothered to find out. The writer of the editorial accused us of making ‘excuses’ for the Enniskillen bomb that had occurred some months before that in November 1987. This was just so crass. The editorial stated that what we had written “could only be understood by many within the Protestant community as an excuse for the bomb.” The writer of the Irish Times editorial wrote that what “we may have done was made it easier for Protestants to go on hating Catholics; perhaps indeed to go on killing them.” Such an outrageous comment and in the circumstances a very dangerous one.
At the time we decided not to pay any attention to it or engage in any debate with the paper. People would make up their own minds about the integrity of the outrageous response to our Statement on Violence in the North of Ireland. The attack on us in that editorial on January 7 1988, by an unnamed journalist was scurrilous and disgraceful. At least, we had the courtesy to put our names to our statement.
“The mis-interpretations of our situation in the north of Ireland by the Irish Times and others were a large part of the reason why the conflict lasted so long.”
Why do you believe this?
“Nowadays, the Irish Times would be seen as a proponent of alternative truth – the “truth” presented according to what you believe and say about it now rather than according to what really happened.”
Who sees the Irish Times in this way?
“We expressed our concern about the unbalanced reaction in the media to the bomb in Enniskillen in November 1987.”
The media reaction to this event was one of shock, outrage and sadness. If this was ‘unbalanced’, are you suggesting that some media outlets should have reacted sympathetically with the bombers?
“The writer of the editorial accused us of making ‘excuses’ for the Enniskillen bomb that had occurred some months before that in November 1987. This was just so crass. The editorial stated that what we had written “could only be understood by many within the Protestant community as an excuse for the bomb.” The writer of the Irish Times editorial wrote that what “we may have done was made it easier for Protestants to go on hating Catholics; perhaps indeed to go on killing them.” Such an outrageous comment and in the circumstances a very dangerous one.”
Perhaps you could reproduce your letter and allow the readers of Jude’s blog to judge for themselves whether or not the Irish Times criticism of your letter was fair.
Without us being able to see the letter, I struggle to see the point of your article.
“The attack on us in that editorial on January 7 1988, by an unnamed journalist was scurrilous and disgraceful. At least, we had the courtesy to put our names to our statement.”
Post up your letter and the editorial and let us decide for ourselves.
Have to agree with MT. Post both texts
MT – Maybe before asking Joe to post his letter and the editorial for you to pass judgment, you should post your legal qualifications which would give you the right to pass such judgment!
Sherdy
What rubbish.
Do we need legal qualifications now to express our opinions on something?
What we do need is all the information and surely MT is quite right in asking for a look at the original correspondence.
“MT – Maybe before asking Joe to post his letter and the editorial for you to pass judgment, you should post your legal qualifications which would give you the right to pass such judgment!”
Eh?
The thundering editorials of The Unionist Times directed at the underlings of Paddyland might well be anthologised under the title of , say, A View of the Present State of Ireland.
Coincidentally, this was the title of a pamphlet published in 1596, a little more than four hundred years before the editorial quoted in the blog above. This pamphlet was also penned in blunderbuss prose, appropriate to TUT-tut-ing..
It was published in the days of an early Spenser by the name of Edmund who was a poet bloke who liked to toss his pearly lyrics in front the the locals on both sides of the Black Sow’s Dyke.
Spenser was a Yes man for Good Queen Bess , and luckily for him, she proved an Aunt who just can’t say no. And so he ended up in Cork as a plant par excellence with a Plantation. (Castle included, sans hassle). The name of his most callbrated poem was, unsurprisingly: ‘The Fairie Queen’.
The pamphlet amplified this early, pearly Spencer’s take on the Taigs from whom, it must be said in fairness, he caught the ague, and could be summarised in a cúpla focal:
-scorched earth.
Remarkably, this holocaust policy was not at all four hundred miles away, albeit four hundred years, from the policy of his political descendant whose take on the Taigs of the Bog-oak Monolith was expressed succinctly in a sourpuss way throughout the duration of the Trubs , thus:
-blowtorched mirth.
Though Section 31 is now brown bread, nonetheless its Malady lingers on:
GAGGING RIGHTS
Far worse than the abuse of a RC censer
Was the Curse of the Free Stateen censor
The Fakir of Fake News
Was Lord Conor Cruise
Twas always thus since d’days of Early Spenser.
Nice poem!