SAOIRSE32 - Archives

An Phoblacht

Combating violence against women

Violence against women has many faces. From birth to death, in times of peace and conflict, women face aggression at the hands of state, community and family. In some countries, the life of a woman is considered so worthless that baby girls get discarded, abandoned and even killed. Every year millions of women are raped by partners, relatives, friends and sometimes strangers, by employers and colleagues, security officials and soldiers. The overwhelming majority of those affected by violence at home are also women and girls. In recent conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan and Congo, we have seen how violence has been used as a weapon to dehumanise women themselves or to prosecute the community to which they belong.

All around the world, different actions took place on Thursday 25 November, International Day Against Violence Against Women, to highlight that violence against women is a problem that affects everybody in society.

It's in our hands: Stop violence against women, a report published by Amnesty International, investigates causes, forms and remedies, and highlights the responsibility of the state, the community and individuals for taking action to end violence against women.

This report finds that violence against women is not confined to any particular political or economic system, but is prevalent in every society in the world. It cuts across boundaries of wealth, race and culture. The power structures within society which perpetuate violence against women are deep-rooted. The experience or threat of violence inhibits women everywhere from fully exercising and enjoying their human rights.

Women throughout the world have organised to expose and counter violence against women. They have forced changes in laws, policies and practices through their work to bring those responsible to account. They have brought the violations against their human rights out of the shadows and into the spotlight. They have established that this violence demands a response from those who, in many cases, are responsible for that violence: governments, communities and individuals.

The women's movement has, above all, challenged the view of women as passive victims, as despite the many obstacles and threats, women are leading the struggle to prevent further violence.

The struggle to establish women's rights as human rights has not been easy. Despite its prevalence, it was not until the 1990s that violence against women emerged as a focus of international attention and concern. In 1993, the UN General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Resolution 48/104. In the next two years, at both the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, women's organisations from around the world advocated ending gender violence as a high priority. The Cairo Programme of Action recognised that gender violence is an obstacle to women's reproductive and sexual health and rights, and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action devoted an entire section to the issue of violence against women.

In March 1994, the Commission on Human Rights appointed the first Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and empowered her to investigate abuses of women's human rights. In the same year, the Organisation of American States (OAS) negotiated the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Violence Against Women. As of 1998, 27 Latin American countries had ratified the convention.

In May 1996 the 49th World Health Assembly adopted a resolution (WHA49.25) declaring violence a public health priority. WHO is sponsoring, together with the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence.

More recently, in September 1998 the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) brought together 400 experts from 37 countries to discuss the causes and costs of domestic violence, and policies and programs to address it. The IDB currently funds research and demonstration projects on violence against women in six Latin American countries. That same year, UNIFEM launched regional campaigns in Africa, Asia/Pacific, and Latin America designed to draw attention to the issue of violence against women globally. UNIFEM also manages The Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, an initiative that has disbursed US$3.3 million to 71 projects around the world since 1996.

Then, in 1999, the United Nations Population Fund declared violence against women "a public health priority".

An enormous range of anti-violence initiatives now operate in all parts of the world. Some are run by small grass-roots women's groups, others by large international agencies, and still others by governments. Moreover, growing research efforts have resulted in an increasingly detailed and sophisticated understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women. Yet the violence continues.

Case studies

One of the cases highlighted by Amnesty is that of Grace Patrick Akpan, who was stopped by police officers for an identity check in Catanzaro, Italy, in February 1996.When she told them that she was an Italian citizen, they answered that "a black woman cannot be an Italian citizen". She was physically assaulted by the officers and required two weeks' hospital treatment. In October 1999, almost three years later, the officers responsible were found guilty of abusing their powers and causing Grace Patrick Akpan's injuries. They were sentenced to just two months' probation.

In Chihuahua, Mexico, the lack of political will to investigate the reasons behind the disappearance of more than 400 young women and to put in place resources to save other women from suffering a similar fate have forced families and friend of the victims to organise themselves. The organisation, Justice for our Daughters, counts on the support of barristers and lawyers that are acting for the families of the victims and works to force the authorities to act on what is happening to young women in Mexico. They have already denounced how they have received threats themselves.

These cases, and many others around the world, show how violence against women -which is never normal, legal or acceptable and should never be tolerated or justified - is sometimes if not allowed, then accepted. This attitude should change and everyone - individuals, communities, governments, and international bodies - has a responsibility to put a stop to it and to redress the suffering it causes.

Change must come at international, national and local levels. It must be brought about by governments as well as private actors, by institutions as well as individuals.

Taking action

In Spain, violence against women has become one of the main items of public and political discussion. Incidents of domestic violence are now widely reported in the press and the government is prepared to enact new legislation so those responsible for this kind of violence serve longer prison sentences. However, there is a very long way to go, as this year more than 52 Spanish women died as a consequence of violence inflicted by their current or former partners.

In Colombia, thousands of women took to the streets on Thursday 25 November to protest the impact of the civil conflict in their lives. The massive fumigations against huge areas under the excuse of eradicating coca plantations, carried out by the Colombian army and financed by the US administration, the forced displacement of populations escaping the conflict areas and the poverty that these situations create, affect the lives of million of women in Colombia. This year, women marched to El Chocó, where a high percentage of the population suffer discrimination not only because of their poverty, but also because of their Afro-Colombian origin, and where the violence of the armed conflict is a daily occurrence.

In Pakistan, it is estimated that around 1,000 women are killed every year due to the so-called honour-crime. To ask for a divorce, to have relationships outside wedlock or to offend the family honour are enough reasons for those women to be murdered, mutilated or burned alive. The Feminist Association of Legal Assistance for Women opened a women's refuge in the area of Punjab in 1990, where they provide assistance and a home to women who have been threatened with - or have already suffered - this kind of violence.

In Morocco, since 1993, the organisation Centre for Listening and Legal and Psychological Assistance for women victims of violence has been working to improve the situation of women in the North African country.

International Day Against Violence Against Women has come and gone. Since then, more women have died due to incidents of violence. Only when women gain their place as equal members of society will violence against women no longer be an invisible norm but, instead, a shocking aberration.

DEFINITION

Violence against Women is defined as:

"Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life."

UN Declaration on the

Elimination of Violence against Women

Violence

against women includes:

Violence in the family.

This includes:

• Battering by intimate partners,

• Sexual abuse of female children in the household,

• Dowry-related violence,

• Marital rape and female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women.

It also covers abuse of domestic workers such as:

• Involuntary confinement, physical brutality,

• Slavery-like conditions and sexual assault.

Violence in the community.

This includes:

• Rape,

• Sexual abuse,

• Sexual harassment and assault at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere.

• Trafficking, forced prostitution and forced labour fall into this category, which also covers rape and other abuses by armed groups.

Violence by the state.

This includes

• Acts of violence committed or condoned by police, prison guards, soldiers, border guards, immigration officials and so on, such as rape by government forces during armed conflict, torture in custody and violence by officials against refugee women.

In any of these categories, violence may be physical, psychological, and sexual.

STATISTICS

The statistics on violence against women reveal a worldwide human rights catastrophe. However, these figures represent the tip of the iceberg. Violence against women is generally under-reported because women are ashamed or fear disbelief, hostility or further violence.

• At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Usually, the abuser is a member of her own family or someone known to her.

• The Council of Europe has stated that domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability for women aged 16 to 44 and accounts for more death and ill-health than cancer or traffic accidents.

• More than 60 million women are "missing" from the world today as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. China's last census in the year 2000 revealed that the ratio of newborn girls to boys was 100:119.The biological norm is 100:103.

• In the USA, women accounted for 85% of the victims of domestic violence in 1999, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

• The Russian government estimates that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999,yet the country still has no law specifically addressing domestic violence.

• The World Health Organisation has reported that up to 70% of female murder victims are killed by their male partners.

PREVENTION

Preventing violence against women requires us to:

• Speak out against violence against women, listen to women and believe them;

• Condemn violence against women as the major human rights scandal of our times;

• Confront those in authority if they fail to prevent, punish and redress violence against women;

• Challenge religious, social, and cultural attitudes and stereotypes which diminish women's humanity;

• Promote women's equal access to political power, decision-making and resources;

• Support women to organise themselves to stop the violence.

An Phoblacht

Defending Tom Barry and the Boys of Kilmichael


Photo: Historian and author Meda Ryan

Historian Meda Ryan last weekend defended the reputations of Tom Barry and his fellow IRA men, who inflicted a devastating blow against British forces in Cork on 28 November 1920 in the famous Kilmichael Ambush.

The ambushing of the British Auxiliary force was in response to a campaign of terror and brutality carried out by Macroom based Auxiliaries on communities in Mid and West Cork prior to the ambush. Revisionists have of late challenged Barry's account that the British Auxiliaries caught in the ambush surrendered, only to treacherously pick up their guns again when the IRA broke cover.

Ryan, author of the book, Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter, chose the very site of the historic ambush to make her rebuttal, at the invitation of the Kilmichael and Crossbarry Commemoration Committee, before 2,000 people gathered to honour the memory of Barry and his 36 comrades.

The following is the text of her oration.

On this spot, 84 years ago today, the first major ambush against the British forces in Ireland took place. It was Sunday 28 November 1920. Here at Kilmichael, Tom Barry and 36 young Volunteers took on the dreaded Auxiliaries who were stationed in Macroom Castle at the time. We are here today to commemorate this event, and to recall the bravery of Barry and his men and to remember also Jim O'Sullivan, Michael MacCarthy and Pat Deasy, who were fatally wounded here. These young men were tricked into accepting a false surrender by Auxiliaries, who had fought in the Great War and most of whom were commissioned officers.

Due to a certain type of historical revisionism in recent years, a cloud has hung over the Kilmichael Ambush and the actions of its commander, Tom Barry, on that day. A controversy has surrounded this ambush because all, except two, of the Auxiliaries who participated were killed on the site. The question posed is whether or not these Auxiliary soldiers surrendered, and subsequently took up guns and again used them against the Volunteers.

In 1998, Peter Hart, who was attached to Queen's University Belfast and now lives in Newfoundland, stated that Tom Barry's history of Kilmichael "is riddled with lies and evasions" — strong words about a man who was known for his uprightness and courage, and who fought against so much odds during the War of Independence.

In my research I could not find Barry's lies, nor did I discover where the evasions occurred, as Barry accepted full responsibility for the Kilmichael Ambush.

Peter Hart has based his theory mainly on three separate issues.

(First): On the official British establishment publication of the ambush details.

(Second): On a report that Barry allegedly wrote after the ambush.

(Third): On interviews, two of which he conducted himself.

Let us return to the reason the Volunteers found it necessary to undertake military action. Home Rule, which looked imminent before the Great War, was suspended for its duration, but it was not honoured when the war ended. The overwhelming success of Sinn Féin in the 1918 election meant that the Irish people placed their trust in their own representatives. The meeting of the First Dáil on 21 January 1919 laid the constitutional basis of the new Irish State. However, the British parliament declared it an illegal assembly.

The oath of allegiance to the Dáil of the Irish Republic by the Volunteers established them as an army for that parliament. As the RIC scoured the country and arrested Volunteers and Sinn Féin members, it was obvious that the British Government did not want the Irish people to control their own destiny. Tom Barry himself said: "When we went into the revolution, we had to feel that we were doing it for a purpose, we had been slaves for 700 years. When we tried to break free of this, they proclaimed anything that was nationalistic. Our people resisted arrest and that resistance led to shooting," and ultimately to guerrilla warfare.

On the 28th day of November, the Auxiliaries, who were stationed at Macroom Castle, had created terror among the citizens in these local districts. House raids, beating men, taunting women and taking pot shots at civilians who worked in the fields was their method of intimidating the people. The intention was to dampen the spirits of Volunteers. The activities of these Auxiliaries encroached on the Cork No 3 Brigade area, the border of which is just down the road from Kilmichael. On Sundays previous to this, these Auxiliaries travelled in Crossley tenders as they went on their rampage. So they had to be apprehended within Cork No 1 Brigade area — on the stretch of road before they reached Gleann crossroads, which led in different directions, just west of Kilmichael. Tom Barry felt there should be no further delay in challenging them.

PREPARATION

Tom Barry had been appointed Training Officer and Commanding Officer of the 3rd West Cork Brigade Flying Column. This spot was carefully chosen. Barry borrowed an IRA tunic from Paddy O'Brien in order to slow down any approaching enemy lorry. At 2am on the morning of 28 November, the Column met in Sullivan's Ahalina, outside Enniskeane. Each man was armed with a rifle and 35 rounds of ammunition; a few had revolvers and Barry had two Mills bombs.

Fr O'Connell had heard the men's confessions at the side of the road. It was 3am on this extremely cold, wet night when the men were told that they were moving to Kilmichael to take on the dreaded Macroom-based Auxiliaries.

Barry and his men walked through by-roads and cross country, mainly in silence. They trudged on, locked in their own thoughts as the November rain lashed against them. They were drenched when they reached Kilmichael. Meanwhile, Pat Deasy, who had been ill during training, had been replaced by another man. Now well again, Deasy had followed the Column close behind, and pleaded with Barry to participate in the ambush. Barry agreed.

It was 8.15am when the Column reached the ambush position. The men were wet, cold and hungry. Barry gave them their positions and told them that the terrain allowed for no retreat.

Barry's plan was straightforward. He would be at the Command Post, supported by three picked marksmen.

THE AMBUSH

Section 1, was up on the rocks, in from the Command Post. Section 2, was just behind the monument. Section 3 was subdivided, with half of the men just around the bend and the other half across the road. Two scouts were north of the road and one south of the Command post.

The hours passed slowly. The men, without food since 6 o'clock the previous evening, lay in their rain-sodden clothes. Then the people in an isolated house sent down a few buckets of tea and a homemade cake — all these people had — but this meagre supply of food did not go far. The men waited, and the day dragged. As the day wore on it began to freeze, so that the clothes froze on their bodies as they hid behind the rocks. All the time, Barry stood on the open road, as he fingered his Mills bomb. He was about to call off the ambush when a sidecar with some Volunteers arrived — they hadn't received mobilisation orders on time. Barry acted instantly and shouted to them to gallop up the side boreen.

Just a few minutes later, at 4.05pm, the first lorry came round the bend and began to slow as it neared the uniformed figure. Barry hurled the bomb, blew the whistle and fired the automatic.

The grenade must have landed on the driver's seat because the lorry lurched forward, then stopped a few yards in front of the Command Post where Barry stood. The Auxiliaries jumped out and there was sharp fighting, even hand-to-hand action. When the men in the first lorry had been dealt with, Barry commanded the three men beside him at the Command Post to move with him towards the second lorry. This lorry had been engaged by No 2 Section, which was in the middle of the ambush area, behind the monument, high up on the rocks.

The second group of Auxiliaries had taken up positions beside the ditch on the road. Some also had taken cover behind their lorry as the fight went on. Barry, with the three men at the Command Post, crouched along the dyke and stole along at the back. When they were about half way between the two lorries they heard the Auxiliaries shout, "We surrender! We surrender!" Some actually threw away their rifles and the firing stopped. The Volunteers accepted the surrender. In No 2 Section some Volunteers, who thought it was over, stood up. But the Auxiliaries again took up their guns; some used their revolvers to open fire. Following this encounter, three Volunteers were fatally wounded.

Realising that the Auxiliaries had made a false surrender, Barry shouted at his men to retaliate.

Barry and the three men with him dropped into a prone position and began a rapid fire. Other Volunteers in No 2 Section did likewise. The Auxiliaries knew they were sandwiched between two groups of men. Once again they shouted, "We surrender"; but at this stage Barry shouted to his men to keep firing and "do not stop until I tell you". Later he said: "Now for that I take full responsibility... The only blame I have to myself is that I didn't warn these young lads about the old war trick of a false surrender." He never forgave himself for this.

It was a tough fight and when all the Auxiliaries appeared dead, Barry then gave the ceasefire order. Two Volunteers in No 2 Section, Michael McCarthy and Jim O'Sullivan, were dead, and Pat Deasy, who had been sick and had pleaded with Barry to take part, was seriously wounded. He died later. Barry sent scouts for a priest and a doctor, and ordered the lorries to be burned. Many of the Column men were in shock. Barry, conscious of this and of the need to jerk them back to reality, ordered the men to get into formation, gave the "attention" command and ordered them to reload. He marched and counter-marched his Column, their faces lit in the winter twilight by the flickering light from the burning vehicles. Barry halted with the Column before the rock, where the bodies of the two dead Volunteers lay, and ordered them to "present arms".

CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS

In the controversy that has surrounded this ambush, Peter Hart treated unfavourably the role Tom Barry played in the fight for freedom. Though Hart has accepted that there was a surrender that day at Kilmichael, in his analysis he does not accept that there was a false surrender. But I suggest that because the Auxiliaries put their guns to use once more after a surrender, they re-activated the fight. Therefore, they engaged in a false surrender.

To back-up his argument, Peter Hart interviewed two people, whom he has acknowledged as having participated in the ambush. However, he does not name these people and only gives them anonymous initials.

You, here today, would wonder why any of the men who fought with Tom Barry on this day 84 years ago would want to remain anonymous. I question it also. Why will Peter Hart not name these men?

Furthermore, he says he interviewed one of the men in 1988, and another, a scout, on 19 November 1989. We all understood that the last survivor of the Kilmichael Ambush was rifleman Ned Young, whose faculties were impaired during his final years; he died on 13 November 1989 aged 97. We remember Jack O'Sullivan, the second last survivor, who died in 1986, Tim O'Connell in 1983, and my uncle, Pat O'Donovan, died in 1981. While they were able, these men stood on this platform here at the annual commemoration.

According to the records that I consulted, there were three scouts on ambush location during the fight. Dan O'Driscoll, the last of these three scouts, died in 1967. So who was Scout AF who spoke to Peter Hart on 19 November 1989? Why will Peter Hart not reveal the names of the two men he says he interviewed, whom he has acknowledged in his sources as having participated in the Kilmichael Ambush? If he revealed the names, then the credibility of these two witnesses who claim to give a first-hand account could be examined. Their version of events given to Peter Hart contradicts so many others. And while Peter Hart fails to reveal the identity of his anonymous sources, the story of the Kilmichael Ambush will remain clouded in controversy.

This is extremely important for history and for the men who fought in the 3rd West Cork Brigade. Peter Hart has claimed that Barry and his men killed prisoners on that day. But the Auxiliaries engaged in a false surrender, therefore they were not prisoners. By using guns after calling a surrender, they had resumed the fight. Therefore, as soldiers, they had to accept the consequences. Barry took up the challenge and the engagement was then fought to its conclusion.

In this locality and countywide, it was known in 1920 that there was a false surrender here at Kilmichael on that day.

Brigadier General Crozier, Commander of the Auxiliary forces in Ireland in 1920-'21, acknowledged that there was a false surrender. Even Lionel Curtis, Imperial activist and advisor to Lloyd George, accepted the false surrender in his writings in 1921. Stephen O'Neill, Section Commander during the ambush, wrote about the false surrender. There are other records to back up the false surrender story — many I could name, including my own uncle, Pat O'Donovan in Section 2, who was annoyed and upset about the false surrender because comrades were killed due to this deceitful action.

These Auxiliaries were commissioned officers with war experience and many had been decorated, so they knew the rules of war. They knew when to fire and when not to; they knew that when they shouted, "we surrender" it meant exactly that — a surrender — a ceasefire.

It is also important to state that the British cabinet accepted that the ambush at Kilmichael was "a military operation". British Prime Minister, Lloyd George sent over his chief Secretary for Ireland, because, he said, this engagement was "different in character from the preceding operations". So if the British Government accepted it as a military operation, then any solders who shouted "we surrender" should have accepted that code of war, and not broken their word.

The British administration compounded the issue when they wrote their official report on the ambush, which is now known to be a propaganda document. So also was the unsigned typewritten report that Barry was alleged to have written after the ambush.

BARRY ON PARTITION

In conclusion: When Tom Barry stood on this platform in 1970, he told his listeners that "the ending of partition is the responsibility of not alone of the people of Ireland, but of every Irishman wherever he may be. The objective is the same as 50 years ago."

In an interview I had with him in 1979, he said that "the nationalists in the northern part of our country are fighting for the same objectives as the men of 1916 and as we were." That is over 20 years ago. He could not understand at that time why negotiations were not more progressive. He couldn't see why citizens in that part of Ireland would not be happy in a United Ireland. His wish was for peace and unity on this island.

Barry and the surviving men who fought in his Flying Column continued, while it was possible for them, to return to this spot - often on their own or in the company of others. It was almost a place of pilgrimage for them. They made great sacrifices to give us the freedom we have today and they deserve to be remembered

Belfast Telegraph

Robinson launches broadside at 'deceitful' UUP

By Chris Thornton
02 December 2004

The DUP blamed the Ulster Unionists today for paving the way to the release of four IRA garda killers - insisting it was not part of any deal they are involved in putting together.

DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson hit out after the UUP taunted his party over their promises that they would stop concessions in the peace process.

The row broke out as the efforts to reach a deal for reviving Stormont hit a rough patch.

Yesterday Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dail that his government would release the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe if the IRA disposed of all its weapons and issues "instructions to volunteers" about the IRA's future. The Garda Representative Association condemned the move.

After the announcement, UUP Assembly member Sir Reg Empey said the DUP had to explain their position on the release.

"The DUP gave an assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that the concessions had come to an end," he said.

"The DUP told people in their manifesto that they didn't want amnesties for terrorists.

"They have the opportunity to categorically state this is not part of any deal that they have negotiated or are part of. Do they support this decision and when did they know it was part of the deal?"

But Mr Robinson said the release of the McCabe killers - including Strabane man Pearse McAuley - was conceded last October during the build-up to the deal rejected by David Trimble.

He said the release "is part of last autumn's secret deal involving the UUP and Sinn Fein/IRA".

"As early as May we utterly condemned this decision. We will not be held responsible for the results of a weak and deceitful Ulster Unionist Party," Mr Robinson said.

The DUP deputy leader also attacked the Government for preparing to proceed with military cuts if the deal is completed.

He said the "key priority" for the Government and PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde "is not to placate the political needs of Sinn Fein but to protect the people of Northern Ireland".

Belfast Telegraph

Photos still the sticking point on arms
PMs set to call time on talks

By Brian Walker, London Editor
brian.walker@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
02 December 2004

Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern will call "time" on the intensive negotiations between the DUP and Sinn Fein in London early next week without having any real inkling of the outcome, Downing Street admits.

After 11 weeks of talks since the Leeds Castle conference, deadlock persists over the sequence of events linking a new power-sharing government with the end of the IRA as an active paramilitary organisation.

The immediate sticking point remains over Ian Paisley's demand to view photographs of IRA arms disposal mooted for later this month, at almost the same time as the decommissioning act itself - and before the DUP agrees to forming the Executive.

Sinn Fein refuse to let him see the photographs until they are clear the DUP accepts power-sharing.

This would come only when the British Government triggers the six-week countdown to the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which Sinn Fein wants to happen in January.

Sinn Fein believes Mr Paisley had actually "raised the bar" over viewing the photographs last week.

The two prime ministers will call it "one way or the other" on Tuesday or perhaps Wednesday, after Mr Paisley presents Mr Blair with the DUP's "final paper" on Monday.

Will Mr Blair and Mr Ahern try to get both sides to soften their incompatible positions? Downing Street insists that they will put no pressure on either on them, clearly believing any such attempt would be counterproductive.

After a one and a half hour session with the Prime Minister yesterday, Gerry Adams declared Sinn Fein had "made their final representations".

"In my opinion these discussions can go no further - it is now time for a decision," he said.

At this very late stage in the day, the prospects for reaching a deal next week looked uncertain.

At a Sinn Fein meeting in Navan, Co Meath, last night, Mr Adams denounced the DUP's stance as unacceptable to Sinn Fein.

"The parties have to vote for the election of the joint office of First and Deputy First Minister.

"At this point in the negotiations, one of the most important issues is the DUP's refusal to do this," he said.

Belfast Telegraph

Annetta kidnappers said sorry for ordeal
Filipino diplomat tells of fears before being set free in alley

By Mary Fitzgerald
02 December 2004

The Filipino diplomat held hostage with Armagh woman Annetta Flanigan in Afghanistan has told how their kidnappers apologised before freeing them.

Angelito Nayan was released unharmed along with his UN colleagues Ms Flanigan, from Richhill and Shqipe Hebibi from Kosovo last Tuesday - nearly four weeks after they were abducted in Kabul.

A shadowy Taliban breakaway faction called Jaish-al Muslimeen, or Army of Muslims, claimed responsibility for the kidnappings.

"They embraced each one of us and apologised profusely for what they did to us, and they even told us not to forget them," Mr Nayan told reporters in Manila in his first full account of their hostage ordeal.

He said they were taken to a car and abandoned in a deserted alley in Kabul.

The kidnappers claim the Afghan government agreed to release 24 Taliban prisoners in exchange for the three hostages, an allegation Afghan officials have strenuously denied.

Mr Nayan said the three hostages were generally treated well but added: "Make no mistake, they were and they are still ruthless."

Mr Nayan said the hostages were moved four times to different houses to escape detection.

"We had to walk one time for four hours. We were chased by dogs, climbed walls, and (crouched in) ditches," he said. "We were led to one house where you think people would be executed. Thank God, it didn't happen.

"I'm really grateful to God that I was with two strong women, and we just comforted each other," he added.

The diplomat recounted how the trio developed "goodwill" with their captors and were allowed to play solitaire, read books and fly kites.

"I don't feel any hatred. Having treated us well, they have shown they have a sense of Afghan hospitality," Mr Nayan said.

However, he said the routine of captivity tested the hostages' sanity.

"You wake up, you eat, you talk to them, you go to the bathroom, you eat, you talk to them, you read some books, you play some cards, you eat and then you sleep," he explained.

Mr Nayan said he considered attempting to escape but decided that "it would be incredibly selfish" to leave the two women behind.

He said he did not hate his kidnappers and believed they were just after money.

Belfast Telegraph

DUP out to block talks, says Adams

By Noel McAdam
02 December 2004

The DUP's refusal to accept Sinn Fein's mandate and the rights of its electorate is a "block" on efforts to move forward, Gerry Adams is warning.

The Sinn Fein president said the DUP's stance had been compounded by leader Ian Paisley's recent remarks on humiliating the IRA which should wear "sackcloth and ashes".

In a speech in Navan, Co Meath, last night, Mr Adams also said: "The DUP demands are not acceptable to Sinn Féin. They should not be acceptable to the two governments."

His comments came after an apparently downbeat assessment following his latest meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair - though Sinn Fein sources insisted the work to do a deal was going on.

Mr Adams said his party had concluded its representations to the governments on their blueprint to restore the Assembly and power-sharing Executive. "In my opinion these discussion can go no further. It is now time for a decision," he said.

Mr Adams said both parties had a lot of work to do and the DUP had a long way to travel in a very short time if a deal was to be reached.

"A DUP demand for the humiliation of republicans is not only unacceptable, it will not happen and it has no place in a process of peace-making.

"The days of humiliation, of second-class citizens and of inequality are gone forever. If the DUP want to be part of a new and shared future, they will have to replace the mindset of humiliation with a psychology of accommodation and generosity," Mr Adams said.

After his meeting with Mr Blair, Alliance leader David Ford said the pieces for a deal were in place.

"Over the next few days it is important that both the DUP and Sinn Fein demonstrate their good faith intentions to one another, and that unionists focus on the very real substance that is on offer," he said.

"I am convinced that if the necessary will can be shown then the deal can be done. But it is far from certain that such an opportunity will present itself again for some time."

Belfast Telegraph

Belfast man freed on bail by judges
Milnes set to enjoy Christmas at home

By Ben Lowry and Mary Fitzgerald
02 December 2004

The west Belfast man jailed for assaulting a teenager he believed was stealing his girlfriend's car today thanked those who had campaigned for his release, saying the level of support showed his case had struck a chord with other victims of crime.

Kieran Milnes was released on bail by the Court of Appeal in Belfast yesterday following his conviction last month for inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Kieran (28), who has been the subject of a campaign for his sentence to be quashed, thanked those who had supported him.

At the same time as the bail hearing was going on in Belfast yesterday, other members of Milnes's family were in London to present the Attorney General with a petition signed by 5,000 calling for his release.

"The level of support I have received just shows you that this is an issue close to people's hearts," he told the Belfast Telegraph.

"So many people in west Belfast have been touched by crime. I did what I thought was the right thing to do. This opens up the issue of what people can and cannot do to defend themselves."

Milnes was jailed for nine months after pleading guilty to grievous bodily harm on a 15-year-old suspected joyrider.

Lawyers will try to have his guilty plea nullified to be followed by a re-trial before a judge and jury.

Milnes said he was "hopeful" of a successful outcome.

"After my experience so far I haven't much confidence in the legal system but my solicitor is upbeat and I am fairly hopeful. We'll see what happens," he said.

Granting bail pending appeal, the Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr said: "It must be made clear that this does not in any way represent a forecast of the outcome of the application for leave to appeal."

He said the 15-year-old boy had suffered a depressed compound fracture of the skull and a doctor who examined him had concluded that the injury was consistent with a blow from a hammer.

Milnes has denied using a hammer in the incident in October 2002 and claimed he was only protecting his property and his family.

But Sir Brian said a probation officer's pre-sentence report indicated that he had used a hammer.

However, the judges accepted the submission by defence QC Eilis McDermott that it was an exceptional case and bail should be granted as Milnes would have served about half his sentence by the time an appeal was heard.

A spokesperson for the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said he had "listened carefully" to what Sinn Fein MLA Michael Ferguson and the Milnes family had to say yesterday.

"He found it very useful to listen to what they had to say, and to know the extent of public concern in Northern Ireland."

Lord Goldsmith stressed that he has "considerable sympathy" with victims of crime, but said that individuals must not take the law into their own hands.

BBC

Man cleared of police bomb plot

1 December 2004


Brendan O'Connor was cleared of the bomb plot

A County Tyrone man has been found not guilty of plotting to bomb a police station.

Brendan O'Connor, 26, from Pomeroy, was cleared of conspiracy to cause an explosion at Stewartstown police station in July 2000.

He was also cleared on charges of possession of explosives and membership of the Real IRA.

His family and friends cheered and clapped when the verdict was read out at Belfast Crown Court on Wednesday.

The judge, Mr Justice Weatherup, said that he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr O'Connor, from the Cavanoneill Road, Pomeroy, was connected with the bombing.

IOL

London expected to confront UDA over status of ceasefire

01/12/2004 - 07:35:08

The British government is expected to confront the UDA's political representatives about the seriousness of the loyalist group's latest ceasefire.

Northern Secretary Paul Murphy held talks with the Ulster Political Research Group earlier this month and later announced that the British government was prepared to accept the UDA's latest promise to end violence.

However, the status of the ceasefire is now being questioned after five men appeared in court in Belfast yesterday charged with conspiracy to kidnap and rob a bank official.

A large crowd of UDA men and supporters gathered in the public gallery during the hearing, including leading members of the UPRG, the political wing of the paramilitary organisation.

PSNI chief constable Hugh Orde had already said that he could link the arrest of the five men to the UDA.

BBC

UDA ceasefire 'will lead to split'

The latest ceasefire by the Ulster Defence Association will lead to a split in the organisation, the chief constable has said.

Hugh Orde said the opportunity existed for the UDA to work within a political framework, but that a return to criminal tactics would not be tolerated.

The loyalist paramilitary group's cessation of violence officially came into effect on 14 November and was subsequently recognised by the government.

In its statement, the UDA said it was committed to working towards the end of all paramilitary activity.

Speaking after a meeting of the Policing Board on Wednesday, Mr Orde said: "If you want to try and hide behind your flags of convenience and commit crime, we will come after you and we'll put you in front of a court.

"If you want to engage in politics we will do what we can to support you.

"I think you will see a split within the UDA. I think you will see some people who are I think genuinely determined to make a difference in a political sense and I think others simply can't help themselves."

Earlier, Mr Orde told the Policing Board that he hoped the use of plastic bullets could be phased out in Northern Ireland.

He said he was waiting for the results of a police review before making a decision.

He said he hoped the stock of plastic bullets and the number of officers trained in their use could be reduced.

The chief constable was speaking as it emerged the PSNI was facing a budget cut of up to £35m within the next two years.

At the meeting, SDLP policing spokesman Alex Attwood asked about the review of plastic bullets use, saying none had been fired in the province in the last two years.

Mr Orde said: "For me it is very simple - as long as there is no rioting then the need to use PBR (plastic baton rounds) is zero.

Progress on baton alternative

"What we have seen over the last two years, and a lot longer in parts of Northern Ireland, is that we don't need to deploy them because we have used other tactics.

"If you look at the level of violence on the 12 July this year and the restraint shown by my officers, plus the availability of water cannon, it would be highly unlikely that we would have to deploy baton rounds.

"Our intention is not to use them but we maintain the right to hold them and the right to deploy them if the only alternative would be to use lethal force in the form of live rounds."

Mr Orde said he expected to receive the results of the review within the next few days.

"In broad terms it looks like, in light of the current situation, we would reduce the number we keep, the number of officers we train and the number of guns we need," he said.

Budget cuts

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the PSNI is facing extensive budget cuts within the next two years.

The Policing Board revealed the annual PSNI budget in the next financial year will be cut by more than £5m.

The board said a letter from the Northern Ireland Office also revealed that in 2006-7, the police budget will be cut by even more.

Policing Board chairman Professor Desmond Rea said this "early indication of a £30m shortfall is most disturbing".