5.3.05
Scotsman.com
Scots peace sculpture bound for Belfast
A HUGE sculpture which will be a landmark symbol of peace in Northern Ireland has been created in Scotland.
The Thanksgiving Beacon - a 65ft-high bronze globe with a stainless steel figure on top - will take up a commanding position by the River Lagan in Belfast city centre. It was designed by celebrated Scottish sculptor Andy Scott, creator of the famous M8 horse, and has been cast by Peebles-based Beltane Studios.
The 13ft-high statue will leave for Belfast tomorrow. The beacon was the result of an international competition to design a landmark to celebrate peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Iomhar MacIver, one of three brothers who run Beltane Studios, said: "We have built up a strong working relationship with Andy in casting several of his most prominent public works of art including John Greig for Ibrox Stadium, Jim Baxter for Hill o’Beath and Icarus near Prestwick Airport. This project was particularly challenging and we are delighted to be part of it."
Scots peace sculpture bound for Belfast
A HUGE sculpture which will be a landmark symbol of peace in Northern Ireland has been created in Scotland.
The Thanksgiving Beacon - a 65ft-high bronze globe with a stainless steel figure on top - will take up a commanding position by the River Lagan in Belfast city centre. It was designed by celebrated Scottish sculptor Andy Scott, creator of the famous M8 horse, and has been cast by Peebles-based Beltane Studios.
The 13ft-high statue will leave for Belfast tomorrow. The beacon was the result of an international competition to design a landmark to celebrate peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Iomhar MacIver, one of three brothers who run Beltane Studios, said: "We have built up a strong working relationship with Andy in casting several of his most prominent public works of art including John Greig for Ibrox Stadium, Jim Baxter for Hill o’Beath and Icarus near Prestwick Airport. This project was particularly challenging and we are delighted to be part of it."
Belfast Telegraph
Ski crash schoolboy flies back to Belfast
Teenager needs further surgery
By Brian Hutton
newsdesk@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
05 March 2005
A Northern Ireland schoolboy battling to recover from horrific injuries after a skiing accident has been moved from an Austrian hospital to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast.
Joe McLaughlin (17), from the Corrigs Avenue area of Newcastle, was on a school trip in the Alpine resort of Ehrwald when he collided with a snow machine on a ski slope, a month ago.
The teenager was rushed to hospital in Innsbruck where he was put on a life support machine and needed 15 hours of emergency surgery.
The A-level student, at St Malachy's High School in Castlewellan, was one of around 30 students and staff who were due to return from Austria the following day.
After almost four weeks of intensive medical treatment in Austria the schoolboy was flown by air ambulance this week to the City Airport in Belfast, and taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital.
His mother, Angela, and aunt, Gemma, who kept a bedside vigil in Innsbruck, took an earlier flight to be in Belfast for his arrival.
Tests are being carried out on his legs, while preparations are also being made for cosmetic work to his mouth, as Joe lost a number of teeth in the smash.
Joe's grandfather, Frank McLaughlin, praised his grandson for bravely battling his injuries.
"He's a fighter. I've been with him when the pain comes but he's coping fairly well," he said.
"He's in fairly good form and he's really surprised us by how much he's come on.
"The doctors told us there was no brain damage but they don't know how.
"Usually in such an accident there would be, so he's lucky in that sense."
Ski crash schoolboy flies back to Belfast
Teenager needs further surgery
By Brian Hutton
newsdesk@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
05 March 2005
A Northern Ireland schoolboy battling to recover from horrific injuries after a skiing accident has been moved from an Austrian hospital to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast.
Joe McLaughlin (17), from the Corrigs Avenue area of Newcastle, was on a school trip in the Alpine resort of Ehrwald when he collided with a snow machine on a ski slope, a month ago.
The teenager was rushed to hospital in Innsbruck where he was put on a life support machine and needed 15 hours of emergency surgery.
The A-level student, at St Malachy's High School in Castlewellan, was one of around 30 students and staff who were due to return from Austria the following day.
After almost four weeks of intensive medical treatment in Austria the schoolboy was flown by air ambulance this week to the City Airport in Belfast, and taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital.
His mother, Angela, and aunt, Gemma, who kept a bedside vigil in Innsbruck, took an earlier flight to be in Belfast for his arrival.
Tests are being carried out on his legs, while preparations are also being made for cosmetic work to his mouth, as Joe lost a number of teeth in the smash.
Joe's grandfather, Frank McLaughlin, praised his grandson for bravely battling his injuries.
"He's a fighter. I've been with him when the pain comes but he's coping fairly well," he said.
"He's in fairly good form and he's really surprised us by how much he's come on.
"The doctors told us there was no brain damage but they don't know how.
"Usually in such an accident there would be, so he's lucky in that sense."
Newshound
Monsignor Faul regrets his 'late intervention'
(Catherine Morrison, Irish News)
A key player in the 1981 hunger strikes last night (Monday) said he regretted not intervening earlier in the protest.
Monsignor Denis Faul, was a regular visitor at the Maze prison at the time and a supporter of the prisoners' families.
Mgr Faul described how, by the end of June 1981, he believed the strikes were all but over.
Four prisoners had died agonising slow deaths from starvation, but unbeknownst to Mgr Faul at the time, six more would die before the protest was brought to an end.
"The prisoners had gotten to wear their own clothes and I remember distinctly going into the prison at the end of June, and many [prisoners] were of the opinion the strike should stop," he said.
"I went on holiday – I thought the whole thing was over."
But by the time Mgr Faul returned to the prison, two more men – Joe McDonnell and Martin Hurson – had died.
"I called a meeting on 28 July in Toomebridge – all the relations were there and they all decided unanimously that they wanted the strike ended," he said.
"We headed down to Belfast to meet Adams at 12 midnight and had a long discussion until about 2.30am. We told him he was to get an order from the IRA [to stop the strike].
"We pushed our point and were very blunt about it. The families had a clear cut request.
"They [the republican prisoners] had got the clothes and if they stopped, they would get the rest."
Mgr Faul recalled Gerry Adams agreeing to the families request, and said he would go to the Maze to talk to the prisoners.
"But the next day Mr Adams phoned me and said he was bringing somebody into the prison with him – Owen Carron.
"My heart sank.
"I was suspicious, was this for political reasons?
"We gave the IRA the opportunity to end it, I went back to the families and told them to take them off the strike as soon as the men became unconscious.
"But by that stage the political aim had been met and the election was over."
Richard O'Rawe, in his book Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-Block Hunger Strike, contends that the IRA army council and Sinn Féin leadership may have decided to keep the strike going for political gain.
If that was the case, Mgr Faul said, that claim is potentially devastating for the republican leadership and more so, for the families of the hunger strikers.
"If these men died for votes it would be a sad event," he said.
"I mean, what was important – the votes or their lives? It is damaging if it is true and I regret I did not intervene earlier."
March 4, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 1, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
----------------------
Unburdening long-held sense of guilt
(Steven McCaffery, Irish News)
Did the IRA allow six of the 10 hunger-strikers to die needlessly in 1981 when an offer to end the protest was on the table? Steven McCaffery meets the author of a controversial new book on the hunger strike, who concedes he may not have all the answers but questions remain.
Richard O'Rawe is a man under pressure. Not only has he written a book suggesting the IRA may have sacrificed six of its most honoured comrades, he also carries a belief that he personally could have done more to save them.
Since the launch of his book he has been condemned by leading republicans who were once close colleagues. For them, the 51-year-old is suggesting the unthinkable.
Republican history is founded on centuries of republican martyrdom. For the modern movement, Bobby Sands and the 1981 hunger-strikers hold the same iconic status as Wolfe Tone and Padraig Pearse.
Mr O'Rawe, an IRA spokesman in the Maze prison at the time of the hunger strike, claims an acceptable offer was made by the British government after four of the 10 IRA and INLA men had died, but was rejected by the IRA leadership.
Sitting in his west Belfast home, wearing a black top, tracksuit bottoms and slippers, he says he has been under severe pressure since his book was launched in Dublin on Sunday.
In the 24 hours since he returned to Belfast, his phone has not stopped ringing. He leaves the room on several occasions to hear radio interviews with contemporaries of the hunger strike period offering their thoughts on the bitter debate his book has opened.
The bereaved families, he says, have a right to know "what went on", though he says he regrets they have suffered through the angry exchanges that have greeted his claims.
But if his account is true, why has it taken almost 25 years to emerge?
"It hasn't come out for one very good reason: because if it had come out, and it was known that the movement pulled the plug on a potential deal, people would say that the IRA killed these men," he said.
"Now I am not particularly saying that either. The British government killed these men. That is one thing that they [his republican critics] are trying to say that I am saying. I went on the record that Margaret Thatcher killed these men. That is the bottom line.
"It could well be that they [IRA leadership] thought there was a second deal coming. How do I know? Maybe that is why they rejected the deal. All I am saying is that Bik (McFarlane) sent up [the July 5 deal] to me. I looked at it for about three hours...We took the deal, and the army council rejected it."
The book launch comes as the republican movement fights off allegations of criminality over the Northern bank robbery, money-laundering and the murder of Robert McCartney.
Mr O'Rawe says he signed the book deal a year ago and had no say in the launch date or the decision to serialise it in the Sunday Times.
"In press interviews since Sunday I have had to defend the movement against allegations of criminality and on claims that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. So I have been defending the movement."
The claims in his book, Blanketmen – An Untold story of the H-block Hunger Strike, centre on July 5 1981.
He alleges that Danny Morrison, then director of publicity for the republican movement, visited the IRA officer commanding in the prison, Brendan 'Bik' McFarlane, with details of a British offer of a deal.
Mr O'Rawe then claims he discussed the offer with Mr McFarlane and they agreed it met most of the prisoners' demands for political status.
But on the outside, he claims the ruling IRA army council decided that the deal was not enough.
He claims the long-held belief that the prisoners held the whip hand in decision making was a "carefully scripted myth".
He suggests the deal may have been rejected because republican candidate Owen Carron was fighting a by-election for the Fermanagh/South Tyrone Westminster seat that the late Bobby Sands had dramatically won from his bed in the Maze prison hospital.
On July 8 a fifth hunger striker, Joe McDonnell, died. Five more men followed him to their graves after the alleged ditching of a deal.
However, Bik McFarlane and Danny Morrison have insisted the author is misrepresenting the truth, thereby opening one of the most divisive debates in modern republicanism.
Mr McFarlane has dismissed his former colleague's account outright, and last night said: "There was no concrete offer made by the British government as Richard claims.
"Lines of communication had been opened up. But after the experience of British bad faith following the first [1980] hunger strike when the British reneged on the agreement reached, the prisoners insisted that any proposal for a resolution from the British government would be in writing and authenticated. This did not happen."
Richard O'Rawe rejects the criticism: "They have said that I was scurrilous, they said it was about selling books.
"Danny Morrison said I should hang my head in shame. For what? For telling the truth?
"At the end of the day Bik McFarlane knows I am telling the truth. He can take the party line, but he knows that I am telling the truth... And there's more than Bik knows that I am right."
Mr O'Rawe's father was an IRA member and he followed him into the organisation at the age of 17. Interned twice in 1972 and 1973, he was later convicted and jailed for eight years for his part in an IRA bank raid. He remained in the Maze prison from 1977 until 1983.
During that time he took part in the 'blanket' protests against the wearing of prison uniforms, and in his book recalls living in a cell smeared with excrement and crawling with maggots during the 'dirty' protest.
On his release he said he was launched immediately into a publicity role in republican election campaigns and went on to "spearhead" the campaign opposing 'supergrass' informant trials.
He says he left his political role for personal reasons and denies any fall-out with the republican leadership.
"I bought businesses. I got into taxi depots, bars, buying houses and stuff like that there."
He claims that in 1991 he "vented my anger" to a fellow republican, saying he was "in no uncertain terms unhappy that the last six men died", but was warned that if he repeated the words "he could be shot".
His move to write the book came four years ago following an encounter with an academic researching the hunger strikes.
"The whole thing had been building up on me all the time. He [the academic] was talking about the hunger strike and before I knew it the water tap was turned on and I totally broke down. That was the point of departure for me. That was the point where I said 'this has to come out'," he said.
He said he repeatedly stopped work on the book, but "like a magnet it kept pulling me back".
"I have always been an independent thinker. I have always been my own man and maybe that is my downfall. But this has been eating at me and eating at me for 24 years."
Becoming increasingly emotional, he said: "There is a bucket of personal guilt here. When we accepted that offer I should have stood up and said 'Bik, the offer is good', and stood up and fought the corner, and I didn't.
"As I pointed out, there was a rationale for not accepting this offer. One – it was the first offer. There might have been a second offer – the mountain climber [the British go-between] was still in play.
"But, looking back, in hindsight, I should have been stronger. When [hunger strikers] Bobby and Frank and Patsy and Raymond died, criminalisation went into their graves.
"The policy of criminalisation, saying that the republican prisoners and therefore the republican struggle is a criminal conspiracy, went into the grave with those heroic men.
"So morally we had won this war. And I reckoned that our people on the outside could have gone to the world and said 'look, we won'."
He added: "I should have said 'Bik don't accept this [the IRA army council rejection], the second offer might not come. The second offer mightn't come and if we go across that threshold with Joe, f*** knows how many people will die'.
"... It wasn't until 10 men died that I stood up. And that is a massive, massive regret. It is absolutely a knife in my heart.
"To most people the hunger strikers are just pictures on a wall. To me they are alive. I see them. When I was crying, breaking my heart writing this book, I saw them. And I did that many's a time. Every time I went back to this it was like someone was reaching in and pulling your heart out."
The author concedes that he has offered a personal account of a period dogged by intrigue, claim and counter-claim.
Fatherr Oliver Crilly, who worked with the Irish Commission for Peace and Justice while it also attempted to secure a deal in 1981 – said yesterday (Thursday) he believed the new book was one man's account of a moment frozen in time.
And though by inference a partial account, it had the historical merit of being a first-person view of events.
Among his memories of prison Mr O'Rawe holds one artefact, a scrap of paper which carries the words of a song presented to him by Bobby Sands on the day he went on hunger strike.
"To me they [hunger strikers] are alive," the author said.
"I see them all the time. I have flashbacks to the times I had with Bobby, and big McElwee, and Joe. I knew most of them personally."
And in an apparent conciliatory gesture to his critics, he added: "I am sure Bik and the rest of them feel the same way."
--------------------------
Hunger strikers' deaths must be fully explained, says author
(Irish News)
Richard O'Rawe, author of Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-Block Hunger Strike, replies here to a letter printed yesterday from Magherafelt councillor Oliver Hughes and criticism by other republicans of his claims that the IRA may have blocked a deal to end the 1981 protest before six of the 10 men died.
Mr Hughes is right when he says that the IRA strenuously opposed the hunger strikes when they were first suggested, but can he be sure that attitude didn't change when Bobby Sands won the Fermanagh/South Tyrone by-election and the opportunity came to enter electoral politics if that seat could be retained after Bobby's death?
He is correct when he says the hunger strikers were not forced unto the strike.
It was a voluntary process and those courageous men that came forward are worthy of the utmost respect.
Mr Hughes is also right when he says that volunteer Francis Hughes (his brother) remained a dignified and courageous Irishman. He was a giant in every sense of the word.
But he is wrong in almost everything else he says about my book.
Mr Hughes expressed outrage and disbelief when I revealed the republican leadership had opposed our accepting the first 'Mountain Climber' offer.
It must be remembered that Oliver Hughes had no first-hand involvement in the hunger strikes after the death of his brother.
As PRO for the prisoners, I did.
No doubt Mr Hughes, a Sinn Féin councillor, is taking his guide from Bik McFarlane, who said on UTV news on Monday night that there was no offer from the Mountain Climber before Joe McDonnell died.
Mr Hughes is entitled to his opinion, but Bik is wrong.
All he needs do is refer to pages 292-293 of the book Ten Men Dead, which was written with the co-operation of the republican movement.
David Beresford, the author of that book, was briefed by the republican leadership about the Mountain Climber initiative and he says: "While the commissioners (Irish Commission for Justice and Peace) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes.
"The Foreign Office had re-launched the 'Mountain Climber' initiative."
As the ICJP left the stage immediately after Volunteer Joe McDonnell died, there can be no ambiguity about the timing of this offer.
Mr Beresford goes on to say that "The Foreign Office in its first offer had conceded the prisoners' main demand of their own clothing".
He then gives a definition of a reformed work regime, as well as conceding everything on parcels, visits etc.
He also offered segregation and a portion of lost remission back.
So there is no doubt that Mountain Climber was involved, separately from the ICJP, and that he made an offer on behalf of the British government to end the protest.
I am sorry that Mr Hughes does not appreciate why I wrote this book.
I did so because I believe that the hunger strikers' deaths should be fully explained; in my opinion they deserved no less.
My book is not an outrageous slur on the hunger strikers. Not once in any part of it did I question the integrity, honour or courage of the hunger strikers. The hunger strikers were my comrades and while I didn't meet Frank during the protest, I nonetheless knew that he was a great Irish patriot.
I was privileged to have been on the protest with such men.
I stand by what I wrote, which is that Bik and I accepted the Mountain Climber offer but that the "advice" purporting to come from the army council was to reject it.
I have no reason to invent this story.
I have no reason not to tell the truth about what really happened. Can those who now deny this story say the same?
March 4, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 3, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
----------------------------
Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises
(by Danny Morrison, Irish Times)
The claim that the IRA's army council was responsible for prolonging the hunger strikes is wrong, writes Danny Morrison.
Your columnist Fintan O'Toole (March 1st) readily accepts Richard O'Rawe's claim in his new book Blanketmen that the IRA army council was to blame for six of the 10 hunger-strike deaths by refusing a deal from the British government.
The 1981 hunger strike was a direct result of the 1980 hunger strike. The British government had said that it would not act under duress but would respond with a progressive and liberal prison regime once it ended. The prisoners called off the fast to save the life of Seán McKenna.
However, the British immediately reneged on their promises. Because of this duplicity the hunger strikers of 1981 were adamant that any deal must be copperfastened.
By early July 1981, and after four deaths, the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace (ICJP) became involved in trying to mediate a settlement.
Around the same time the republican leadership was privately contacted by "Mountain Climber", codename for a leading Foreign Office figure, by telephone through an intermediary. This method was not satisfactory given that messages could become distorted, but we had no choice if lives were to be saved.
I was given a special visit with the hunger strikers on Sunday, July 5th, and told them we were in contact with the British. The offer was, of course, less than what the men were demanding.
Both in regard to this offer and the separate initiative undertaken by the ICJP the prisoners' major concern was a mechanism for ensuring the British did not renege.
As was agreed with Mountain Climber I was allowed to send for and meet Bik McFarlane, the IRA OC. I was also allowed the use of a telephone to speak to Gerry Adams in Belfast.
When I attempted to return to the hunger strikers a governor intervened, ordered me out of the prison and snatched the phone from me. We were aware of major differences between the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and the Foreign Office over the hunger strike, and my being ordered from the prison was worrying.
That night the ICJP visited the hospital. The hunger strikers asked for McFarlane to be present, but the NIO refused. The ICJP offered to act as guarantors, but the prisoners asked for an NIO official to deal with them directly.
In relation to my eviction Mountain Climber explained the delicacy of his operation and that there was major opposition to a settlement. He had been insisting on strict confidentiality.
However, we took a decision to divulge to the ICJP that a more solid negotiation was going on in the background. Because of the ICJP's intervention we felt that the British were postponing doing this potential deal to see if they could force the prisoners to accept less through the ICJP.
An angry ICJP then confronted prisons minister Michael Allison and demanded that an NIO guarantor be sent in to the hunger strikers to confirm a deal.
In Richard O'Rawe's version the IRA's army council sent in a communication ("comm") on Monday afternoon rejecting the proposals. "Bik and I were shattered," writes O'Rawe. McFarlane totally repudiates that account.
The contemporaneous evidence is on McFarlane's side. At 11pm on July 6th, the latter wrote a lengthy comm (which is in Ten Men Dead, David Beresford, 1987) in which there is no mention of an IRA comm. From his demeanour there is clearly no evidence that he received such a missive.
Furthermore, if the NIO had really wanted to do a deal, even one based on the ICJP's proposals, then all it had to do was send in the guarantor to the hunger strikers. Fr Crilly (ICJP) confirmed this on Thursday on BBC Radio Ulster. Six times the ICJP phoned Allison about the guarantor going in, but none ever appeared and Joe McDonnell died on July 8th, followed by five others.
O'Rawe says: "The proposals were there in black and white, direct from Thatcher's desk." They were there through word of mouth. Given previous experience, were not the prisoners right to insist that any deal be guaranteed? How can the hunger strikers or the republican leadership be faulted for insisting on that safeguard?
Laurence McKeown, who was then on hunger strike (surviving 70 days), criticised O'Rawe's version and said yesterday: "We wanted definite confirmation, not vague promises of 'regime change'."
O'Rawe claims he wrote the book because the families "had a right to know the facts", yet he did not have the courtesy to forewarn them. He never once discussed with McFarlane if those recollections from 24 years ago were also his, as would be the normal practice. We now know why. O'Rawe's book which relies so much on "Bik and I this and that" would have fallen asunder if O'Rawe had consulted him.
It is telling that not once in the past 24 years has the NIO stated that before Joe McDonnell's death it made an offer to the hunger strikers which was turned down by the IRA's army council. I wonder if Fintan O'Toole would have commented had O'Rawe's book been titled, Blanketmen - Thatcher killed hunger strikers.
February 5, 2005
________________
Danny Morrison is the author of several books, including All the Dead Voices.
This article appears in the March 5, 2005 edition of the Irish Times.
All of Danny Morrison's articles can be found at DannyMorrison.com.
--------------------------
Monsignor Faul regrets his 'late intervention'
(Catherine Morrison, Irish News)
A key player in the 1981 hunger strikes last night (Monday) said he regretted not intervening earlier in the protest.
Monsignor Denis Faul, was a regular visitor at the Maze prison at the time and a supporter of the prisoners' families.
Mgr Faul described how, by the end of June 1981, he believed the strikes were all but over.
Four prisoners had died agonising slow deaths from starvation, but unbeknownst to Mgr Faul at the time, six more would die before the protest was brought to an end.
"The prisoners had gotten to wear their own clothes and I remember distinctly going into the prison at the end of June, and many [prisoners] were of the opinion the strike should stop," he said.
"I went on holiday – I thought the whole thing was over."
But by the time Mgr Faul returned to the prison, two more men – Joe McDonnell and Martin Hurson – had died.
"I called a meeting on 28 July in Toomebridge – all the relations were there and they all decided unanimously that they wanted the strike ended," he said.
"We headed down to Belfast to meet Adams at 12 midnight and had a long discussion until about 2.30am. We told him he was to get an order from the IRA [to stop the strike].
"We pushed our point and were very blunt about it. The families had a clear cut request.
"They [the republican prisoners] had got the clothes and if they stopped, they would get the rest."
Mgr Faul recalled Gerry Adams agreeing to the families request, and said he would go to the Maze to talk to the prisoners.
"But the next day Mr Adams phoned me and said he was bringing somebody into the prison with him – Owen Carron.
"My heart sank.
"I was suspicious, was this for political reasons?
"We gave the IRA the opportunity to end it, I went back to the families and told them to take them off the strike as soon as the men became unconscious.
"But by that stage the political aim had been met and the election was over."
Richard O'Rawe, in his book Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-Block Hunger Strike, contends that the IRA army council and Sinn Féin leadership may have decided to keep the strike going for political gain.
If that was the case, Mgr Faul said, that claim is potentially devastating for the republican leadership and more so, for the families of the hunger strikers.
"If these men died for votes it would be a sad event," he said.
"I mean, what was important – the votes or their lives? It is damaging if it is true and I regret I did not intervene earlier."
March 4, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 1, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
----------------------
Unburdening long-held sense of guilt
(Steven McCaffery, Irish News)
Did the IRA allow six of the 10 hunger-strikers to die needlessly in 1981 when an offer to end the protest was on the table? Steven McCaffery meets the author of a controversial new book on the hunger strike, who concedes he may not have all the answers but questions remain.
Richard O'Rawe is a man under pressure. Not only has he written a book suggesting the IRA may have sacrificed six of its most honoured comrades, he also carries a belief that he personally could have done more to save them.
Since the launch of his book he has been condemned by leading republicans who were once close colleagues. For them, the 51-year-old is suggesting the unthinkable.
Republican history is founded on centuries of republican martyrdom. For the modern movement, Bobby Sands and the 1981 hunger-strikers hold the same iconic status as Wolfe Tone and Padraig Pearse.
Mr O'Rawe, an IRA spokesman in the Maze prison at the time of the hunger strike, claims an acceptable offer was made by the British government after four of the 10 IRA and INLA men had died, but was rejected by the IRA leadership.
Sitting in his west Belfast home, wearing a black top, tracksuit bottoms and slippers, he says he has been under severe pressure since his book was launched in Dublin on Sunday.
In the 24 hours since he returned to Belfast, his phone has not stopped ringing. He leaves the room on several occasions to hear radio interviews with contemporaries of the hunger strike period offering their thoughts on the bitter debate his book has opened.
The bereaved families, he says, have a right to know "what went on", though he says he regrets they have suffered through the angry exchanges that have greeted his claims.
But if his account is true, why has it taken almost 25 years to emerge?
"It hasn't come out for one very good reason: because if it had come out, and it was known that the movement pulled the plug on a potential deal, people would say that the IRA killed these men," he said.
"Now I am not particularly saying that either. The British government killed these men. That is one thing that they [his republican critics] are trying to say that I am saying. I went on the record that Margaret Thatcher killed these men. That is the bottom line.
"It could well be that they [IRA leadership] thought there was a second deal coming. How do I know? Maybe that is why they rejected the deal. All I am saying is that Bik (McFarlane) sent up [the July 5 deal] to me. I looked at it for about three hours...We took the deal, and the army council rejected it."
The book launch comes as the republican movement fights off allegations of criminality over the Northern bank robbery, money-laundering and the murder of Robert McCartney.
Mr O'Rawe says he signed the book deal a year ago and had no say in the launch date or the decision to serialise it in the Sunday Times.
"In press interviews since Sunday I have had to defend the movement against allegations of criminality and on claims that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. So I have been defending the movement."
The claims in his book, Blanketmen – An Untold story of the H-block Hunger Strike, centre on July 5 1981.
He alleges that Danny Morrison, then director of publicity for the republican movement, visited the IRA officer commanding in the prison, Brendan 'Bik' McFarlane, with details of a British offer of a deal.
Mr O'Rawe then claims he discussed the offer with Mr McFarlane and they agreed it met most of the prisoners' demands for political status.
But on the outside, he claims the ruling IRA army council decided that the deal was not enough.
He claims the long-held belief that the prisoners held the whip hand in decision making was a "carefully scripted myth".
He suggests the deal may have been rejected because republican candidate Owen Carron was fighting a by-election for the Fermanagh/South Tyrone Westminster seat that the late Bobby Sands had dramatically won from his bed in the Maze prison hospital.
On July 8 a fifth hunger striker, Joe McDonnell, died. Five more men followed him to their graves after the alleged ditching of a deal.
However, Bik McFarlane and Danny Morrison have insisted the author is misrepresenting the truth, thereby opening one of the most divisive debates in modern republicanism.
Mr McFarlane has dismissed his former colleague's account outright, and last night said: "There was no concrete offer made by the British government as Richard claims.
"Lines of communication had been opened up. But after the experience of British bad faith following the first [1980] hunger strike when the British reneged on the agreement reached, the prisoners insisted that any proposal for a resolution from the British government would be in writing and authenticated. This did not happen."
Richard O'Rawe rejects the criticism: "They have said that I was scurrilous, they said it was about selling books.
"Danny Morrison said I should hang my head in shame. For what? For telling the truth?
"At the end of the day Bik McFarlane knows I am telling the truth. He can take the party line, but he knows that I am telling the truth... And there's more than Bik knows that I am right."
Mr O'Rawe's father was an IRA member and he followed him into the organisation at the age of 17. Interned twice in 1972 and 1973, he was later convicted and jailed for eight years for his part in an IRA bank raid. He remained in the Maze prison from 1977 until 1983.
During that time he took part in the 'blanket' protests against the wearing of prison uniforms, and in his book recalls living in a cell smeared with excrement and crawling with maggots during the 'dirty' protest.
On his release he said he was launched immediately into a publicity role in republican election campaigns and went on to "spearhead" the campaign opposing 'supergrass' informant trials.
He says he left his political role for personal reasons and denies any fall-out with the republican leadership.
"I bought businesses. I got into taxi depots, bars, buying houses and stuff like that there."
He claims that in 1991 he "vented my anger" to a fellow republican, saying he was "in no uncertain terms unhappy that the last six men died", but was warned that if he repeated the words "he could be shot".
His move to write the book came four years ago following an encounter with an academic researching the hunger strikes.
"The whole thing had been building up on me all the time. He [the academic] was talking about the hunger strike and before I knew it the water tap was turned on and I totally broke down. That was the point of departure for me. That was the point where I said 'this has to come out'," he said.
He said he repeatedly stopped work on the book, but "like a magnet it kept pulling me back".
"I have always been an independent thinker. I have always been my own man and maybe that is my downfall. But this has been eating at me and eating at me for 24 years."
Becoming increasingly emotional, he said: "There is a bucket of personal guilt here. When we accepted that offer I should have stood up and said 'Bik, the offer is good', and stood up and fought the corner, and I didn't.
"As I pointed out, there was a rationale for not accepting this offer. One – it was the first offer. There might have been a second offer – the mountain climber [the British go-between] was still in play.
"But, looking back, in hindsight, I should have been stronger. When [hunger strikers] Bobby and Frank and Patsy and Raymond died, criminalisation went into their graves.
"The policy of criminalisation, saying that the republican prisoners and therefore the republican struggle is a criminal conspiracy, went into the grave with those heroic men.
"So morally we had won this war. And I reckoned that our people on the outside could have gone to the world and said 'look, we won'."
He added: "I should have said 'Bik don't accept this [the IRA army council rejection], the second offer might not come. The second offer mightn't come and if we go across that threshold with Joe, f*** knows how many people will die'.
"... It wasn't until 10 men died that I stood up. And that is a massive, massive regret. It is absolutely a knife in my heart.
"To most people the hunger strikers are just pictures on a wall. To me they are alive. I see them. When I was crying, breaking my heart writing this book, I saw them. And I did that many's a time. Every time I went back to this it was like someone was reaching in and pulling your heart out."
The author concedes that he has offered a personal account of a period dogged by intrigue, claim and counter-claim.
Fatherr Oliver Crilly, who worked with the Irish Commission for Peace and Justice while it also attempted to secure a deal in 1981 – said yesterday (Thursday) he believed the new book was one man's account of a moment frozen in time.
And though by inference a partial account, it had the historical merit of being a first-person view of events.
Among his memories of prison Mr O'Rawe holds one artefact, a scrap of paper which carries the words of a song presented to him by Bobby Sands on the day he went on hunger strike.
"To me they [hunger strikers] are alive," the author said.
"I see them all the time. I have flashbacks to the times I had with Bobby, and big McElwee, and Joe. I knew most of them personally."
And in an apparent conciliatory gesture to his critics, he added: "I am sure Bik and the rest of them feel the same way."
--------------------------
Hunger strikers' deaths must be fully explained, says author
(Irish News)
Richard O'Rawe, author of Blanketmen: An Untold Story of the H-Block Hunger Strike, replies here to a letter printed yesterday from Magherafelt councillor Oliver Hughes and criticism by other republicans of his claims that the IRA may have blocked a deal to end the 1981 protest before six of the 10 men died.
Mr Hughes is right when he says that the IRA strenuously opposed the hunger strikes when they were first suggested, but can he be sure that attitude didn't change when Bobby Sands won the Fermanagh/South Tyrone by-election and the opportunity came to enter electoral politics if that seat could be retained after Bobby's death?
He is correct when he says the hunger strikers were not forced unto the strike.
It was a voluntary process and those courageous men that came forward are worthy of the utmost respect.
Mr Hughes is also right when he says that volunteer Francis Hughes (his brother) remained a dignified and courageous Irishman. He was a giant in every sense of the word.
But he is wrong in almost everything else he says about my book.
Mr Hughes expressed outrage and disbelief when I revealed the republican leadership had opposed our accepting the first 'Mountain Climber' offer.
It must be remembered that Oliver Hughes had no first-hand involvement in the hunger strikes after the death of his brother.
As PRO for the prisoners, I did.
No doubt Mr Hughes, a Sinn Féin councillor, is taking his guide from Bik McFarlane, who said on UTV news on Monday night that there was no offer from the Mountain Climber before Joe McDonnell died.
Mr Hughes is entitled to his opinion, but Bik is wrong.
All he needs do is refer to pages 292-293 of the book Ten Men Dead, which was written with the co-operation of the republican movement.
David Beresford, the author of that book, was briefed by the republican leadership about the Mountain Climber initiative and he says: "While the commissioners (Irish Commission for Justice and Peace) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes.
"The Foreign Office had re-launched the 'Mountain Climber' initiative."
As the ICJP left the stage immediately after Volunteer Joe McDonnell died, there can be no ambiguity about the timing of this offer.
Mr Beresford goes on to say that "The Foreign Office in its first offer had conceded the prisoners' main demand of their own clothing".
He then gives a definition of a reformed work regime, as well as conceding everything on parcels, visits etc.
He also offered segregation and a portion of lost remission back.
So there is no doubt that Mountain Climber was involved, separately from the ICJP, and that he made an offer on behalf of the British government to end the protest.
I am sorry that Mr Hughes does not appreciate why I wrote this book.
I did so because I believe that the hunger strikers' deaths should be fully explained; in my opinion they deserved no less.
My book is not an outrageous slur on the hunger strikers. Not once in any part of it did I question the integrity, honour or courage of the hunger strikers. The hunger strikers were my comrades and while I didn't meet Frank during the protest, I nonetheless knew that he was a great Irish patriot.
I was privileged to have been on the protest with such men.
I stand by what I wrote, which is that Bik and I accepted the Mountain Climber offer but that the "advice" purporting to come from the army council was to reject it.
I have no reason to invent this story.
I have no reason not to tell the truth about what really happened. Can those who now deny this story say the same?
March 4, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 3, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
----------------------------
Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises
(by Danny Morrison, Irish Times)
The claim that the IRA's army council was responsible for prolonging the hunger strikes is wrong, writes Danny Morrison.
Your columnist Fintan O'Toole (March 1st) readily accepts Richard O'Rawe's claim in his new book Blanketmen that the IRA army council was to blame for six of the 10 hunger-strike deaths by refusing a deal from the British government.
The 1981 hunger strike was a direct result of the 1980 hunger strike. The British government had said that it would not act under duress but would respond with a progressive and liberal prison regime once it ended. The prisoners called off the fast to save the life of Seán McKenna.
However, the British immediately reneged on their promises. Because of this duplicity the hunger strikers of 1981 were adamant that any deal must be copperfastened.
By early July 1981, and after four deaths, the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace (ICJP) became involved in trying to mediate a settlement.
Around the same time the republican leadership was privately contacted by "Mountain Climber", codename for a leading Foreign Office figure, by telephone through an intermediary. This method was not satisfactory given that messages could become distorted, but we had no choice if lives were to be saved.
I was given a special visit with the hunger strikers on Sunday, July 5th, and told them we were in contact with the British. The offer was, of course, less than what the men were demanding.
Both in regard to this offer and the separate initiative undertaken by the ICJP the prisoners' major concern was a mechanism for ensuring the British did not renege.
As was agreed with Mountain Climber I was allowed to send for and meet Bik McFarlane, the IRA OC. I was also allowed the use of a telephone to speak to Gerry Adams in Belfast.
When I attempted to return to the hunger strikers a governor intervened, ordered me out of the prison and snatched the phone from me. We were aware of major differences between the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and the Foreign Office over the hunger strike, and my being ordered from the prison was worrying.
That night the ICJP visited the hospital. The hunger strikers asked for McFarlane to be present, but the NIO refused. The ICJP offered to act as guarantors, but the prisoners asked for an NIO official to deal with them directly.
In relation to my eviction Mountain Climber explained the delicacy of his operation and that there was major opposition to a settlement. He had been insisting on strict confidentiality.
However, we took a decision to divulge to the ICJP that a more solid negotiation was going on in the background. Because of the ICJP's intervention we felt that the British were postponing doing this potential deal to see if they could force the prisoners to accept less through the ICJP.
An angry ICJP then confronted prisons minister Michael Allison and demanded that an NIO guarantor be sent in to the hunger strikers to confirm a deal.
In Richard O'Rawe's version the IRA's army council sent in a communication ("comm") on Monday afternoon rejecting the proposals. "Bik and I were shattered," writes O'Rawe. McFarlane totally repudiates that account.
The contemporaneous evidence is on McFarlane's side. At 11pm on July 6th, the latter wrote a lengthy comm (which is in Ten Men Dead, David Beresford, 1987) in which there is no mention of an IRA comm. From his demeanour there is clearly no evidence that he received such a missive.
Furthermore, if the NIO had really wanted to do a deal, even one based on the ICJP's proposals, then all it had to do was send in the guarantor to the hunger strikers. Fr Crilly (ICJP) confirmed this on Thursday on BBC Radio Ulster. Six times the ICJP phoned Allison about the guarantor going in, but none ever appeared and Joe McDonnell died on July 8th, followed by five others.
O'Rawe says: "The proposals were there in black and white, direct from Thatcher's desk." They were there through word of mouth. Given previous experience, were not the prisoners right to insist that any deal be guaranteed? How can the hunger strikers or the republican leadership be faulted for insisting on that safeguard?
Laurence McKeown, who was then on hunger strike (surviving 70 days), criticised O'Rawe's version and said yesterday: "We wanted definite confirmation, not vague promises of 'regime change'."
O'Rawe claims he wrote the book because the families "had a right to know the facts", yet he did not have the courtesy to forewarn them. He never once discussed with McFarlane if those recollections from 24 years ago were also his, as would be the normal practice. We now know why. O'Rawe's book which relies so much on "Bik and I this and that" would have fallen asunder if O'Rawe had consulted him.
It is telling that not once in the past 24 years has the NIO stated that before Joe McDonnell's death it made an offer to the hunger strikers which was turned down by the IRA's army council. I wonder if Fintan O'Toole would have commented had O'Rawe's book been titled, Blanketmen - Thatcher killed hunger strikers.
February 5, 2005
________________
Danny Morrison is the author of several books, including All the Dead Voices.
This article appears in the March 5, 2005 edition of the Irish Times.
All of Danny Morrison's articles can be found at DannyMorrison.com.
--------------------------
Newshound
Hunger strikers' lives not sacrificed — family
(Barry McCaffrey, Irish News)
The family of a dead hunger striker last night (Tuesday) hit out at claims that the IRA sacrificed the lives of republican prisoners in negotiations with the British government during the 1981 dispute.
The family of Francis Hughes last night rejected the claims from former IRA prisoner Richard O'Rawe, who earlier this week stated that the British government had been prepared to agree to four of five prisoner demands during the 1981 hunger strike.
However Mr O'Rawe claimed that while IRA leaders in the prison were prepared to accept the deal, they were overruled by the army council on the outside.
Six other hunger strikers died before the end of the protest in October 1981.
However Oliver Hughes, whose brother Francis was the second prisoner to die after 59 days on hunger strike, hit out at Mr O'Rawe's claims.
"Mr O'Rawe describes the leadership of the republican movement and key individuals from the 1981 period in a way that bears no resemblance to the people I and my family dealt with," Mr Hughes, a Sinn Féin councillor, said.
"Sinn Féin representatives assisted us, were concerned for us, liaised with us regularly and kept us informed of all initiatives which was crucial."
Expressing anger at Mr O'Rawe's claims, the Sinn Féin councillor said: "The death of Francis and the other brave men may have taken place 24 years ago, but it was the saddest time in all our lives and is still fresh in our memories.
"My parents are in their nineties and it is very distressing and hurtful when someone is deliberately distorting the truth.
"I would appeal to Mr O'Rawe to retract his statement and to let the memory of the hunger strikers rest in peace."
Mr O'Rawe's allegation was also rejected by Republican Sinn Féin president Ruairi O Bradaigh.
"I am convinced that the IRA army council of that time did not reject the British government offer of early July 1981 (which was sponsored by the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace), resulting in the deaths of six more hunger strikers," Mr O'Bradaigh said.
"I knew that it was not the policy of the republican movement to prolong the hunger strike until the by-election which followed from Sands's death.
"I believed then, and still do, that the terms for the settlement were a matter for the H-block prisoners themselves."
Mr O Bradaigh said that the terms on offer from the British government would have been known to all those involved in the hunger strike.
March 5, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 2, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
Hunger strikers' lives not sacrificed — family
(Barry McCaffrey, Irish News)
The family of a dead hunger striker last night (Tuesday) hit out at claims that the IRA sacrificed the lives of republican prisoners in negotiations with the British government during the 1981 dispute.
The family of Francis Hughes last night rejected the claims from former IRA prisoner Richard O'Rawe, who earlier this week stated that the British government had been prepared to agree to four of five prisoner demands during the 1981 hunger strike.
However Mr O'Rawe claimed that while IRA leaders in the prison were prepared to accept the deal, they were overruled by the army council on the outside.
Six other hunger strikers died before the end of the protest in October 1981.
However Oliver Hughes, whose brother Francis was the second prisoner to die after 59 days on hunger strike, hit out at Mr O'Rawe's claims.
"Mr O'Rawe describes the leadership of the republican movement and key individuals from the 1981 period in a way that bears no resemblance to the people I and my family dealt with," Mr Hughes, a Sinn Féin councillor, said.
"Sinn Féin representatives assisted us, were concerned for us, liaised with us regularly and kept us informed of all initiatives which was crucial."
Expressing anger at Mr O'Rawe's claims, the Sinn Féin councillor said: "The death of Francis and the other brave men may have taken place 24 years ago, but it was the saddest time in all our lives and is still fresh in our memories.
"My parents are in their nineties and it is very distressing and hurtful when someone is deliberately distorting the truth.
"I would appeal to Mr O'Rawe to retract his statement and to let the memory of the hunger strikers rest in peace."
Mr O'Rawe's allegation was also rejected by Republican Sinn Féin president Ruairi O Bradaigh.
"I am convinced that the IRA army council of that time did not reject the British government offer of early July 1981 (which was sponsored by the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace), resulting in the deaths of six more hunger strikers," Mr O'Bradaigh said.
"I knew that it was not the policy of the republican movement to prolong the hunger strike until the by-election which followed from Sands's death.
"I believed then, and still do, that the terms for the settlement were a matter for the H-block prisoners themselves."
Mr O Bradaigh said that the terms on offer from the British government would have been known to all those involved in the hunger strike.
March 5, 2005
________________
This article appeared first in the March 2, 2005 edition of the Irish News.
The Blanket
A Blanketman Still Fighting To Be Heard
Anthony McIntyre • 4 March 2005
"This time last week, the name Richard O'Rawe meant little to most people in Ireland...
Less than a week after hitting the headlines via one of the main Sunday newspapers, he probably feels the gravity in his world has gone down the plughole. Throughout republican heartlands the central contention in his book Blanketmen is being discussed and debated, frequently in heated manner. It is talked about in bars, living rooms and taxis. Interest in the broadcast and print media has not waned. Opponents have reviled him and friends have worried for his safety..."
>>>Read on
A Blanketman Still Fighting To Be Heard
Anthony McIntyre • 4 March 2005
"This time last week, the name Richard O'Rawe meant little to most people in Ireland...
Less than a week after hitting the headlines via one of the main Sunday newspapers, he probably feels the gravity in his world has gone down the plughole. Throughout republican heartlands the central contention in his book Blanketmen is being discussed and debated, frequently in heated manner. It is talked about in bars, living rooms and taxis. Interest in the broadcast and print media has not waned. Opponents have reviled him and friends have worried for his safety..."
>>>Read on
Sinn Féin
Presidential Address to the 2005 Ard Fheis
Published: 5 March, 2005
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams MP's Presidential Address to the 2005 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis.
A chairde
Seo bliain an chomóradh Céad Bliain ar an tsaol do Sinn Féin.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh gach duine atá anseo inniu, na hoifigigh, an ceannaireacht, na baill uilig agus chomh maith leis sin ár gcairde ón tír seo agus thar lear.
Tá súil agam go bhfuil sibh ag baint sult as an chaint agus dióspoireacht thar an deireadh seachtaine.
I want to welcome all of you here to this very unique gathering, the Ard Fheis, in the centenary year, of the only all-Ireland political party on this island.
An Céad - Centenary Year
100 years ago Sinn Féin was founded in this city.
This year Irish republicans will celebrate that event in every part of this island and beyond and begin preparations to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the 1981 Hunger Strikes. It will be a year of education and debate. It will be a year in which we will further advance the work of re-popularising Irish republicanism.
When the idea of Sinn Féin was conceived Ireland was awakening from the nightmare of the 19th century. But even in the midst of these horrors some dared to dream of a different Ireland -- a free Ireland. And from the beginning Sinn Féin extended a hand of friendship to unionists, while always asserting that the end of the Union was in the interests of all the people of this island.
It was a time of renewal and rebirth. It was a great period of debate, of exchanges of ideas as leaders and thinkers and activists, dreamers all, met and influenced each other. The result was the 1916 Rising and the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, the founding document of modern Irish Republicanism and a charter of liberty with international as well as national importance.
It is our task -- our responsibility -- to see this vision realised.
I want to greet our international visitors, our delegates, members and activists and our Friends of Sinn Féin from the United States, Australia and Canada who do such a great job for us. I want to extend a particular céad míle failte to our team of MLAs, our MPs, our TDs, and especially to all the councillors elected here in the south since our last Ard Fheis.
I want to particularly commend Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, the other TDs and our entire Leinster House team for the sterling service they give to this party. I want to thank you all, particularly those who stood as candidates for our party, whether you were elected or not. Pearse Doherty represents you all. His campaign is proof of what can be done.
And I want to thank everyone who votes for us and all our members and activists for all the work you are doing. There are others I want to welcome to the Ard Fheis. Annie Cahill, here in her own right but reminding us also of our friend and leader Joe Cahill.
A special welcome also to our two newly elected MEPs.You will see that there are changes in our national officer board. I want to thank Robbie Smith for his work as Ard Runaí and welcome Mitchel McLaughlin into that position. And I want to welcome Mary Lou McDonald who will be taking on the challenge of the Cathaoirleach, or National Chair of Sinn Féin.
Comhaghairdeas mór d'achan duine a thug vóta agus cuidíu dúinn sna toghcháin le bliain anuas. Comhaghairdeas d'ár n-iarrthóirí uilig.
I want this evening to deal fairly and squarely with some issues, which are of huge importance to us.
The Murder of Robert McCartney
I want to deal first of all with the dreadful murder of Robert McCartney. His murder was dreadful, not only because of the way he died and not only because it robbed his family of a father, a partner, a brother, a son. His murder was dreadful because it is alleged some republicans were involved in it.
That makes this a huge issue for us.
As President of Sinn Féin or as an individual I could not campaign for the victims of British or unionist paramilitary thuggery, if I was not as clear and as committed to justice for the McCartney family.
I have met with the McCartney family a number of times. And I remain in contact with them. I believe their demand for justice and truth is a just demand. I have pledged them my support and the support of this party.
Those responsible for the brutal killing of Robert McCartney should admit to what they did in a court of law. That is the only decent thing for them to do. Others with any information should come forward. I am not letting this issue go until those who have sullied the republican cause are made to account for their actions.
Republicans Reject Criminality
Twenty five years ago Margaret Thatcher couldn't criminalise us. The women prisoners in Armagh and the blanketmen and the hunger strikers in Long Kesh wouldn't allow her. That was then; this is now.
Michael McDowell has stepped into Margaret Thatcher's shoes. But he will not criminalise us either, because we will not allow him. And we won't allow anyone within republican ranks to criminalise this party or this struggle. There is no place in republicanism for anyone involved in criminality.
Our detractors will say we have a particular view of what criminality is. We have not. We know what a crime is both in the moral and legal sense, and our view is the same as the majority of people. We know that breaking the law is a crime.
But we refuse to criminalise those who break the law in pursuit of legitimate political objectives. Are we saying republicans can do no wrong? Of course not. We need to be as strong minded in facing up to wrong doing by republicans, as we are in opposing wrong doing by anyone else. But we refuse to retrospectively criminalise a legitimate century long struggle for freedom.
Campaigning for Irish unity
Sinn Féin is accused of recognising the Army Council of the IRA as the legitimate government of this island. That is not the case. The supreme governing and legislative body of Sinn Féin is the Ard Fheis. This is where this party makes its big decisions. This is where we elect our leadership, agree our policies and set in place our strategies.
I do not believe that the Army Council is the government of Ireland. Such a government will only exist when all the people of this island elect it. Does Sinn Féin accept the institutions of this state as the legitimate institutions of this state? Of course we do. But we are critical of these institutions. We are entitled to be.
The freedom won by those, who gave their lives in 1916 and in other periods, has been squandered by those who attained political power on their backs.
Apart from our criticism of the institutions themselves the reality is that they are partitionist and we want to see not only better institutions but open, transparent institutions of government representative of all the people of this island - and we make no apologies for that.
Do we accept partition? No, we do not accept partition. Do we accept British rule in our country? No, we do not. Do we want a United Ireland? Yes.
Last week we launched our campaign for the Irish government to bring forward a Green Paper on Irish Unity. There is a need for Irish people to engage on the shape, form and nature that a re-united Ireland will take. We want to see a grass roots discussion on all these issues. We want the government to formalise that debate and to fulfil its constitutional obligation.
Ba mhaith linn daoine ó gach cearn den tír seo Doire go Corcaigh, Baile Atha Cliath go Gaillimh, Ciarraí go Crossmaglen labhairt faoi seo.
Our opponents claim that our party is a threat to this state. We are a threat to those who preside over growing hospital waiting lists, a two tier health service, a housing crisis, a transport crisis and much more, all within an economy which is one of the wealthiest in Europe. We are a threat to those who believe that inequality is a good thing.
Partitionism is deeply ingrained within elements of the political establishment. It could not be otherwise after over 80 years. We are a threat to those who want to see partition sustained and maintained, because it protects the status quo. We are a threat to those who oppose the peace process. We are a threat to vested interests. We make no apologies for any of this. The threat we pose is entirely democratic and peaceful.
The threat we pose is the radical, progressive, political party we are building right across the island of Ireland. The threat we pose comes from the genuine allegiance and voluntary support of increasing numbers of people who want a very different society from that envisaged by those in government or opposition in the south or from within the old power blocs in the north.
The Peace Process in Crisis
We are people in struggle. We are a party, which prides itself on our ability to face up to challenges and find solutions. We need to be forthright therefore in recognising the depth of the crisis in the peace process and the shared responsibility for this.
Almost a year ago, speaking in Ballymun I warned that the Irish government was actively considering the exclusion of Sinn Féin from the political process. I warned that it was actively considering going back to the old agenda - to the failed policies and the crude politics of negative campaigning.
I made a direct appeal to Fianna Fáil members and supporters, and to nationalists and republicans the length and breadth of this island to join with us in reasserting the primacy of the peace process.
Why did I make those remarks at that time? I did so because at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis Minister after Minister lined up to attack Sinn Féin. And it was the same at all the other party conferences.
This had been their disposition since Sinn Féin's gains in the general election of May 2002, and the establishments defeat in the Nice Treaty referendum in 2001. So, they didn't want to talk about hospital closures, the lack of affordable housing, sub-standard schools, Irish sovereignty, the crumbling peace process, or the fact that their republicanism ends at the border.
Níor mhaith leo labhairt fá na scanallacha, fá na clúdaigh donna agus na deacrachtaí dá bpáirtí féin.
They didn't want to talk about endless lists of broken promises. What they were very focused on was the upcoming local government and European Union elections. And it wasn't just Minister McDowell, though he was leading the charge.
Remember the Taoiseach's relief when Nicky Kehoe just missed a seat by only 74 votes - in the Taoiseach's own constituency. That was the election when the PDs said that Fianna Fáil was too corrupt and too dishonest to be in government, before going on to join them in government.
In November 2003 Sinn Féin moved into becoming the largest pro-Agreement party in the north. That followed a lengthy negotiation which commenced after our negotiating team had obtained a firm commitment to a date for the postponed Assembly elections from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Irish government deeply resented our success in achieving that. Getting the British government to recognise that right was an achievement but it was not the aim of our negotiations. It was a necessary prerequisite for them.
The aim of the negotiations was to get the Good Friday Agreement moving forward, anchored in the political institutions, including the Assembly, and the all-Ireland political infrastructure.
Both governments doubted that David Trimble could be brought to embrace those concepts in the negotiations of that time. But in talks in Hillsborough Castle between the Sinn Féin leadership and the leadership of the UUP Mr. Trimble agreed to do just that. He agreed to play a full part in the political institutions, in the context of the IRA putting arms beyond use once again. And Tony Blair knows this. And Bertie Ahern knows this.
The IRA put arms beyond use - for a third time. And I outlined a peaceful direction for everyone to follow. But as is now infamously known Mr. Trimble walked away from that commitment following General de Chastelain's press conference. Mr. Trimble wasn't on his own. The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister walked away as well.
The Old Consensus
Of course by now Dublin was accusing us of being in a 'power process' not a peace process. The election of Mary Lou McDonald and Bairbre de Brún and the surge of support for Sinn Féin in the local government contests across this state was the last straw for the establishment. The old consensus re-emerged.
Dhruid siad na ranganna agus thosaigh siad ag díriú isteach ar poblachtánaigh arís, ag ionsaí orthu sa phreas agus sa Dáil.
The leaderships of the Labour Party and Fine Gael have never been comfortable with the peace process. Now they colluded, once again, in a vicious anti-Sinn Féin agenda, and Fianna Fáil Ministers increasingly borrowed the invective of Michael McDowell's rhetoric. At the same time the DUP had emerged as the largest party in the north.
Working for a New Agreement
At Bodenstown last year I pointed out that the only way for Sinn Féin to meet these challenges was through putting together an inclusive agreement. I spelt out the need for republicans to take initiatives to bring about completion of the issues of policing and justice, the issues of armed groups and arms, and the issues of human rights, equality and sectarianism.
I also spelt out the need for full participation in the political institutions by the unionists. Our objective was clear. To restore the political institutions and end the crisis in the process. At that time the governments had bought into a DUP timeframe and put off negotiations until September.
It was left to republicans over the summer months, along with some brave people from unionist neighbourhoods, to keep the peace over the Orange marching season. And we accomplished this because of the courage of our representatives, including Gerry Kelly, even when the British Secretary of State Paul Murphy, the PSNI and the British parachute regiment pushed an unwelcome Orange march through Ardoyne.
I don't think a lot of republicans took me seriously when I pointed up the need for us to push for a comprehensive holistic agreement - and with good reason.
That good reason was Ian Paisley.
Republicans and everyone else, including many within the DUP, could not envisage a scenario where Ian Paisley would want to share power with the rest of us. Our objective was to create the conditions in which Ian Paisley would join with the rest of us in the new dispensation set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
It wasn't that he would want to. Of course, he doesn't want to. Our intention was to ensure that he had no option - if he wanted political power, he had to share it with us. It was also my view that unionism was using the IRA as an excuse to prevent progress in the peace process. I said that in an unrehearsed remark. And I went on to say that republicans needed to remove that excuse from them.
Difficult Negotiations
As November moved into December Ian Paisley, for the first time in his lengthy political career, was being challenged by the willingness of the Sinn Féin leadership to use our influence once again to resolve the problems which he was putting up as obstacles to progress, and as a condition for his participation in the structures of the Good Friday Agreement.
These negotiations were the most difficult that I have been involved in. Not least because of the approach of the British and Irish governments. They bought into the Paisleyite agenda at every turn.
Sinn Féin's approach was two fold. We were trying to get the DUP on board. We were also trying to ensure that any proposals from the governments, and any agreement emerging from these discussions was rooted firmly in the Good Friday Agreement.
At the beginning of these negotiations the governments agreed that if the DUP was not up for a deal then the two governments would come forward with proposals to move the process forward.
Tá muid ag fanacht leis na moltaí sin go fóill.
By this time republicans were starting to get increasingly nervous. Even the cynical and dubious were starting to contemplate the possibility that Paisley might; just might do a deal. That wasn't why they were nervous. They were nervous about the price which was being demanded. They were grappling with the issue of policing alongside other issues.
It is my view that we would have risen to these challenges in the context of an agreement even though they created profound difficulties for us. And what was the contribution from republicans?
The IRA leadership had agreed, in the context of a comprehensive agreement:
· to support a comprehensive agreement by moving into a new mode which reflects its determination to see the transition to a totally peaceful society
· to give instructions to all its volunteers not to engage in any activity which might endanger that agreement
· to conclude the process to completely and verifiably putting all their arms beyond use, speedily, and if possible, by the end of December
· to allow two clergymen to be present as observers during this process to further enhance public confidence.
Policing
I also agreed in a given context to ask the Ard Chomhairle to call a special Ard Fheis to consider our attitude to the PSNI. Policing is a key issue. In our view it can only be conducted as a public service by those who are democratically accountable. And while progress has been made over recent years the PSNI has not yet been brought to that point.
Sinn Féin is actively working to create an accountable policing service. We support a range of restorative justice and community initiatives to deal with the problems created by the absence of an acceptable policing service in the north.
Let me digress briefly to make an important point. The policing vacuum cannot be filled by physical punishments, no matter how frustrated communities may be by those who engage in anti-social behaviour. There is no place for so called punishment beatings or shootings. Our party has a lengthy opposition to these. They are counter productive. They should stop.
This party was also prepared to share power with the DUP. That remains our position. There is no reason not to. We respect their mandate. We got them to accept the Good Friday Agreement. For their part the two governments pledged to honour commitments made repeatedly by them in the past on a range of outstanding and important issues of rights, demilitarisation, equality, prisoners and so on. Then it all came unstuck.
Thit achan rud as a chéile, agus tá sé ina smidiríní go fóill.
Ian Paisley delivered his 'acts of humiliation' speech. Mr. Paisley's desire to "humiliate republicans"; to have republicans "wear sack cloth and ashes"; and the DUP's constant use of offensive language, was not and is not the language of peace making. For many across nationalist and republican Ireland this was too much. Especially when the governments supported the DUP position that the IRA be photographed putting their arms beyond use.
Ian Paisley didn't even have to negotiate for this demand. The two governments supported it from the beginning. It was a demand, not surprising, that Sinn Féin could not deliver. A partnership of equals can never be delivered or built through a process of humiliation. The governments went ahead and launched their draft outline of a comprehensive agreement, even though there was no agreement.
New negotiations
You will recall that the two governments gave a commitment at the beginning of this negotiation to find a way forward if there was a failure to get a deal. So Sinn Féin and the British government entered into new talks. The Irish government should have been there. But the Irish government refused to attend. The British government set out their views. They agreed to talk to the Irish government to try and agree a joint government paper and bring it back to us.
We gave the British government written proposals of what we thought was required, and we sent a copy to the Irish government. The British drafted a written response to this and when Mr. Blair met the Taoiseach in Brussels they discussed these matters. But at our next meeting the British told us that the Irish government would not agree a paper with them, did not want them to present any paper to us, and had reservations about this approach.
During this period I was constantly in contact with the Taoiseach's department and the government was eventually persuaded to send senior officials to a trilateral meeting. It was a good meeting even though the officials were only there as observers.
The Northern Bank Robbery
After that meeting we broke for Christmas. Then came news of the Northern Bank robbery. The IRA is accused of that robbery. And of other incidents. It denies this. I accept those denials. Others don't. The truth is that no one knows at this time who did the robbery, except the people involved.
Martin McGuinness and I were accused by the Taoiseach of having prior knowledge. That is untrue. But one thing is for certain activities like this have no place in the peace process. The rest is history or what passes for history in these McCarthyite times.
Sending a Clear Message
Just two months ago the process was close to a deal which many thought was not possible. Now the momentum is going the other way. As a first step in trying to move the process out of this crisis I want to send a very, very clear message to everyone. That message is that the peace process is the only way forward.
I do not underestimate the depth of the crisis or the difficulties. But I am absolutely certain that there is a way beyond this crisis.
Níl aon bhealach eile, is cuma cé chomh deacair is atá sé, caithfidh muid an phróiseas a chur le chéile aris.
The peace process is our struggle
Republicans must make sure that we recognise failures in the process quickly; that we assess them; that we criticise ourselves were necessary; that we learn what has to be learned and emerge stronger and more able to fulfil our historic mission. It is by learning from failures that we will find the way forward. We will learn to improve and strenthen our struggle. And let me make it clear the peace process is our struggle.
It is as a result of our tenacity that the balance of forces has changed on this island to the extent that the conservative parties are now seeking to stunt and to stop the growth of the main vehicle of republican struggle - that is Sinn Féin.
I am also very conscious that a lot of the effort to damage Sinn Féin is through targeting me and others in our national leadership. Our opponents are trying to damage my credibility on the premise that your credibility and our ability to pursue our objectives, will be damaged also.
In the normal cut and thrust of party politics let me tell you that I would not put up with these highly personalised attacks. I would not put up with the campaign of vilification by those who are interested only in petty or narrow-minded party political concerns. It isn't worth it. But this isn't about me, it is about the peace process. I have no personal political ambitions. That is not a criticism of those who do
But the peace process is bigger than party politics. So is the right of the people of this island to live together in freedom and in peace and with justice. That is why I am an Irish republican. I believe the people of this island - orange and green united - can order our own affairs better than any British government. That is our right. That is our entitlement. That is why I have given my life to this struggle. That is why I take my responsibilities so seriously.
The national responsibility of the Irish government
There is a heavy responsibility on the Irish government. It needs to demonstrate that it is as committed to change as its rhetoric implies. The Taoiseach needs to consider whether the invective of his own Ministers and some of his own remarks are creating the atmosphere necessary for constructive engagement. He needs to consider whether his government's current strategy is the right way to go forward. Such approaches were tried in the past - they failed.
We have always worked in good faith with the Taoiseach - for over a decade now. I have acknowledged his contribution and I do so again. The peace process was never above politics but it should always be above party politics. Every party has their own view of how things could go forward - inside and outside the negotiations. That's fair enough.
Of course there are disagreements. But there was a sense of nationalists working together. That while we may disagree on tactics we were going in the same direction. All that has changed. Because in the script written by the Irish and British establishments Sinn Féin was never meant to be anything more than a bit player.
The fact that we are now the largest pro-Agreement party in the north and the third largest party on the island has changed the dynamic of politics here. Of course the government wants the process to succeed, but now its trying to do this solely on its terms.
The IRA
The British and Irish governments are seeking to reduce all of the issues to one - that is the issue of the IRA - even though it knows that the IRA is not the only issue. Historically and in essence the Irish Republican Army is a response to British rule in Ireland. It is a response to deep injustice.
In contemporary terms it is evidence of the failure of politics in the north and a consequence of the abandonment by successive Irish governments of nationalists in that part of our country. And let me be clear about this.
Our leadership is working to create the conditions where the IRA ceases to exist. Do I believe this can be achieved? Yes I do. But I do not believe that the IRA can be wished away, or ridiculed or embarrassed or demonised or repressed out of existence.
Hundreds of IRA Volunteers have fallen in the struggle. There is justifiable pride among republican families about the role of their loved ones. When people decided to take up arms it was because they believed there was no alternative. But there is an alternative. That is a positive. It is in tatters at this time. But it can be rebuilt. That is another positive. The IRA cessation continues. That also is a positive. The IRA has demonstrated time and again its willingness to support genuine efforts to secure Irish freedom by peaceful means. Another positive. I do not underestimate the difficulties.
I take nothing for granted. But let no-one ignore, diminish or belittle the progress that has been made.
Republicans are up for the Challenge
Thug sé dóchas agus ardú meanma do glún iomlán de muintir na h'Éireann -- thuaidh agus theas.
The peace process has been one of the greatest achievements of this generation. And I'm not just talking about the republican contribution - though that should not be undervalued or dismissed. As Irish republicans we believe in independence and self-determination for the people of this island. So we see beyond the process to that achievable goal.
But we take pride also in our achievements thus far. And we are determined to play a positive role both in the process and in the political life of this nation. Sinn Féin wants to tackle the problems now. It has never been in our interest to prolong the peace process. It does not serve those we represent or the country as a whole.
A process as protracted as this one runs the risk of being undermined by those who are against change. Elements of the British system, elements of unionism and unionist paramilitaries, elements on the fringes of republicanism, do not want this process to succeed.
Sinn Féin is battling against all these - day in and day out in parts of the north. And we're not about to give up. We know that as long as we make progress toward the achievement of our goals those who fundamentally disagree with those goals will resort to foul means or fair to deny us the possibility of moving forward.
So this is not a time for republicans to be inward looking. It is a time for forward thinking. Our opponents now have a project. Despite their protestations it is not about tackling criminality. It is about eroding our integrity and credibility among those people who are thinking of joining this party or voting for us. It's as cynical as that.
Sinn Féin has used our influence with the IRA in a positive way. I believe there is merit in us continuing to do this. But we cannot make peace on our own.
We cannot implement the Good Friday Agreement on our own. We cannot establish a working viable power sharing government on our own. We cannot resolve the outstanding issues of policing, and demilitarisation, and equality and human rights on our own. The British and Irish governments and the unionists have their parts to play. Whatever else happens the peace process is our priority.
Inevitably that will mean more hard choices, more hard decisions for Irish republicans as we push ahead with our political project and as we seek to achieve a United Ireland.
Those who want fundamental change have to stretch the furthest and take the greatest risks. Let us continue, despite the difficulties -- to reach out to unionism to build a just and lasting peace on our island.
Ian Paisley says he is willing to share power with us. Let us test him. Again. We know it will be a battle a day. We know as the leading nationalist party in the north and the largest pro-Agreement party, that there are huge responsibilities on us. We are up to that task.
Building an Ireland of equals
Fundamental to Sinn Féin since its foundation has been the belief that the Irish people have the capacity to shape our own society, to build our own economy and to govern our own country to suit our needs and our character as a nation.
The past decade has seen an unprecedented growth in the Irish economy. But the management of that economy by the Government in this State has not challenged the deep-seated inequality in Irish society. This inequality exists at many levels.
For example, people with disabilities have no legislative rights, and the Celtic Tiger stops at the border. The north survives on susbsidies from the British Exchequer and with some of the highest levels of poverty in Western Europe. Throughout the rest of Ireland the gap between rich and poor has widened.
It is a scandal that 15% of children under 15 in this State suffer from poverty - in other words they live in households that struggle every week to provide the basics such as food, clothing and heating.
The public services which working people pay for through taxation have been mismanaged, badly planned and neglected by successive Governments.
Our health services are limping from crisis to crisis, especially in the disgraceful state of accident and emergency units. Because of underfunding and lack of resources our education system is struggling to cope.
Children with special needs are not provided with the facilities they require. The Fianna Fáil/PD government has no housing policy. It leaves it all to private developers to reap big profits as housing prices spiral beyond the reach of people on average incomes. Those with a mortgage face decades of debt.
Many find themselves in badly planned new housing estates without schools, public transport or childcare.
The government has not used the prosperity wisely for the benefit of the maximum number of people. In fact the court recently ruled that deductions taken from old peoples pensions in state homes is illegal. This practice was defended by the Tanaiste but in truth all the other parties allowed it as did successive governments over the years. It is still not clear how much was robbed from these senior citizens but the government's own estimates put it between 500million and 2billion EURO.
So the government has not invested in the people or in the future.
Chuir siad na milliún punt amú le cúig bliana déag anuas.
It's time for Change. But we all know this. We know the failures of successive governments - the point is to find the solutions.
And that is what Sinn Féin is about. We are working with people to bring about real change for the better in the here and now - not at some distant time in the future. And we measure our success by the amount of positive change we have brought about.
For example, after Sinn Féin's success the Government has rediscovered its social conscience. Or at least it now recognises the key social and economic issues that Sinn Féin has been campaigning on.
They have yet to properly address these issues but they have been moved. So too on the National Question. The growth of Sinn Féin has forced most of the parties to rediscover their nationalist or republican roots. That reflects public support for these concepts.
Sin an fath go bhfuil muid ag guí ar muintir iomlán an oileáin seo. Is cuma cén páirtí ina bhfuil sibh cuidigí linn ag brú ar aghaidh d'Éire Aontaithe.
Public support for the peace process will bring them back to that process as well. But progress demands more than rhetoric from these other parties.
Sinn Féin needs to continue to grow. Our goal is to have a Sinn Féin cumann in every electoral ward across Ireland. We have to open our party up to women and to people who will bring their own life experiences and values.
There is also a need to build a national mood for positive change, which can harness the creative power of what people do best in society - the imagination and energy of children and young people; the commitment of parents and carers; the dedication of those who work tirelessly in the voluntary, and community sector; or in the health services; the skills and talents of workers in many fields.
All those who seek political progress must mobilise that good will and turn that desire for a better society into an unstoppable movement for genuine equality. Sinn Féin has no copyright on this. There is plenty of work and lots of space for everyone. So let us move the struggle forward in the widest sense possible. Let us move it forward also by building our party.
In the time ahead we face many party political challenges -- four election campaigns -- the Meath by-election, toghchain Udaras na Gaeltachta and Local Government and Westminster elections in the north. We will also face a referendum on the EU Constitution.
There is a lot of organisational and recruiting work to be done and I want to appeal to people to join Sinn Féin. I particularly want to commend Ógra Sinn Féin for their dedicated work and also the staff of An Phoblacht.
A lot of my remarks today are aimed at other political parties. The British government scarcely gets a mention. That is a sign of these times. I am conscious also of conflicts and famines and disasters in other parts of the world. I am conscious of efforts to resolve problems in the Middle East. I salute these efforts and I salute Palestinian Ambassador who is here with us today.
Meanwhile the imperatives of Irish domestic politics tear the Irish peace process asunder and Sinn Féin is savaged as the British government is let off the hook.
Is that what the republican and nationalist people of this island want? I think not. I think they want us to face up to our responsibilities and others to do likewise. And I think they want Sinn Féin to continue to be a persuasive voice in this process.
Níor chúlaigh muid ó dúshlán riamh ní bheidh muid ag cúlú ón dúshtán seo.
So let us all get our act together. Let us find a fair and equitable accommodation with unionism. It is my conviction that the DUP and Sinn Féin will be in government together.
Let us put it up to the British government to do the right thing by Ireland. The most important thing we all have to do at this time is to rebuild the peace process
We are up to that task. Turning back is not an option. We're moving forward -- forward to a better future.
Presidential Address to the 2005 Ard Fheis
Published: 5 March, 2005
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams MP's Presidential Address to the 2005 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis.
A chairde
Seo bliain an chomóradh Céad Bliain ar an tsaol do Sinn Féin.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh gach duine atá anseo inniu, na hoifigigh, an ceannaireacht, na baill uilig agus chomh maith leis sin ár gcairde ón tír seo agus thar lear.
Tá súil agam go bhfuil sibh ag baint sult as an chaint agus dióspoireacht thar an deireadh seachtaine.
I want to welcome all of you here to this very unique gathering, the Ard Fheis, in the centenary year, of the only all-Ireland political party on this island.
An Céad - Centenary Year
100 years ago Sinn Féin was founded in this city.
This year Irish republicans will celebrate that event in every part of this island and beyond and begin preparations to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the 1981 Hunger Strikes. It will be a year of education and debate. It will be a year in which we will further advance the work of re-popularising Irish republicanism.
When the idea of Sinn Féin was conceived Ireland was awakening from the nightmare of the 19th century. But even in the midst of these horrors some dared to dream of a different Ireland -- a free Ireland. And from the beginning Sinn Féin extended a hand of friendship to unionists, while always asserting that the end of the Union was in the interests of all the people of this island.
It was a time of renewal and rebirth. It was a great period of debate, of exchanges of ideas as leaders and thinkers and activists, dreamers all, met and influenced each other. The result was the 1916 Rising and the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, the founding document of modern Irish Republicanism and a charter of liberty with international as well as national importance.
It is our task -- our responsibility -- to see this vision realised.
I want to greet our international visitors, our delegates, members and activists and our Friends of Sinn Féin from the United States, Australia and Canada who do such a great job for us. I want to extend a particular céad míle failte to our team of MLAs, our MPs, our TDs, and especially to all the councillors elected here in the south since our last Ard Fheis.
I want to particularly commend Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, the other TDs and our entire Leinster House team for the sterling service they give to this party. I want to thank you all, particularly those who stood as candidates for our party, whether you were elected or not. Pearse Doherty represents you all. His campaign is proof of what can be done.
And I want to thank everyone who votes for us and all our members and activists for all the work you are doing. There are others I want to welcome to the Ard Fheis. Annie Cahill, here in her own right but reminding us also of our friend and leader Joe Cahill.
A special welcome also to our two newly elected MEPs.You will see that there are changes in our national officer board. I want to thank Robbie Smith for his work as Ard Runaí and welcome Mitchel McLaughlin into that position. And I want to welcome Mary Lou McDonald who will be taking on the challenge of the Cathaoirleach, or National Chair of Sinn Féin.
Comhaghairdeas mór d'achan duine a thug vóta agus cuidíu dúinn sna toghcháin le bliain anuas. Comhaghairdeas d'ár n-iarrthóirí uilig.
I want this evening to deal fairly and squarely with some issues, which are of huge importance to us.
The Murder of Robert McCartney
I want to deal first of all with the dreadful murder of Robert McCartney. His murder was dreadful, not only because of the way he died and not only because it robbed his family of a father, a partner, a brother, a son. His murder was dreadful because it is alleged some republicans were involved in it.
That makes this a huge issue for us.
As President of Sinn Féin or as an individual I could not campaign for the victims of British or unionist paramilitary thuggery, if I was not as clear and as committed to justice for the McCartney family.
I have met with the McCartney family a number of times. And I remain in contact with them. I believe their demand for justice and truth is a just demand. I have pledged them my support and the support of this party.
Those responsible for the brutal killing of Robert McCartney should admit to what they did in a court of law. That is the only decent thing for them to do. Others with any information should come forward. I am not letting this issue go until those who have sullied the republican cause are made to account for their actions.
Republicans Reject Criminality
Twenty five years ago Margaret Thatcher couldn't criminalise us. The women prisoners in Armagh and the blanketmen and the hunger strikers in Long Kesh wouldn't allow her. That was then; this is now.
Michael McDowell has stepped into Margaret Thatcher's shoes. But he will not criminalise us either, because we will not allow him. And we won't allow anyone within republican ranks to criminalise this party or this struggle. There is no place in republicanism for anyone involved in criminality.
Our detractors will say we have a particular view of what criminality is. We have not. We know what a crime is both in the moral and legal sense, and our view is the same as the majority of people. We know that breaking the law is a crime.
But we refuse to criminalise those who break the law in pursuit of legitimate political objectives. Are we saying republicans can do no wrong? Of course not. We need to be as strong minded in facing up to wrong doing by republicans, as we are in opposing wrong doing by anyone else. But we refuse to retrospectively criminalise a legitimate century long struggle for freedom.
Campaigning for Irish unity
Sinn Féin is accused of recognising the Army Council of the IRA as the legitimate government of this island. That is not the case. The supreme governing and legislative body of Sinn Féin is the Ard Fheis. This is where this party makes its big decisions. This is where we elect our leadership, agree our policies and set in place our strategies.
I do not believe that the Army Council is the government of Ireland. Such a government will only exist when all the people of this island elect it. Does Sinn Féin accept the institutions of this state as the legitimate institutions of this state? Of course we do. But we are critical of these institutions. We are entitled to be.
The freedom won by those, who gave their lives in 1916 and in other periods, has been squandered by those who attained political power on their backs.
Apart from our criticism of the institutions themselves the reality is that they are partitionist and we want to see not only better institutions but open, transparent institutions of government representative of all the people of this island - and we make no apologies for that.
Do we accept partition? No, we do not accept partition. Do we accept British rule in our country? No, we do not. Do we want a United Ireland? Yes.
Last week we launched our campaign for the Irish government to bring forward a Green Paper on Irish Unity. There is a need for Irish people to engage on the shape, form and nature that a re-united Ireland will take. We want to see a grass roots discussion on all these issues. We want the government to formalise that debate and to fulfil its constitutional obligation.
Ba mhaith linn daoine ó gach cearn den tír seo Doire go Corcaigh, Baile Atha Cliath go Gaillimh, Ciarraí go Crossmaglen labhairt faoi seo.
Our opponents claim that our party is a threat to this state. We are a threat to those who preside over growing hospital waiting lists, a two tier health service, a housing crisis, a transport crisis and much more, all within an economy which is one of the wealthiest in Europe. We are a threat to those who believe that inequality is a good thing.
Partitionism is deeply ingrained within elements of the political establishment. It could not be otherwise after over 80 years. We are a threat to those who want to see partition sustained and maintained, because it protects the status quo. We are a threat to those who oppose the peace process. We are a threat to vested interests. We make no apologies for any of this. The threat we pose is entirely democratic and peaceful.
The threat we pose is the radical, progressive, political party we are building right across the island of Ireland. The threat we pose comes from the genuine allegiance and voluntary support of increasing numbers of people who want a very different society from that envisaged by those in government or opposition in the south or from within the old power blocs in the north.
The Peace Process in Crisis
We are people in struggle. We are a party, which prides itself on our ability to face up to challenges and find solutions. We need to be forthright therefore in recognising the depth of the crisis in the peace process and the shared responsibility for this.
Almost a year ago, speaking in Ballymun I warned that the Irish government was actively considering the exclusion of Sinn Féin from the political process. I warned that it was actively considering going back to the old agenda - to the failed policies and the crude politics of negative campaigning.
I made a direct appeal to Fianna Fáil members and supporters, and to nationalists and republicans the length and breadth of this island to join with us in reasserting the primacy of the peace process.
Why did I make those remarks at that time? I did so because at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis Minister after Minister lined up to attack Sinn Féin. And it was the same at all the other party conferences.
This had been their disposition since Sinn Féin's gains in the general election of May 2002, and the establishments defeat in the Nice Treaty referendum in 2001. So, they didn't want to talk about hospital closures, the lack of affordable housing, sub-standard schools, Irish sovereignty, the crumbling peace process, or the fact that their republicanism ends at the border.
Níor mhaith leo labhairt fá na scanallacha, fá na clúdaigh donna agus na deacrachtaí dá bpáirtí féin.
They didn't want to talk about endless lists of broken promises. What they were very focused on was the upcoming local government and European Union elections. And it wasn't just Minister McDowell, though he was leading the charge.
Remember the Taoiseach's relief when Nicky Kehoe just missed a seat by only 74 votes - in the Taoiseach's own constituency. That was the election when the PDs said that Fianna Fáil was too corrupt and too dishonest to be in government, before going on to join them in government.
In November 2003 Sinn Féin moved into becoming the largest pro-Agreement party in the north. That followed a lengthy negotiation which commenced after our negotiating team had obtained a firm commitment to a date for the postponed Assembly elections from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Irish government deeply resented our success in achieving that. Getting the British government to recognise that right was an achievement but it was not the aim of our negotiations. It was a necessary prerequisite for them.
The aim of the negotiations was to get the Good Friday Agreement moving forward, anchored in the political institutions, including the Assembly, and the all-Ireland political infrastructure.
Both governments doubted that David Trimble could be brought to embrace those concepts in the negotiations of that time. But in talks in Hillsborough Castle between the Sinn Féin leadership and the leadership of the UUP Mr. Trimble agreed to do just that. He agreed to play a full part in the political institutions, in the context of the IRA putting arms beyond use once again. And Tony Blair knows this. And Bertie Ahern knows this.
The IRA put arms beyond use - for a third time. And I outlined a peaceful direction for everyone to follow. But as is now infamously known Mr. Trimble walked away from that commitment following General de Chastelain's press conference. Mr. Trimble wasn't on his own. The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister walked away as well.
The Old Consensus
Of course by now Dublin was accusing us of being in a 'power process' not a peace process. The election of Mary Lou McDonald and Bairbre de Brún and the surge of support for Sinn Féin in the local government contests across this state was the last straw for the establishment. The old consensus re-emerged.
Dhruid siad na ranganna agus thosaigh siad ag díriú isteach ar poblachtánaigh arís, ag ionsaí orthu sa phreas agus sa Dáil.
The leaderships of the Labour Party and Fine Gael have never been comfortable with the peace process. Now they colluded, once again, in a vicious anti-Sinn Féin agenda, and Fianna Fáil Ministers increasingly borrowed the invective of Michael McDowell's rhetoric. At the same time the DUP had emerged as the largest party in the north.
Working for a New Agreement
At Bodenstown last year I pointed out that the only way for Sinn Féin to meet these challenges was through putting together an inclusive agreement. I spelt out the need for republicans to take initiatives to bring about completion of the issues of policing and justice, the issues of armed groups and arms, and the issues of human rights, equality and sectarianism.
I also spelt out the need for full participation in the political institutions by the unionists. Our objective was clear. To restore the political institutions and end the crisis in the process. At that time the governments had bought into a DUP timeframe and put off negotiations until September.
It was left to republicans over the summer months, along with some brave people from unionist neighbourhoods, to keep the peace over the Orange marching season. And we accomplished this because of the courage of our representatives, including Gerry Kelly, even when the British Secretary of State Paul Murphy, the PSNI and the British parachute regiment pushed an unwelcome Orange march through Ardoyne.
I don't think a lot of republicans took me seriously when I pointed up the need for us to push for a comprehensive holistic agreement - and with good reason.
That good reason was Ian Paisley.
Republicans and everyone else, including many within the DUP, could not envisage a scenario where Ian Paisley would want to share power with the rest of us. Our objective was to create the conditions in which Ian Paisley would join with the rest of us in the new dispensation set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
It wasn't that he would want to. Of course, he doesn't want to. Our intention was to ensure that he had no option - if he wanted political power, he had to share it with us. It was also my view that unionism was using the IRA as an excuse to prevent progress in the peace process. I said that in an unrehearsed remark. And I went on to say that republicans needed to remove that excuse from them.
Difficult Negotiations
As November moved into December Ian Paisley, for the first time in his lengthy political career, was being challenged by the willingness of the Sinn Féin leadership to use our influence once again to resolve the problems which he was putting up as obstacles to progress, and as a condition for his participation in the structures of the Good Friday Agreement.
These negotiations were the most difficult that I have been involved in. Not least because of the approach of the British and Irish governments. They bought into the Paisleyite agenda at every turn.
Sinn Féin's approach was two fold. We were trying to get the DUP on board. We were also trying to ensure that any proposals from the governments, and any agreement emerging from these discussions was rooted firmly in the Good Friday Agreement.
At the beginning of these negotiations the governments agreed that if the DUP was not up for a deal then the two governments would come forward with proposals to move the process forward.
Tá muid ag fanacht leis na moltaí sin go fóill.
By this time republicans were starting to get increasingly nervous. Even the cynical and dubious were starting to contemplate the possibility that Paisley might; just might do a deal. That wasn't why they were nervous. They were nervous about the price which was being demanded. They were grappling with the issue of policing alongside other issues.
It is my view that we would have risen to these challenges in the context of an agreement even though they created profound difficulties for us. And what was the contribution from republicans?
The IRA leadership had agreed, in the context of a comprehensive agreement:
· to support a comprehensive agreement by moving into a new mode which reflects its determination to see the transition to a totally peaceful society
· to give instructions to all its volunteers not to engage in any activity which might endanger that agreement
· to conclude the process to completely and verifiably putting all their arms beyond use, speedily, and if possible, by the end of December
· to allow two clergymen to be present as observers during this process to further enhance public confidence.
Policing
I also agreed in a given context to ask the Ard Chomhairle to call a special Ard Fheis to consider our attitude to the PSNI. Policing is a key issue. In our view it can only be conducted as a public service by those who are democratically accountable. And while progress has been made over recent years the PSNI has not yet been brought to that point.
Sinn Féin is actively working to create an accountable policing service. We support a range of restorative justice and community initiatives to deal with the problems created by the absence of an acceptable policing service in the north.
Let me digress briefly to make an important point. The policing vacuum cannot be filled by physical punishments, no matter how frustrated communities may be by those who engage in anti-social behaviour. There is no place for so called punishment beatings or shootings. Our party has a lengthy opposition to these. They are counter productive. They should stop.
This party was also prepared to share power with the DUP. That remains our position. There is no reason not to. We respect their mandate. We got them to accept the Good Friday Agreement. For their part the two governments pledged to honour commitments made repeatedly by them in the past on a range of outstanding and important issues of rights, demilitarisation, equality, prisoners and so on. Then it all came unstuck.
Thit achan rud as a chéile, agus tá sé ina smidiríní go fóill.
Ian Paisley delivered his 'acts of humiliation' speech. Mr. Paisley's desire to "humiliate republicans"; to have republicans "wear sack cloth and ashes"; and the DUP's constant use of offensive language, was not and is not the language of peace making. For many across nationalist and republican Ireland this was too much. Especially when the governments supported the DUP position that the IRA be photographed putting their arms beyond use.
Ian Paisley didn't even have to negotiate for this demand. The two governments supported it from the beginning. It was a demand, not surprising, that Sinn Féin could not deliver. A partnership of equals can never be delivered or built through a process of humiliation. The governments went ahead and launched their draft outline of a comprehensive agreement, even though there was no agreement.
New negotiations
You will recall that the two governments gave a commitment at the beginning of this negotiation to find a way forward if there was a failure to get a deal. So Sinn Féin and the British government entered into new talks. The Irish government should have been there. But the Irish government refused to attend. The British government set out their views. They agreed to talk to the Irish government to try and agree a joint government paper and bring it back to us.
We gave the British government written proposals of what we thought was required, and we sent a copy to the Irish government. The British drafted a written response to this and when Mr. Blair met the Taoiseach in Brussels they discussed these matters. But at our next meeting the British told us that the Irish government would not agree a paper with them, did not want them to present any paper to us, and had reservations about this approach.
During this period I was constantly in contact with the Taoiseach's department and the government was eventually persuaded to send senior officials to a trilateral meeting. It was a good meeting even though the officials were only there as observers.
The Northern Bank Robbery
After that meeting we broke for Christmas. Then came news of the Northern Bank robbery. The IRA is accused of that robbery. And of other incidents. It denies this. I accept those denials. Others don't. The truth is that no one knows at this time who did the robbery, except the people involved.
Martin McGuinness and I were accused by the Taoiseach of having prior knowledge. That is untrue. But one thing is for certain activities like this have no place in the peace process. The rest is history or what passes for history in these McCarthyite times.
Sending a Clear Message
Just two months ago the process was close to a deal which many thought was not possible. Now the momentum is going the other way. As a first step in trying to move the process out of this crisis I want to send a very, very clear message to everyone. That message is that the peace process is the only way forward.
I do not underestimate the depth of the crisis or the difficulties. But I am absolutely certain that there is a way beyond this crisis.
Níl aon bhealach eile, is cuma cé chomh deacair is atá sé, caithfidh muid an phróiseas a chur le chéile aris.
The peace process is our struggle
Republicans must make sure that we recognise failures in the process quickly; that we assess them; that we criticise ourselves were necessary; that we learn what has to be learned and emerge stronger and more able to fulfil our historic mission. It is by learning from failures that we will find the way forward. We will learn to improve and strenthen our struggle. And let me make it clear the peace process is our struggle.
It is as a result of our tenacity that the balance of forces has changed on this island to the extent that the conservative parties are now seeking to stunt and to stop the growth of the main vehicle of republican struggle - that is Sinn Féin.
I am also very conscious that a lot of the effort to damage Sinn Féin is through targeting me and others in our national leadership. Our opponents are trying to damage my credibility on the premise that your credibility and our ability to pursue our objectives, will be damaged also.
In the normal cut and thrust of party politics let me tell you that I would not put up with these highly personalised attacks. I would not put up with the campaign of vilification by those who are interested only in petty or narrow-minded party political concerns. It isn't worth it. But this isn't about me, it is about the peace process. I have no personal political ambitions. That is not a criticism of those who do
But the peace process is bigger than party politics. So is the right of the people of this island to live together in freedom and in peace and with justice. That is why I am an Irish republican. I believe the people of this island - orange and green united - can order our own affairs better than any British government. That is our right. That is our entitlement. That is why I have given my life to this struggle. That is why I take my responsibilities so seriously.
The national responsibility of the Irish government
There is a heavy responsibility on the Irish government. It needs to demonstrate that it is as committed to change as its rhetoric implies. The Taoiseach needs to consider whether the invective of his own Ministers and some of his own remarks are creating the atmosphere necessary for constructive engagement. He needs to consider whether his government's current strategy is the right way to go forward. Such approaches were tried in the past - they failed.
We have always worked in good faith with the Taoiseach - for over a decade now. I have acknowledged his contribution and I do so again. The peace process was never above politics but it should always be above party politics. Every party has their own view of how things could go forward - inside and outside the negotiations. That's fair enough.
Of course there are disagreements. But there was a sense of nationalists working together. That while we may disagree on tactics we were going in the same direction. All that has changed. Because in the script written by the Irish and British establishments Sinn Féin was never meant to be anything more than a bit player.
The fact that we are now the largest pro-Agreement party in the north and the third largest party on the island has changed the dynamic of politics here. Of course the government wants the process to succeed, but now its trying to do this solely on its terms.
The IRA
The British and Irish governments are seeking to reduce all of the issues to one - that is the issue of the IRA - even though it knows that the IRA is not the only issue. Historically and in essence the Irish Republican Army is a response to British rule in Ireland. It is a response to deep injustice.
In contemporary terms it is evidence of the failure of politics in the north and a consequence of the abandonment by successive Irish governments of nationalists in that part of our country. And let me be clear about this.
Our leadership is working to create the conditions where the IRA ceases to exist. Do I believe this can be achieved? Yes I do. But I do not believe that the IRA can be wished away, or ridiculed or embarrassed or demonised or repressed out of existence.
Hundreds of IRA Volunteers have fallen in the struggle. There is justifiable pride among republican families about the role of their loved ones. When people decided to take up arms it was because they believed there was no alternative. But there is an alternative. That is a positive. It is in tatters at this time. But it can be rebuilt. That is another positive. The IRA cessation continues. That also is a positive. The IRA has demonstrated time and again its willingness to support genuine efforts to secure Irish freedom by peaceful means. Another positive. I do not underestimate the difficulties.
I take nothing for granted. But let no-one ignore, diminish or belittle the progress that has been made.
Republicans are up for the Challenge
Thug sé dóchas agus ardú meanma do glún iomlán de muintir na h'Éireann -- thuaidh agus theas.
The peace process has been one of the greatest achievements of this generation. And I'm not just talking about the republican contribution - though that should not be undervalued or dismissed. As Irish republicans we believe in independence and self-determination for the people of this island. So we see beyond the process to that achievable goal.
But we take pride also in our achievements thus far. And we are determined to play a positive role both in the process and in the political life of this nation. Sinn Féin wants to tackle the problems now. It has never been in our interest to prolong the peace process. It does not serve those we represent or the country as a whole.
A process as protracted as this one runs the risk of being undermined by those who are against change. Elements of the British system, elements of unionism and unionist paramilitaries, elements on the fringes of republicanism, do not want this process to succeed.
Sinn Féin is battling against all these - day in and day out in parts of the north. And we're not about to give up. We know that as long as we make progress toward the achievement of our goals those who fundamentally disagree with those goals will resort to foul means or fair to deny us the possibility of moving forward.
So this is not a time for republicans to be inward looking. It is a time for forward thinking. Our opponents now have a project. Despite their protestations it is not about tackling criminality. It is about eroding our integrity and credibility among those people who are thinking of joining this party or voting for us. It's as cynical as that.
Sinn Féin has used our influence with the IRA in a positive way. I believe there is merit in us continuing to do this. But we cannot make peace on our own.
We cannot implement the Good Friday Agreement on our own. We cannot establish a working viable power sharing government on our own. We cannot resolve the outstanding issues of policing, and demilitarisation, and equality and human rights on our own. The British and Irish governments and the unionists have their parts to play. Whatever else happens the peace process is our priority.
Inevitably that will mean more hard choices, more hard decisions for Irish republicans as we push ahead with our political project and as we seek to achieve a United Ireland.
Those who want fundamental change have to stretch the furthest and take the greatest risks. Let us continue, despite the difficulties -- to reach out to unionism to build a just and lasting peace on our island.
Ian Paisley says he is willing to share power with us. Let us test him. Again. We know it will be a battle a day. We know as the leading nationalist party in the north and the largest pro-Agreement party, that there are huge responsibilities on us. We are up to that task.
Building an Ireland of equals
Fundamental to Sinn Féin since its foundation has been the belief that the Irish people have the capacity to shape our own society, to build our own economy and to govern our own country to suit our needs and our character as a nation.
The past decade has seen an unprecedented growth in the Irish economy. But the management of that economy by the Government in this State has not challenged the deep-seated inequality in Irish society. This inequality exists at many levels.
For example, people with disabilities have no legislative rights, and the Celtic Tiger stops at the border. The north survives on susbsidies from the British Exchequer and with some of the highest levels of poverty in Western Europe. Throughout the rest of Ireland the gap between rich and poor has widened.
It is a scandal that 15% of children under 15 in this State suffer from poverty - in other words they live in households that struggle every week to provide the basics such as food, clothing and heating.
The public services which working people pay for through taxation have been mismanaged, badly planned and neglected by successive Governments.
Our health services are limping from crisis to crisis, especially in the disgraceful state of accident and emergency units. Because of underfunding and lack of resources our education system is struggling to cope.
Children with special needs are not provided with the facilities they require. The Fianna Fáil/PD government has no housing policy. It leaves it all to private developers to reap big profits as housing prices spiral beyond the reach of people on average incomes. Those with a mortgage face decades of debt.
Many find themselves in badly planned new housing estates without schools, public transport or childcare.
The government has not used the prosperity wisely for the benefit of the maximum number of people. In fact the court recently ruled that deductions taken from old peoples pensions in state homes is illegal. This practice was defended by the Tanaiste but in truth all the other parties allowed it as did successive governments over the years. It is still not clear how much was robbed from these senior citizens but the government's own estimates put it between 500million and 2billion EURO.
So the government has not invested in the people or in the future.
Chuir siad na milliún punt amú le cúig bliana déag anuas.
It's time for Change. But we all know this. We know the failures of successive governments - the point is to find the solutions.
And that is what Sinn Féin is about. We are working with people to bring about real change for the better in the here and now - not at some distant time in the future. And we measure our success by the amount of positive change we have brought about.
For example, after Sinn Féin's success the Government has rediscovered its social conscience. Or at least it now recognises the key social and economic issues that Sinn Féin has been campaigning on.
They have yet to properly address these issues but they have been moved. So too on the National Question. The growth of Sinn Féin has forced most of the parties to rediscover their nationalist or republican roots. That reflects public support for these concepts.
Sin an fath go bhfuil muid ag guí ar muintir iomlán an oileáin seo. Is cuma cén páirtí ina bhfuil sibh cuidigí linn ag brú ar aghaidh d'Éire Aontaithe.
Public support for the peace process will bring them back to that process as well. But progress demands more than rhetoric from these other parties.
Sinn Féin needs to continue to grow. Our goal is to have a Sinn Féin cumann in every electoral ward across Ireland. We have to open our party up to women and to people who will bring their own life experiences and values.
There is also a need to build a national mood for positive change, which can harness the creative power of what people do best in society - the imagination and energy of children and young people; the commitment of parents and carers; the dedication of those who work tirelessly in the voluntary, and community sector; or in the health services; the skills and talents of workers in many fields.
All those who seek political progress must mobilise that good will and turn that desire for a better society into an unstoppable movement for genuine equality. Sinn Féin has no copyright on this. There is plenty of work and lots of space for everyone. So let us move the struggle forward in the widest sense possible. Let us move it forward also by building our party.
In the time ahead we face many party political challenges -- four election campaigns -- the Meath by-election, toghchain Udaras na Gaeltachta and Local Government and Westminster elections in the north. We will also face a referendum on the EU Constitution.
There is a lot of organisational and recruiting work to be done and I want to appeal to people to join Sinn Féin. I particularly want to commend Ógra Sinn Féin for their dedicated work and also the staff of An Phoblacht.
A lot of my remarks today are aimed at other political parties. The British government scarcely gets a mention. That is a sign of these times. I am conscious also of conflicts and famines and disasters in other parts of the world. I am conscious of efforts to resolve problems in the Middle East. I salute these efforts and I salute Palestinian Ambassador who is here with us today.
Meanwhile the imperatives of Irish domestic politics tear the Irish peace process asunder and Sinn Féin is savaged as the British government is let off the hook.
Is that what the republican and nationalist people of this island want? I think not. I think they want us to face up to our responsibilities and others to do likewise. And I think they want Sinn Féin to continue to be a persuasive voice in this process.
Níor chúlaigh muid ó dúshlán riamh ní bheidh muid ag cúlú ón dúshtán seo.
So let us all get our act together. Let us find a fair and equitable accommodation with unionism. It is my conviction that the DUP and Sinn Féin will be in government together.
Let us put it up to the British government to do the right thing by Ireland. The most important thing we all have to do at this time is to rebuild the peace process
We are up to that task. Turning back is not an option. We're moving forward -- forward to a better future.
BreakingNews.ie
Protesters gather outside Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis
05/03/2005 - 18:16:43
Protesters gathered outside the Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis in the RDS to demand that the IRA steps down.
The protesters carried posters with the slogan 'Time To Go - Stand Down the IRA', aping the republican movement's slogan for British Troop withdrawal from Northern Ireland.
The small protest also featured posters saying 'No To Crime - Stand Down The IRA.'
Peace Campaigner Chris Hudson said: "What we are demanding is no more ambiguity, no more equivocation."
During the conference Sinn Féin's speakers have rejected claims that republicans are engaged in criminal activity.
Protesters gather outside Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis
05/03/2005 - 18:16:43
Protesters gathered outside the Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis in the RDS to demand that the IRA steps down.
The protesters carried posters with the slogan 'Time To Go - Stand Down the IRA', aping the republican movement's slogan for British Troop withdrawal from Northern Ireland.
The small protest also featured posters saying 'No To Crime - Stand Down The IRA.'
Peace Campaigner Chris Hudson said: "What we are demanding is no more ambiguity, no more equivocation."
During the conference Sinn Féin's speakers have rejected claims that republicans are engaged in criminal activity.
BreakingNews.ie
McCartney sisters defend attending SF conference
05/03/2005 - 19:05:40
Murder victim Robert McCartney’s sisters tonight denied their attendance at Sinn Féin’s annual conference sent out “mixed signals”
Paula, Donna, Catharine, Gemma and Claire accepted an invitation to the event by party leader Gerry Adams and sat in the front row when he delivered his keynote address.
The family has accused the IRA of shielding members who murdered Mr McCartney in a Belfast bar on January 30 and of intimidating witnesses.
After leaving the conference today Catherine said: “This is a social justice issue. Mixed signals ? No.”
She said that the family would only stop their campaign for truth and justice when those responsible for her broter’s death were before the courts.
Earlier, the sisters received a sustained round of applause as they were led into Dublin’s RDS Arena.
They sat flanked by the party’s justice spokesman, Gerry Kelly, and Northern Ireland assembly member, Catriona Ruane, as they heard Mr Adams call on the culprits to admit to what they had done in a court of law.
He said: “I am not letting this issue go until those who had sullied the Republican cause are made to account for their actions.”
McCartney sisters defend attending SF conference
05/03/2005 - 19:05:40
Murder victim Robert McCartney’s sisters tonight denied their attendance at Sinn Féin’s annual conference sent out “mixed signals”
Paula, Donna, Catharine, Gemma and Claire accepted an invitation to the event by party leader Gerry Adams and sat in the front row when he delivered his keynote address.
The family has accused the IRA of shielding members who murdered Mr McCartney in a Belfast bar on January 30 and of intimidating witnesses.
After leaving the conference today Catherine said: “This is a social justice issue. Mixed signals ? No.”
She said that the family would only stop their campaign for truth and justice when those responsible for her broter’s death were before the courts.
Earlier, the sisters received a sustained round of applause as they were led into Dublin’s RDS Arena.
They sat flanked by the party’s justice spokesman, Gerry Kelly, and Northern Ireland assembly member, Catriona Ruane, as they heard Mr Adams call on the culprits to admit to what they had done in a court of law.
He said: “I am not letting this issue go until those who had sullied the Republican cause are made to account for their actions.”
BreakingNews.ie
Adams: Govt has failed on peace process obligations
05/03/2005 - 17:20:49
In a hard-hitting speech to the Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis this evening, the party's president Gerry Adams says the Government has let the people of the country down by failing on its obligations to the peace process.
He says republicans are working towards conditions where the IRA ceases to exist and he says he believes they will succeed.
He said Republicans should test again whether the Reverend Ian Paisley really is willing to share power with them in the North.
Mr Adams said that Robert McCartney’s murder was dreadful, not only because it robbed his family but because republicans were involved
He said those responsible must admit it and people must come forward.
Mr Adams also said there is no place in Republicanism for anyone involved in criminality.
He said the IRA army council is not the legitimate government of Ireland which will only exist when all the people of Ireland elect it.
Adams: Govt has failed on peace process obligations
05/03/2005 - 17:20:49
In a hard-hitting speech to the Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis this evening, the party's president Gerry Adams says the Government has let the people of the country down by failing on its obligations to the peace process.
He says republicans are working towards conditions where the IRA ceases to exist and he says he believes they will succeed.
He said Republicans should test again whether the Reverend Ian Paisley really is willing to share power with them in the North.
Mr Adams said that Robert McCartney’s murder was dreadful, not only because it robbed his family but because republicans were involved
He said those responsible must admit it and people must come forward.
Mr Adams also said there is no place in Republicanism for anyone involved in criminality.
He said the IRA army council is not the legitimate government of Ireland which will only exist when all the people of Ireland elect it.
BreakingNews.ie
Suspected drug boss found hanging in jail
05/03/2005 - 17:22:34
A man reported to be a leading crime figure in Dublin has been found hanging in his cell in Mountjoy Prison.
He was found in his cell by two fellow prisoners just after midday.
Prison officers were alerted and they attempted to resuscitate the man.
He was then rushed to the Mater Hospital where he was pronounced dead at around 12.45pm.
The 34-year-old man was serving a one-year sentence for road traffic offences and was due to be released next month.
It is understood that the man is a regarded by gardaí as a leading figure in drug dealing in the north of the city.
Suspected drug boss found hanging in jail
05/03/2005 - 17:22:34
A man reported to be a leading crime figure in Dublin has been found hanging in his cell in Mountjoy Prison.
He was found in his cell by two fellow prisoners just after midday.
Prison officers were alerted and they attempted to resuscitate the man.
He was then rushed to the Mater Hospital where he was pronounced dead at around 12.45pm.
The 34-year-old man was serving a one-year sentence for road traffic offences and was due to be released next month.
It is understood that the man is a regarded by gardaí as a leading figure in drug dealing in the north of the city.
Guardian
Bite my bullet
Are Irish republicans really committed to peace? Charles Moore and Danny Morrison thrash it out
Saturday March 5, 2005
The Guardian
Dear Danny Morrison,
For many years, Sinn Féin/IRA have been able to return all arguments about violence and criminality to the evil of "the British state" in Northern Ireland. I'm interested by recent developments, because they seem to have virtually nothing to do with the British state, and everything to do with the people of Ireland, north and south.
As a result of the recent murder of Robert McCartney in a republican area of Belfast, the IRA has been forced to expel members. Do you think that the murderers of Mr McCartney committed a crime? Do you think they should be punished through the courts? One of Mr McCartney's sisters said on RTE: "We now see and we can now hear." What do you think she meant?
I see and hear that Gerry Adams now says he may have been wrong to deny IRA involvement in the raid on the Northern Bank. What do you think? If it is true that we have now entered an era of peace, can there be any defence for criminal activity? Your policy seems to be "not an ounce, not a bullet, not a shilling". How can Irish democracy be built on that? It looks to me, rather like the last days of Soviet rule in eastern Europe, that the people you have been accustomed to control now feel threatened by you, not defended, and they are finding the courage to say so.
Charles Moore
Dear Charles,
It's nice to talk. All those years of demonising and criminalising republicans and refusing to talk only protracted our conflict. When you talk you begin to appreciate the other person's perspective and motivation.
Yes, the IRA dismissed some of its members. It also said there should be no intimidation of or injunction against any witness helping the dead man's family in their quest for justice. This is an encouraging development with ramifications for the recognition by republicans of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [PSNI] and the legal system, once the promised reforms and bill of rights are introduced.
Do you remember that other murder in Belfast of young Peter McBride? Guess what! Despite being found guilty in the high court of murder, the British army refused to dismiss Scots Guardsmen Mark Wright and James Fisher! After serving only six years each, they were welcomed back into the ranks. Furthermore, the British government refuses to cooperate with the Irish government in its investigations into the Dublin and Monaghan car bombs, which killed 33 people. Only 17 pages of the 3,000-page report by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens into allegations of collusion between British intelligence and loyalist paramilitaries were published. Charles, what is going on?!
Yours, Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
You seem to think that, because you are a spokesman for Sinn Féin/IRA, I must be a spokesman for the British authorities. I am not. My point is that current events in Ireland reveal crimes against Irish people by the IRA in what is supposed to be an era of peace. The alleged wickedness of the British state is not relevant to this question, and you do not answer it.
By saying that there should be no intimidation of those who bear witness against Robert McCartney's murderers, do you suggest that, in other cases, witnesses to murders should be intimidated? The McCartney sisters say that up to 12 people were involved in their brother's murder. Will Sinn Féin/IRA insist that they all come forward? I wonder why, shortly after the murder, Alex Maskey hurried down to Short Strand to condemn "heavyhanded" policing. Why didn't Sinn Féin immediately help to hunt the killers?
I mentioned the Northern Bank robbery, but you did not respond. Was the IRA involved, and, if so, do you defend its involvement?
Your position on the British state is well known, but Sinn Féin's attitude to the Irish state is more confusing. Is it a legitimate state? If you do not think it is, how can Irish people accept your good faith in participating in Irish political life? If you think the Irish state is legitimate, why were Sinn Féin Dail deputies photographed visiting the killers of garda McCabe in prison?
Charles Moore
Chas,
Thanks for answering none of my questions. To yours: I am not a spokesperson for Sinn Féin or the IRA. I was director of publicity at Sinn Féin until 1990, and I was an IRA member. I am now a member of neither. In any clubs yourself? I know exactly what you mean by "The alleged wickedness of the British state is not relevant". It never is, comrade.
By the way, it was in the Markets area that Maskey spoke of PSNI heavyhandedness. Would you support the IRA hunting Robert McCartney's killers, arresting them at gunpoint and dropping them off at the nearest barracks? If that isn't what you mean, please explain.
Regarding the Northern Bank robbery: I was convinced initially that the IRA did it to send a message to Blair after it offered - in his words - a historic, unprecedented deal to the unionists, only for Paisley to call for the IRA to be publicly humiliated. Paisley busted the deal and paid no penalty. When Adams and McGuinness robustly denied any involvement, I changed my mind. But that's now academic since Sinn Féin has been penalised for something the IRA may or not have done. Would you support the salaries and expenses of all members of the Labour party being withdrawn because British soldiers were alleged to have murdered or tortured Iraqis? It's the same thing - except the IRA doesn't interfere in the affairs of other nations.
As for the 26 counties: it's a legitimate state, though Britain forced it to pay crippling annuities for years until Dublin told it where to get off and immediately suffered an economic embargo. And, as I said when you were not listening, Britain refuses to cooperate with the biggest murder inquiry in the republic. Incidentally, the IRA people convicted of Jerry McCabe's manslaughter, when the IRA was not on ceasefire and before the Belfast agreement, have been ruled by the Irish high court as "qualifying prisoners", due for release under the agreement. So, my chum, why do you so enthusiastically support the authorities when they renege on their pledges?!
Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
Please don't get so angry. I know you went to prison for falsely imprisoning an alleged informer, but remember that this is a debate, not an interrogation.
My essential point about the McCartney murder is that Mr McCartney's sisters believe that IRA men killed their brother and that the IRA is not doing nearly enough to bring his killers, and those who cleared up the mess to conceal the crime, to justice. Are the McCartney sisters mistaken?
You clearly think that if the IRA did rob the bank, it would have been justified (because it "sends a message"). So I don't understand why you complained, in your first email, about republicans being "criminalised": bank robbery is a criminal act, and one you seem happy to support. You say that the question of who robbed the bank is now "academic", but crime is not an academic question for its victims. In this case, the victims, as well as the bank itself and its depositors, were the terrified kidnapped bank clerks.
How much longer must Irish people suffer IRA crimes? How can these crimes be compatible with democracy?
Charles Moore
Charles,
In a recent BBC vox pop, several Short Strand residents rejected going to the PSNI. This was followed by Paula McCartney (one of Robert's sisters) saying: "If witnesses are unwilling to approach the police, the family would like them to give statements to the police ombudsman." Chief Constable Hugh Orde said: "If people do not feel able to do that [go to the PSNI], we have no difficulty with them talking to third parties as a first step to build confidence."
That is Sinn Féin's position!
Now, the difference between robbing a bank for oneself or for a cause has already been settled by British law, initially in the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act and latterly in the Terrorism Act 2000. Why do you think IRA armed robbers were initially granted political status? The rules of evidence are different and the punishment more severe.
Anyway, it's a bit rich for Britain that robs not banks but entire nations to be lecturing us!
Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
I feel that, if the IRA really wanted the McCartney murder cleared up, it could do it straightaway, and I feel that you know that.
As far as the Northern Bank goes, both Adams and Martin McGuinness have described the robbery as a "crime". So I repeat, why is the republican movement committing crimes? Sinn Féin says it is committed to the peace process, but it seems to be committed to the process, not the peace.
You end: "It's a bit rich for Britain ... to be lecturing us". As I say, I am not speaking for Britain. My question to you is: "Who is 'us'?" The victims of republican crimes are Irish people. You tell me you accept the legitimacy of the Irish state. Sinn Féin's acceptance of the consent principle implies acceptance of partition too. Yet Sinn Féin/IRA still rob and terrorise your fellow Irishmen and women, north and south. Why?
Charles Moore
Dear Charles,
As an Irish republican, I cannot accept that Britain has any right to rule my community and part of my country: it makes me feel vanquished, as it would you were the roles reversed. If you are going to quote concern for this community, then please recognise of which authorities (unionist and Westminster governments) it has been the chief victim, that it has overwhelmingly chosen Sinn Féin under MPs like Adams and McGuinness to represent it, that it desires peace with unionist people and Britain; and that the IRA (which sprang from this community) has compromised and on three occasions put large numbers of weapons beyond use.
We live in an abnormal society, which was no solution in 1920 and no solution today, and that explains why abnormal things have been done by all sides. I accept moral responsibility for the actions of Irish republicans. I only wish the apologists for the British presence - and you are one - did the same for its actions. In denial you might be, but you will find that though republicans bear continuing British rule under sufferance, we can be great craic and are prepared to love you!
Danny
· Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, is a columnist for the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.
· Danny Morrison, an ex-prisoner and former director of publicity for Sinn Féin, is a full-time author and commentator; his play about the IRA, The Wrong Man, opens at the Pleasance Theatre, Islington, on March 12
Bite my bullet
Are Irish republicans really committed to peace? Charles Moore and Danny Morrison thrash it out
Saturday March 5, 2005
The Guardian
Dear Danny Morrison,
For many years, Sinn Féin/IRA have been able to return all arguments about violence and criminality to the evil of "the British state" in Northern Ireland. I'm interested by recent developments, because they seem to have virtually nothing to do with the British state, and everything to do with the people of Ireland, north and south.
As a result of the recent murder of Robert McCartney in a republican area of Belfast, the IRA has been forced to expel members. Do you think that the murderers of Mr McCartney committed a crime? Do you think they should be punished through the courts? One of Mr McCartney's sisters said on RTE: "We now see and we can now hear." What do you think she meant?
I see and hear that Gerry Adams now says he may have been wrong to deny IRA involvement in the raid on the Northern Bank. What do you think? If it is true that we have now entered an era of peace, can there be any defence for criminal activity? Your policy seems to be "not an ounce, not a bullet, not a shilling". How can Irish democracy be built on that? It looks to me, rather like the last days of Soviet rule in eastern Europe, that the people you have been accustomed to control now feel threatened by you, not defended, and they are finding the courage to say so.
Charles Moore
Dear Charles,
It's nice to talk. All those years of demonising and criminalising republicans and refusing to talk only protracted our conflict. When you talk you begin to appreciate the other person's perspective and motivation.
Yes, the IRA dismissed some of its members. It also said there should be no intimidation of or injunction against any witness helping the dead man's family in their quest for justice. This is an encouraging development with ramifications for the recognition by republicans of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [PSNI] and the legal system, once the promised reforms and bill of rights are introduced.
Do you remember that other murder in Belfast of young Peter McBride? Guess what! Despite being found guilty in the high court of murder, the British army refused to dismiss Scots Guardsmen Mark Wright and James Fisher! After serving only six years each, they were welcomed back into the ranks. Furthermore, the British government refuses to cooperate with the Irish government in its investigations into the Dublin and Monaghan car bombs, which killed 33 people. Only 17 pages of the 3,000-page report by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens into allegations of collusion between British intelligence and loyalist paramilitaries were published. Charles, what is going on?!
Yours, Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
You seem to think that, because you are a spokesman for Sinn Féin/IRA, I must be a spokesman for the British authorities. I am not. My point is that current events in Ireland reveal crimes against Irish people by the IRA in what is supposed to be an era of peace. The alleged wickedness of the British state is not relevant to this question, and you do not answer it.
By saying that there should be no intimidation of those who bear witness against Robert McCartney's murderers, do you suggest that, in other cases, witnesses to murders should be intimidated? The McCartney sisters say that up to 12 people were involved in their brother's murder. Will Sinn Féin/IRA insist that they all come forward? I wonder why, shortly after the murder, Alex Maskey hurried down to Short Strand to condemn "heavyhanded" policing. Why didn't Sinn Féin immediately help to hunt the killers?
I mentioned the Northern Bank robbery, but you did not respond. Was the IRA involved, and, if so, do you defend its involvement?
Your position on the British state is well known, but Sinn Féin's attitude to the Irish state is more confusing. Is it a legitimate state? If you do not think it is, how can Irish people accept your good faith in participating in Irish political life? If you think the Irish state is legitimate, why were Sinn Féin Dail deputies photographed visiting the killers of garda McCabe in prison?
Charles Moore
Chas,
Thanks for answering none of my questions. To yours: I am not a spokesperson for Sinn Féin or the IRA. I was director of publicity at Sinn Féin until 1990, and I was an IRA member. I am now a member of neither. In any clubs yourself? I know exactly what you mean by "The alleged wickedness of the British state is not relevant". It never is, comrade.
By the way, it was in the Markets area that Maskey spoke of PSNI heavyhandedness. Would you support the IRA hunting Robert McCartney's killers, arresting them at gunpoint and dropping them off at the nearest barracks? If that isn't what you mean, please explain.
Regarding the Northern Bank robbery: I was convinced initially that the IRA did it to send a message to Blair after it offered - in his words - a historic, unprecedented deal to the unionists, only for Paisley to call for the IRA to be publicly humiliated. Paisley busted the deal and paid no penalty. When Adams and McGuinness robustly denied any involvement, I changed my mind. But that's now academic since Sinn Féin has been penalised for something the IRA may or not have done. Would you support the salaries and expenses of all members of the Labour party being withdrawn because British soldiers were alleged to have murdered or tortured Iraqis? It's the same thing - except the IRA doesn't interfere in the affairs of other nations.
As for the 26 counties: it's a legitimate state, though Britain forced it to pay crippling annuities for years until Dublin told it where to get off and immediately suffered an economic embargo. And, as I said when you were not listening, Britain refuses to cooperate with the biggest murder inquiry in the republic. Incidentally, the IRA people convicted of Jerry McCabe's manslaughter, when the IRA was not on ceasefire and before the Belfast agreement, have been ruled by the Irish high court as "qualifying prisoners", due for release under the agreement. So, my chum, why do you so enthusiastically support the authorities when they renege on their pledges?!
Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
Please don't get so angry. I know you went to prison for falsely imprisoning an alleged informer, but remember that this is a debate, not an interrogation.
My essential point about the McCartney murder is that Mr McCartney's sisters believe that IRA men killed their brother and that the IRA is not doing nearly enough to bring his killers, and those who cleared up the mess to conceal the crime, to justice. Are the McCartney sisters mistaken?
You clearly think that if the IRA did rob the bank, it would have been justified (because it "sends a message"). So I don't understand why you complained, in your first email, about republicans being "criminalised": bank robbery is a criminal act, and one you seem happy to support. You say that the question of who robbed the bank is now "academic", but crime is not an academic question for its victims. In this case, the victims, as well as the bank itself and its depositors, were the terrified kidnapped bank clerks.
How much longer must Irish people suffer IRA crimes? How can these crimes be compatible with democracy?
Charles Moore
Charles,
In a recent BBC vox pop, several Short Strand residents rejected going to the PSNI. This was followed by Paula McCartney (one of Robert's sisters) saying: "If witnesses are unwilling to approach the police, the family would like them to give statements to the police ombudsman." Chief Constable Hugh Orde said: "If people do not feel able to do that [go to the PSNI], we have no difficulty with them talking to third parties as a first step to build confidence."
That is Sinn Féin's position!
Now, the difference between robbing a bank for oneself or for a cause has already been settled by British law, initially in the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act and latterly in the Terrorism Act 2000. Why do you think IRA armed robbers were initially granted political status? The rules of evidence are different and the punishment more severe.
Anyway, it's a bit rich for Britain that robs not banks but entire nations to be lecturing us!
Danny
Dear Danny Morrison,
I feel that, if the IRA really wanted the McCartney murder cleared up, it could do it straightaway, and I feel that you know that.
As far as the Northern Bank goes, both Adams and Martin McGuinness have described the robbery as a "crime". So I repeat, why is the republican movement committing crimes? Sinn Féin says it is committed to the peace process, but it seems to be committed to the process, not the peace.
You end: "It's a bit rich for Britain ... to be lecturing us". As I say, I am not speaking for Britain. My question to you is: "Who is 'us'?" The victims of republican crimes are Irish people. You tell me you accept the legitimacy of the Irish state. Sinn Féin's acceptance of the consent principle implies acceptance of partition too. Yet Sinn Féin/IRA still rob and terrorise your fellow Irishmen and women, north and south. Why?
Charles Moore
Dear Charles,
As an Irish republican, I cannot accept that Britain has any right to rule my community and part of my country: it makes me feel vanquished, as it would you were the roles reversed. If you are going to quote concern for this community, then please recognise of which authorities (unionist and Westminster governments) it has been the chief victim, that it has overwhelmingly chosen Sinn Féin under MPs like Adams and McGuinness to represent it, that it desires peace with unionist people and Britain; and that the IRA (which sprang from this community) has compromised and on three occasions put large numbers of weapons beyond use.
We live in an abnormal society, which was no solution in 1920 and no solution today, and that explains why abnormal things have been done by all sides. I accept moral responsibility for the actions of Irish republicans. I only wish the apologists for the British presence - and you are one - did the same for its actions. In denial you might be, but you will find that though republicans bear continuing British rule under sufferance, we can be great craic and are prepared to love you!
Danny
· Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, is a columnist for the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.
· Danny Morrison, an ex-prisoner and former director of publicity for Sinn Féin, is a full-time author and commentator; his play about the IRA, The Wrong Man, opens at the Pleasance Theatre, Islington, on March 12
Newshound
McCartney murder: Conflicting versions of fatal night
By David McKittrick
The Independent
05 March 2005
Robert McCartney was on a night out on 30 January, having left his partner, Bridgeen Hagans, and his two children at home, when he called at a Belfast bar for a brief drink. There are conflicting versions of how he lost his life.
The McCartney family say Mr McCartney and a friend, Brendan Devine, stopped off at Magennis's on their way to a birthday party.
According to the priest at the McCartney funeral, the deadly flurry of violence which followed took place in less than 15 minutes.
The family said Mr McCartney and his friend were accused of making a rude gesture at a group of women. One of those at the McCartney table brought the women a drink, apparently to make amends.
The IRA said a dispute broke out between a senior republican and a group involving Mr McCartney and Mr Devine. After an initial heated exchange between the senior republican and Mr McCartney blows were exchanged between the senior republican and another man, the IRA claimed.
Robert's sister, Catherine, explained: "Certainly Robert wouldn't have been liked by a particular individual. It was pride, ego, he would have been jealous of him basically."
In a separate version of events Gerard "Jock" Davison, reputedly a former IRA commander in Belfast, said he had been told that rude gestures had been made at women. In his account he approached Mr McCartney and "sorted it out in a couple of seconds".
Mr Davison alleged that another man verbally attacked him and stabbed him three times, adding: "I defended myself and that was my sole role in the whole affair."
Mr Davison was taken to hospital by ambulance. He denied he had drawn his finger across his throat in a gesture to other IRA members in the bar. The McCartney family said they were told such a hand signal had been given.
The IRA said the senior republican and the man he exchanged blows with were not armed, but that both had been struck by bottles thrown by others. They added that Mr McCartney played no part in the melée but said both the republican and Mr Devine received serious stab wounds inside the bar.
In his account, Mr Devine said: "I felt the presence of five fellas around me and was hit over the head with a bottle. I remember a hand coming over my face and my throat was slashed a couple of times."
The IRA, and others, said Mr McCartney, Mr Devine and a third man left the bar and were walking away when they were attacked and Mr McCartney and Mr Devine were stabbed. Accounts differ on how many men were involved, but it may have been a dozen or more.
Mr Devine said he saw Mr McCartney, who was confronted by five men, calling out: "Nobody deserved this. We didn't do anything." Mr McCartney was stabbed in the stomach and badly beaten, apparently with sewer rods. Mr Devine said he and Mr McCartney were "left for dead".
Later men cleaned up the bar to destroy potential forensic evidence, and took away film from the bar's CCTV.
Catherine McCartney added: "I don't think they were hunting them down that night, I just think they came across the opportunity. I don't think it was premeditated but I don't think when they were stabbed they intended to leave the two of them living."
McCartney murder: Conflicting versions of fatal night
By David McKittrick
The Independent
05 March 2005
Robert McCartney was on a night out on 30 January, having left his partner, Bridgeen Hagans, and his two children at home, when he called at a Belfast bar for a brief drink. There are conflicting versions of how he lost his life.
The McCartney family say Mr McCartney and a friend, Brendan Devine, stopped off at Magennis's on their way to a birthday party.
According to the priest at the McCartney funeral, the deadly flurry of violence which followed took place in less than 15 minutes.
The family said Mr McCartney and his friend were accused of making a rude gesture at a group of women. One of those at the McCartney table brought the women a drink, apparently to make amends.
The IRA said a dispute broke out between a senior republican and a group involving Mr McCartney and Mr Devine. After an initial heated exchange between the senior republican and Mr McCartney blows were exchanged between the senior republican and another man, the IRA claimed.
Robert's sister, Catherine, explained: "Certainly Robert wouldn't have been liked by a particular individual. It was pride, ego, he would have been jealous of him basically."
In a separate version of events Gerard "Jock" Davison, reputedly a former IRA commander in Belfast, said he had been told that rude gestures had been made at women. In his account he approached Mr McCartney and "sorted it out in a couple of seconds".
Mr Davison alleged that another man verbally attacked him and stabbed him three times, adding: "I defended myself and that was my sole role in the whole affair."
Mr Davison was taken to hospital by ambulance. He denied he had drawn his finger across his throat in a gesture to other IRA members in the bar. The McCartney family said they were told such a hand signal had been given.
The IRA said the senior republican and the man he exchanged blows with were not armed, but that both had been struck by bottles thrown by others. They added that Mr McCartney played no part in the melée but said both the republican and Mr Devine received serious stab wounds inside the bar.
In his account, Mr Devine said: "I felt the presence of five fellas around me and was hit over the head with a bottle. I remember a hand coming over my face and my throat was slashed a couple of times."
The IRA, and others, said Mr McCartney, Mr Devine and a third man left the bar and were walking away when they were attacked and Mr McCartney and Mr Devine were stabbed. Accounts differ on how many men were involved, but it may have been a dozen or more.
Mr Devine said he saw Mr McCartney, who was confronted by five men, calling out: "Nobody deserved this. We didn't do anything." Mr McCartney was stabbed in the stomach and badly beaten, apparently with sewer rods. Mr Devine said he and Mr McCartney were "left for dead".
Later men cleaned up the bar to destroy potential forensic evidence, and took away film from the bar's CCTV.
Catherine McCartney added: "I don't think they were hunting them down that night, I just think they came across the opportunity. I don't think it was premeditated but I don't think when they were stabbed they intended to leave the two of them living."
BBC
Prisoners in Mother's Day drive
Prisoners have been making floral baskets
A group of prisoners at a Northern Ireland jail have been making floral arrangements to raise money for charity, the Prison Service has said.
The women prisoners in Hydebank Wood, Belfast, have made up over 200 floral arrangements for Mother's Day on Sunday over the last few weeks.
The bouquets and baskets were sold to visitors and staff.
The women expect to raise about £2,000 and donations will be made to Women's Aid and a local cancer charity.
The project follows a project at Christmas when the women made table arrangements and yuletide logs for the Cancer Fund for Children.
The charity sold the pieces at St George's Christmas Market.
Prisoners in Mother's Day drive
Prisoners have been making floral baskets
A group of prisoners at a Northern Ireland jail have been making floral arrangements to raise money for charity, the Prison Service has said.
The women prisoners in Hydebank Wood, Belfast, have made up over 200 floral arrangements for Mother's Day on Sunday over the last few weeks.
The bouquets and baskets were sold to visitors and staff.
The women expect to raise about £2,000 and donations will be made to Women's Aid and a local cancer charity.
The project follows a project at Christmas when the women made table arrangements and yuletide logs for the Cancer Fund for Children.
The charity sold the pieces at St George's Christmas Market.
Daily Ireland
Author defends his account of Hunger Strike deal
Author of The Blanketmen, Richard O’Rawe has asked for a Right to Reply to the Danny Morrison article carried in Wednesday’s Daily Ireland entitled Hunger Strikers’ story brought to book. This is a service we are happy to provide to all our readers.
In Reply to Danny Morrison
Danny is correct in saying that I asked his advice on getting a book published - and why not? Is he really saying that only certain people in the Republican family are allowed to write books and that others must remain silent? If so, he should say so clearly. Danny has written more books about his experiences as a republican than almost anyone else in the movement. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed some of his books. He is also correct in saying that writing and publishing is a tough circle to break into if one has not got a high profile. No one has broken that circle better or more often than he. Who better to consult than the master himself?
Danny does a good job of mixing up the offer that the ICJP believed they had and that of Mountain Climber and doubtlessly this is to confuse people and cloud the real issues. I repeat what I’ve already said in my book; the ICJP seemed to have had more in terms of a settlement than the Mountain Climber inasmuch they believed that a degree of free association was on offer. But, as Bik has said, we couldn’t see any proof that they had anything at all. As opposed to the ICJP, we were led to believe that this Mountain Climber had been authorised by the British Foreign office to conduct negotiations with the outside leadership. This does not appear to be in dispute. What is disputed is whether or not there was an offer on the table at all from the Mountain Climber, and whether Bik and I had a positive view on that offer. In relation to whether or not there was an offer, I would refer to page 292-293 of David Beresford’s seminal book Ten Men Dead. Beresford was briefed by leading republicans about the Mountain Climber contact. He says that “While the commissioners (ICJP) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes. The Foreign Office was talking directly to the external leadership of the IRA, through the medium of the same middleman as had been used in December”. Beresford goes on to say that ‘The Mountain Climber’ told Adams, through their middlemen, that provided it led to an immediate end to the hunger strike, the government was prepared to issue a statement setting out agreed terms. Can Danny provide me with a reason why Beresford might have gotten this wrong, considering he is being so specific? The words don’t lie. Secondly, when the Mountain Climber came back on July 19 and again contacted the IRA leadership through the middlemen, according to Beresford, the Mountain Climber sent the IRA leadership a lengthy statement, which contained ‘little new, other than a placatory tone’. So, if there was little new in the offer, other than a placatory tone then we must assume that what was now on offer was the old offer, the offer that had been made before Joe McDonnell died. Beresford goes on to say that on July 29, Gerry Adams went into the camp hospital and spelt out to the hunger strikers what the offer was. Beresford says that Adams told the hunger strikers, “Prison clothes would be abolished, and they would get their own clothes. Their demands would be met on visits, letter and parcels. There would be effective, although unofficial segregation. Work would be ambiguously defined, to include educational courses and handicrafts. There would be free association throughout weekends and for three hours every weekday. And the government would phrase the deal in conciliatory terms”. I don’t believe there is any dispute that there was also a measure of lost remission being returned in the package. This was the essence of the offer that Bik sent down to me to consider and which we agreed we should accept. Why wouldn’t we accept it? Was the difference between this offer and the entire five demands worth one more comrade dying? I don’t think so. No matter what way one looks at it, that was a Brit capitulation.
If Danny Morrison’s account is correct why did the republican leadership go to such lengths to try to stop David Beresford learning about the existence of the Mountain Climber?
As I wrote in the book, two other people were asked to help me vet all the comms before they were given to Beresford to weed out any references to the Mountain Climber, but that, unknown to me, one slipped through.
This is the only reason why Beresford found out about the Mountain Climber and if it hadn’t been for that mistake his existence would have remained yet another untold facet of the hunger strike.
Why keep the secret if Mountain Climber was a fraud? Wouldn’t it have been better for the leadership to get it into the open and show the Brits up for being frauds? Or was there another reason to keep the Mountain Climber hidden? Perhaps the fear that the truth might come out?
Along with Bik McFarlane and others, Danny concentrates his criticism of my book on the Mountain Climber episode and the Army Council rejection of our acceptance. He ignores completely the equally damning episode in the prison hospital. Why did Pat Beag say in Padraig O’Malley’s book Biting at the Grave that “Adams and company should have been more flexible and met the Foreign Office negotiator halfway”?
Why not Bik and Company? Why didn’t the Army Council order an end to the hunger strike sooner that they did?
Danny has accused me of being oblivious to the feelings of the families. Let me say that’s rich.
This man went into a meeting with the families on July 28 with the Mountain Climber offer in his back pocket and yet he didn’t think the families should be made aware of the offer. Why did he do that?
In all of this, I am the only person who has had the decency to publicly apologise to the families for my inexcusable cowardice in not speaking up to end the hunger strike sooner. Does Danny think that he has nothing to apologise for?
I know why I wrote this book. I did so because I believed my dead comrades, the heroic ten, deserved to be honoured with the truth.
I also believed their families deserve the truth and I have had indications that my book has been welcomed by some families.
My head is held high, and it is not I who should hang my head in shame.
Author defends his account of Hunger Strike deal
Author of The Blanketmen, Richard O’Rawe has asked for a Right to Reply to the Danny Morrison article carried in Wednesday’s Daily Ireland entitled Hunger Strikers’ story brought to book. This is a service we are happy to provide to all our readers.
In Reply to Danny Morrison
Danny is correct in saying that I asked his advice on getting a book published - and why not? Is he really saying that only certain people in the Republican family are allowed to write books and that others must remain silent? If so, he should say so clearly. Danny has written more books about his experiences as a republican than almost anyone else in the movement. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed some of his books. He is also correct in saying that writing and publishing is a tough circle to break into if one has not got a high profile. No one has broken that circle better or more often than he. Who better to consult than the master himself?
Danny does a good job of mixing up the offer that the ICJP believed they had and that of Mountain Climber and doubtlessly this is to confuse people and cloud the real issues. I repeat what I’ve already said in my book; the ICJP seemed to have had more in terms of a settlement than the Mountain Climber inasmuch they believed that a degree of free association was on offer. But, as Bik has said, we couldn’t see any proof that they had anything at all. As opposed to the ICJP, we were led to believe that this Mountain Climber had been authorised by the British Foreign office to conduct negotiations with the outside leadership. This does not appear to be in dispute. What is disputed is whether or not there was an offer on the table at all from the Mountain Climber, and whether Bik and I had a positive view on that offer. In relation to whether or not there was an offer, I would refer to page 292-293 of David Beresford’s seminal book Ten Men Dead. Beresford was briefed by leading republicans about the Mountain Climber contact. He says that “While the commissioners (ICJP) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes. The Foreign Office was talking directly to the external leadership of the IRA, through the medium of the same middleman as had been used in December”. Beresford goes on to say that ‘The Mountain Climber’ told Adams, through their middlemen, that provided it led to an immediate end to the hunger strike, the government was prepared to issue a statement setting out agreed terms. Can Danny provide me with a reason why Beresford might have gotten this wrong, considering he is being so specific? The words don’t lie. Secondly, when the Mountain Climber came back on July 19 and again contacted the IRA leadership through the middlemen, according to Beresford, the Mountain Climber sent the IRA leadership a lengthy statement, which contained ‘little new, other than a placatory tone’. So, if there was little new in the offer, other than a placatory tone then we must assume that what was now on offer was the old offer, the offer that had been made before Joe McDonnell died. Beresford goes on to say that on July 29, Gerry Adams went into the camp hospital and spelt out to the hunger strikers what the offer was. Beresford says that Adams told the hunger strikers, “Prison clothes would be abolished, and they would get their own clothes. Their demands would be met on visits, letter and parcels. There would be effective, although unofficial segregation. Work would be ambiguously defined, to include educational courses and handicrafts. There would be free association throughout weekends and for three hours every weekday. And the government would phrase the deal in conciliatory terms”. I don’t believe there is any dispute that there was also a measure of lost remission being returned in the package. This was the essence of the offer that Bik sent down to me to consider and which we agreed we should accept. Why wouldn’t we accept it? Was the difference between this offer and the entire five demands worth one more comrade dying? I don’t think so. No matter what way one looks at it, that was a Brit capitulation.
If Danny Morrison’s account is correct why did the republican leadership go to such lengths to try to stop David Beresford learning about the existence of the Mountain Climber?
As I wrote in the book, two other people were asked to help me vet all the comms before they were given to Beresford to weed out any references to the Mountain Climber, but that, unknown to me, one slipped through.
This is the only reason why Beresford found out about the Mountain Climber and if it hadn’t been for that mistake his existence would have remained yet another untold facet of the hunger strike.
Why keep the secret if Mountain Climber was a fraud? Wouldn’t it have been better for the leadership to get it into the open and show the Brits up for being frauds? Or was there another reason to keep the Mountain Climber hidden? Perhaps the fear that the truth might come out?
Along with Bik McFarlane and others, Danny concentrates his criticism of my book on the Mountain Climber episode and the Army Council rejection of our acceptance. He ignores completely the equally damning episode in the prison hospital. Why did Pat Beag say in Padraig O’Malley’s book Biting at the Grave that “Adams and company should have been more flexible and met the Foreign Office negotiator halfway”?
Why not Bik and Company? Why didn’t the Army Council order an end to the hunger strike sooner that they did?
Danny has accused me of being oblivious to the feelings of the families. Let me say that’s rich.
This man went into a meeting with the families on July 28 with the Mountain Climber offer in his back pocket and yet he didn’t think the families should be made aware of the offer. Why did he do that?
In all of this, I am the only person who has had the decency to publicly apologise to the families for my inexcusable cowardice in not speaking up to end the hunger strike sooner. Does Danny think that he has nothing to apologise for?
I know why I wrote this book. I did so because I believed my dead comrades, the heroic ten, deserved to be honoured with the truth.
I also believed their families deserve the truth and I have had indications that my book has been welcomed by some families.
My head is held high, and it is not I who should hang my head in shame.
Daily Ireland
Author defends his account of Hunger Strike deal
Author of The Blanketmen, Richard O’Rawe has asked for a Right to Reply to the Danny Morrison article carried in Wednesday’s Daily Ireland entitled Hunger Strikers’ story brought to book. This is a service we are happy to provide to all our readers.
In Reply to Danny Morrison
Danny is correct in saying that I asked his advice on getting a book published - and why not? Is he really saying that only certain people in the Republican family are allowed to write books and that others must remain silent? If so, he should say so clearly. Danny has written more books about his experiences as a republican than almost anyone else in the movement. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed some of his books. He is also correct in saying that writing and publishing is a tough circle to break into if one has not got a high profile. No one has broken that circle better or more often than he. Who better to consult than the master himself?
Danny does a good job of mixing up the offer that the ICJP believed they had and that of Mountain Climber and doubtlessly this is to confuse people and cloud the real issues. I repeat what I’ve already said in my book; the ICJP seemed to have had more in terms of a settlement than the Mountain Climber inasmuch they believed that a degree of free association was on offer. But, as Bik has said, we couldn’t see any proof that they had anything at all. As opposed to the ICJP, we were led to believe that this Mountain Climber had been authorised by the British Foreign office to conduct negotiations with the outside leadership. This does not appear to be in dispute. What is disputed is whether or not there was an offer on the table at all from the Mountain Climber, and whether Bik and I had a positive view on that offer. In relation to whether or not there was an offer, I would refer to page 292-293 of David Beresford’s seminal book Ten Men Dead. Beresford was briefed by leading republicans about the Mountain Climber contact. He says that “While the commissioners (ICJP) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes. The Foreign Office was talking directly to the external leadership of the IRA, through the medium of the same middleman as had been used in December”. Beresford goes on to say that ‘The Mountain Climber’ told Adams, through their middlemen, that provided it led to an immediate end to the hunger strike, the government was prepared to issue a statement setting out agreed terms. Can Danny provide me with a reason why Beresford might have gotten this wrong, considering he is being so specific? The words don’t lie. Secondly, when the Mountain Climber came back on July 19 and again contacted the IRA leadership through the middlemen, according to Beresford, the Mountain Climber sent the IRA leadership a lengthy statement, which contained ‘little new, other than a placatory tone’. So, if there was little new in the offer, other than a placatory tone then we must assume that what was now on offer was the old offer, the offer that had been made before Joe McDonnell died. Beresford goes on to say that on July 29, Gerry Adams went into the camp hospital and spelt out to the hunger strikers what the offer was. Beresford says that Adams told the hunger strikers, “Prison clothes would be abolished, and they would get their own clothes. Their demands would be met on visits, letter and parcels. There would be effective, although unofficial segregation. Work would be ambiguously defined, to include educational courses and handicrafts. There would be free association throughout weekends and for three hours every weekday. And the government would phrase the deal in conciliatory terms”. I don’t believe there is any dispute that there was also a measure of lost remission being returned in the package. This was the essence of the offer that Bik sent down to me to consider and which we agreed we should accept. Why wouldn’t we accept it? Was the difference between this offer and the entire five demands worth one more comrade dying? I don’t think so. No matter what way one looks at it, that was a Brit capitulation.
If Danny Morrison’s account is correct why did the republican leadership go to such lengths to try to stop David Beresford learning about the existence of the Mountain Climber?
As I wrote in the book, two other people were asked to help me vet all the comms before they were given to Beresford to weed out any references to the Mountain Climber, but that, unknown to me, one slipped through.
This is the only reason why Beresford found out about the Mountain Climber and if it hadn’t been for that mistake his existence would have remained yet another untold facet of the hunger strike.
Why keep the secret if Mountain Climber was a fraud? Wouldn’t it have been better for the leadership to get it into the open and show the Brits up for being frauds? Or was there another reason to keep the Mountain Climber hidden? Perhaps the fear that the truth might come out?
Along with Bik McFarlane and others, Danny concentrates his criticism of my book on the Mountain Climber episode and the Army Council rejection of our acceptance. He ignores completely the equally damning episode in the prison hospital. Why did Pat Beag say in Padraig O’Malley’s book Biting at the Grave that “Adams and company should have been more flexible and met the Foreign Office negotiator halfway”?
Why not Bik and Company? Why didn’t the Army Council order an end to the hunger strike sooner that they did?
Danny has accused me of being oblivious to the feelings of the families. Let me say that’s rich.
This man went into a meeting with the families on July 28 with the Mountain Climber offer in his back pocket and yet he didn’t think the families should be made aware of the offer. Why did he do that?
In all of this, I am the only person who has had the decency to publicly apologise to the families for my inexcusable cowardice in not speaking up to end the hunger strike sooner. Does Danny think that he has nothing to apologise for?
I know why I wrote this book. I did so because I believed my dead comrades, the heroic ten, deserved to be honoured with the truth.
I also believed their families deserve the truth and I have had indications that my book has been welcomed by some families.
My head is held high, and it is not I who should hang my head in shame.
Author defends his account of Hunger Strike deal
Author of The Blanketmen, Richard O’Rawe has asked for a Right to Reply to the Danny Morrison article carried in Wednesday’s Daily Ireland entitled Hunger Strikers’ story brought to book. This is a service we are happy to provide to all our readers.
In Reply to Danny Morrison
Danny is correct in saying that I asked his advice on getting a book published - and why not? Is he really saying that only certain people in the Republican family are allowed to write books and that others must remain silent? If so, he should say so clearly. Danny has written more books about his experiences as a republican than almost anyone else in the movement. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed some of his books. He is also correct in saying that writing and publishing is a tough circle to break into if one has not got a high profile. No one has broken that circle better or more often than he. Who better to consult than the master himself?
Danny does a good job of mixing up the offer that the ICJP believed they had and that of Mountain Climber and doubtlessly this is to confuse people and cloud the real issues. I repeat what I’ve already said in my book; the ICJP seemed to have had more in terms of a settlement than the Mountain Climber inasmuch they believed that a degree of free association was on offer. But, as Bik has said, we couldn’t see any proof that they had anything at all. As opposed to the ICJP, we were led to believe that this Mountain Climber had been authorised by the British Foreign office to conduct negotiations with the outside leadership. This does not appear to be in dispute. What is disputed is whether or not there was an offer on the table at all from the Mountain Climber, and whether Bik and I had a positive view on that offer. In relation to whether or not there was an offer, I would refer to page 292-293 of David Beresford’s seminal book Ten Men Dead. Beresford was briefed by leading republicans about the Mountain Climber contact. He says that “While the commissioners (ICJP) were occupying centre stage, at least in their eyes and those of the media, the hard bargaining was in fact going on behind the scenes. The Foreign Office was talking directly to the external leadership of the IRA, through the medium of the same middleman as had been used in December”. Beresford goes on to say that ‘The Mountain Climber’ told Adams, through their middlemen, that provided it led to an immediate end to the hunger strike, the government was prepared to issue a statement setting out agreed terms. Can Danny provide me with a reason why Beresford might have gotten this wrong, considering he is being so specific? The words don’t lie. Secondly, when the Mountain Climber came back on July 19 and again contacted the IRA leadership through the middlemen, according to Beresford, the Mountain Climber sent the IRA leadership a lengthy statement, which contained ‘little new, other than a placatory tone’. So, if there was little new in the offer, other than a placatory tone then we must assume that what was now on offer was the old offer, the offer that had been made before Joe McDonnell died. Beresford goes on to say that on July 29, Gerry Adams went into the camp hospital and spelt out to the hunger strikers what the offer was. Beresford says that Adams told the hunger strikers, “Prison clothes would be abolished, and they would get their own clothes. Their demands would be met on visits, letter and parcels. There would be effective, although unofficial segregation. Work would be ambiguously defined, to include educational courses and handicrafts. There would be free association throughout weekends and for three hours every weekday. And the government would phrase the deal in conciliatory terms”. I don’t believe there is any dispute that there was also a measure of lost remission being returned in the package. This was the essence of the offer that Bik sent down to me to consider and which we agreed we should accept. Why wouldn’t we accept it? Was the difference between this offer and the entire five demands worth one more comrade dying? I don’t think so. No matter what way one looks at it, that was a Brit capitulation.
If Danny Morrison’s account is correct why did the republican leadership go to such lengths to try to stop David Beresford learning about the existence of the Mountain Climber?
As I wrote in the book, two other people were asked to help me vet all the comms before they were given to Beresford to weed out any references to the Mountain Climber, but that, unknown to me, one slipped through.
This is the only reason why Beresford found out about the Mountain Climber and if it hadn’t been for that mistake his existence would have remained yet another untold facet of the hunger strike.
Why keep the secret if Mountain Climber was a fraud? Wouldn’t it have been better for the leadership to get it into the open and show the Brits up for being frauds? Or was there another reason to keep the Mountain Climber hidden? Perhaps the fear that the truth might come out?
Along with Bik McFarlane and others, Danny concentrates his criticism of my book on the Mountain Climber episode and the Army Council rejection of our acceptance. He ignores completely the equally damning episode in the prison hospital. Why did Pat Beag say in Padraig O’Malley’s book Biting at the Grave that “Adams and company should have been more flexible and met the Foreign Office negotiator halfway”?
Why not Bik and Company? Why didn’t the Army Council order an end to the hunger strike sooner that they did?
Danny has accused me of being oblivious to the feelings of the families. Let me say that’s rich.
This man went into a meeting with the families on July 28 with the Mountain Climber offer in his back pocket and yet he didn’t think the families should be made aware of the offer. Why did he do that?
In all of this, I am the only person who has had the decency to publicly apologise to the families for my inexcusable cowardice in not speaking up to end the hunger strike sooner. Does Danny think that he has nothing to apologise for?
I know why I wrote this book. I did so because I believed my dead comrades, the heroic ten, deserved to be honoured with the truth.
I also believed their families deserve the truth and I have had indications that my book has been welcomed by some families.
My head is held high, and it is not I who should hang my head in shame.
