Graffiti on the Wall

Tonight The Pensive Quill features as guest writer Paul O’Neill,  a former republican prisoner who currently works as a community activist in North Belfast. In an articulate and well argued piece he takes issue with some of the comments made in relation to graffiti in North Belfast.

I have become aware of some controversy relating to the removal of graffiti in the New Lodge area of Belfast on Thursday August the 4th 2011. Over the past number of days I have heard about various comments, lies, rumours and innuendo being spread relating to myself and to others that were involved in the actual graffiti removal and as a result I would like to set the record straight and place everything within context so that people can judge matters for themselves.  However before I do that, I would like to briefly explain a little bit about my personal background, my work and my perspective on some of the political and social issues involved. 

First of all I am a republican ex-prisoner.  I have been in prison on six separate occasions including Crumlin Road, the cages of Long Kesh and the H Blocks.  Just like the current prisoners in Maghaberry,  I have first- hand experience of what it is like to be stripped, beaten, degraded and denied the basic rudiments of life by a fundamentally oppressive and sectarian prison regime.  Many of my friends are former prisoners, my brother spent 10 years in prison and was on the blanket from the start to the end of the protest, my wife is an ex-internee.  I am a founding member of Tar Isteach Republican Ex-Prisoner support group in North Belfast.  I was Chairperson of the organisation for ten years and continue to volunteer.  I am not a member of any political party.  

Tar Isteach provides welfare rights support, emotional counselling, training and education and youth services.  We apply an open door policy, meaning that we provide services to any republican ex-prisoner and their family regardless of political opinion or affiliation.  We also act as a resource for the wider community, doing what we can, to address issues of poverty and need.   We operate with limited resources and realise we are not in a position to fully address the huge level of need that exists.

I want to state categorically that I totally support the prisoners in Maghaberry in their struggle to have their human rights upheld and to allow them and their families to live with dignity and respect.  I also support without equivocation the immediate release of Marian Price.

I am a community development worker in the New Lodge area of North Belfast.  Like many other working class, republican communities the people of the area are subject to multiple and entrenched patterns of social and economic inequality and deprivation.  As a long term political and community activist I realise that the underlying causes for this are economic- structural and therefore our efforts as community activists can at best alleviate rather than eliminate many of the poverty related problems that exist.  Nevertheless we in the New Lodge have over the years built a community infrastructure that works tirelessly and to the best of its ability with and for the people of the area.  At the core of our community infrastructure is the Greater New Lodge Community Empowerment Partnership (GNLCEP).  This acts as an umbrella for the vast majority of groups and projects that operate within the locality.  We meet regularly to share ideas, information and resources and to discuss, agree and plan strategies and programmes for the area.  Through the GNLCEP we are in constant contact with the residents of the area and we produce a quarterly community magazine that goes out to every home in the area. 

A number of years ago we carried out an area wide consultation with residents and over 500 people actively participated, which as far as consultations go, was extremely impressive.   One of the many issues identified by the people of the New Lodge included concerns about the physical and visible appearance of the district including rubbish-dumping, litter and graffiti.  About ninety percent of the people surveyed had identified this particular issue as important to them.  On the basis of our consultation the GNLCEP put in motion a strategic action plan for the area.  We then went back to every household with a draft summary of the action plan and there was overwhelming approval for it.  In short this was an exercise in participative community democracy.

Various working groups were established to drive forward the work at hand.  One of these focus groups was tasked with a physical improvement and regeneration brief.  At that time one of the first things we did was to carry out a physical survey of the area.  This included everything from street lighting, drainage, pavements, sewage issues, derelict spaces, litter and vandalism hotspots, etc.  Alongside the multitude of problems we identified over three hundred graffiti sites in the area.  In reality the place was a mess.   It was clear to us that much of the graffiti involved was of a political nature indeed some of it had been there for many years.  It was agreed that we needed to do something about it but in order not to create the wrong impression and to explain the reasons for wanting to remove all graffiti we realized there needed to be conversations with the different political groupings.  I was not directly involved in all of these conversations but was assured that there was broad agreement to remove all graffiti.  I believe the groups at that time that were spoken to and that agreed to a zero tolerance approach to graffiti were Sinn Fein, IRSP and Republican Sinn Fein.  It was agreed that a better way to make visible political pronouncements would be the use of murals, billboards etc.

Since then we have been involved in various community clean-ups including graffiti removal.  It is an ongoing battle but we have stuck with it for many years now.  The vast majority of graffiti that we deal with is of a non political nature.   In recent times however a small group of individuals have begun to consistently place graffiti on the walls, particularly in the Carlisle Estate.  Much of this is of a political nature and some of it directly relates to prisoners, including more recently, Marian Price. In the past some of the political graffiti has had incorrect spelling and is plastered on rather than neatly printed. (On one occasion, hunger strikers was spelt wrongly, such was the embarrassment, that the graffiti artists blotted it out themselves).  Often paint and paint tins are left and splattered over the pavements and roadways.   As a result we constantly receive complaints from residents about the state of the area and requests to remove the graffiti.  I must clarify here that the complaints are not specifically about political graffiti but about all graffiti.   The Carlisle Estate by the way is in a very run-down condition with a plethora of infrastructural problems and associated difficulties including burglaries, vandalism and anti –social behaviour.

A number of years ago when Terry McCafferty was imprisoned the walls of the area became covered in graffiti, again leading to complaints from residents.  I personally spoke to Terry’s wife and brother in law and asked them could there be a resolution.  I suggested the placing of boards at strategic points in the area or a mural.  Although they listened to me and it was a respectful exchange they never got back to me.

Since then we in the GNLCEP have continued with our work to improve to the best of our ability the physical condition of the area including constantly pressurising statutory agencies to enhance their service delivery to the people.  It should be noted that we also have huge population density and the longest housing waiting lists in the North adding to existent severe levels of physical and mental ill health.  On August the 4th 2011 about ninety community volunteers including children, young people and adults embarked upon yet another community clean up. I would emphasise this was a community venture and was not political in any way.  Out of the ninety volunteers one member of Sinn Fein was present and was there as a resident/volunteer not as a political representative. This clean up was organized as a prelude to our annual Tar Isteach Family Funday which we provide free of charge to all families in the area.  It is attended by hundreds of children and parents every year and includes a carnival parade through the area.  We simply wanted to tidy the area up.

We broke in to different sections of the area to do our work.  I was part of the group including young volunteers doing a clean-up of the ‘Barracks’ area.  As we removed graffiti we had objects thrown at us by three young lads.  These were tomatoes and eggs.  They then started to call us touts. When we arrived at a wall with graffiti relating to Marian Price I noticed two men standing with their arms folded staring at us.  My eyesight isn’t what it used to be and I asked who it was and then realized I knew one of the men (whom I must say I always had regarded as a friend). Meanwhile the three young lads were spitting on us from behind a wall and calling us touts.  I approached the man who I knew and who was staring at us and said hello to him with the hope of having a conversation.  He replied that, “he didn’t talk to touts” I asked him who was a tout? and he said, “you are all touts”.  As you can imagine I wasn’t taking this type of abuse and engaged in a verbal exchange with this man.

I would just like to say I have been beaten and tortured in various interrogation centres and in the jails and I can assure anyone including this individual I am no tout.  One other person then arrived on the scene. I know his name but do not know him personally and he threatened one of our youth workers that there would be “consequences”. The following day the estate was once again covered in graffiti relating to Marian Price and other prison issues.  On this occasion the graffiti had been done more neatly than usual. It remains there at present.    I will repeat again that I am not and never will be opposed to the rights of prisoners.  I also however will repeat that I am committed to the people of my community.  My actions are guided by the needs of the people and most certainly not by any cheap party political concerns, as has been insinuated in some quarters.

We don’t have the time, inclination or resources to get involved in a cat and mouse game with any one that simply wants to constantly put graffiti on the wall, however we are determined to carry on with our regular clean ups (every 3-4 months).  The people of the New Lodge are as entitled as anyone else to improve their living conditions this includes the visible appearance not only of their own homes but of their general neighbourhood.  We in the GNLCEP will talk to anyone about this.  I personally will speak to anyone about this even those that verbally abused me last week.   I do not want to be part of any process that rips communities apart or that puts any prisoner and their family to the wall.  However to have a genuine dialogue there needs to be someone to talk to that has the capacity to understand the issues on the ground and to articulate what their particular issues actually are. 

Lastly, if there are those that really believe that daubing graffiti on the homes and premises of poor, working class people will lead to the release of Marian and to the resolution of the prisoner issue, they shall be disappointed. Why not win support from within the communities by contributing to their betterment?

                              

53 comments:

  1. Does not seem like all that long ago, when the New Lodge area and indeed other areas, were covered in graffti demanding the release of VOL Kelly from Ardoyne when he was returned to a cell. Actually you can still see such a demand on top of one of the flats to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very presentable, articulate piece. Impressed with the community and ex prisoner agenda and non party affiliation. Find it difficult to fault the man.
    Is that 'cruncher'?
    If so, I remember him from the Crum in 1982. Seems to be very heavily committed to his community.

    Have to agree that no amount of graffiti is going to get anyone released.

    Perhaps the issue is where the graffiti is being put? People may not want their property disfiguered regardless of the justness of the sentiment.

    A little 'tact' can go a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree it is a well reasoned article and of course no amount of graffiti is going to get anyone released; but no one believes that, the whole purpose of political graffiti is to get a message across or highlight an injustice and I am certain Paul well understands that. What better way to highlight the urgency of the Lillis situation than to spread word of it via graffiti on the street.

    There is having a zero tolerance to graffiti and using ones common sense. Both the free Marian and Brendan Lillis campaigns will eventual come to and end. Thus in truth I cannot see the urgency in removing this graffiti. Having said this, those who put up such political graffiti have a responsibility not to tag it on every street corner, as it negates its impact. If it is replicated over and again in one area I see no harm in washing some of it away.

    Is it really beyond the wit of local republicans to negotiate with each other and agree on a prominent site. After all, speaking as an outsider, I am sure I do not need to remind comrades this is not about where this or that graffiti artist leaves their tag, or which wall community activists working with their community decide to wash down. Nor should it be about who controls the estates!

    It is about the continued wrongful imprisonment of Marian Price and Brendan Lillis.

    Many of us have supported these campaigns, the last thing that is needed is a localised pissing contest over graffiti. Having said this, political graffiti is a useful weapon, and like all weapons in the armoury of struggle it should be used responsibly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul,

    a considered and very credible piece. It gives food for thought and we are glad to have it here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mick,

    a few things to think about here.

    You have tried to be as balanced as Paul in his article although you emphasize some things and he others. But that's the nature of discussion around these issues. I think the points raised by both of you need to be aired fully in a discussion of this sort as it broadens the canvas and allows for the type of detail and reasoned argument that never comes with name calling. Whether we agree with Paul or not (I think he makes a credible case) it is to his credit that he put out his stall on this type of blog where - even though all are welcome - the majority would be hostile to the political perspective they believe him to hold.

    Good post and I want to mull it over before venturing out again. Graffiti on the Wall

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mick,

    Could you expand on it's usefulness as a weapon

    These scrawls (usually rushed) are an eyesore, they make the community look like a slum and change not one person's opinion for or against the message. In an already politicised community how much more awareness does it really raise. Highlighting the case of Brendan and Marian is totally just but should be done on a better stage. There also should be a general agreement with residents / community groups for the best place to situate a properly painted billboard or mural to keep the focus in an area if those involved in the campaigning feel that there is that need.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The common theme being the dignity of prisoners and release of anyone not deservingly in capitivity --an oppurtunity here that issues surrounding graffitti does not become a power struggle deflecting everyones efforts and focus from the objective.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul,
    I doubt if any of the people telling the story of you painting over a 'free Marian Price' slogan, were engaging in lies, rumour or innuendo.
    It would have been lies, innuendo and rumour if you had not even taken part in the cover up, however, due to the fact her cousin observed you daubing out her name and you also state you were actively engaged in a'clean up' campaign, I think words such as truth, fact and caught out are much more appropriate.
    People are seriously disputing your version as to why you saw fit to remove slogans which are topical, political and relevant.
    Many believe that, this community clean up campaign was simply a flag of convenience engineered to deflect from the real issue, social control.
    If community projects in North Belfast mirror those in the West which I would imagine they do, then no open door policy exists.
    All these groups, ex-prisoners included are under the total and absolute control of Sinn Fein.
    There are no community initiatives unless Sinn Fein say so. Therefore, it does not really matter whether you belong to a political party or not, or whether one or twenty Sinn Fein activists were there. That clean up was totally under the 'movements' control and that is an indisputable fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry,

    It is Cruncher. I was in the jail with him a few times. He was always solid and was never part of the ‘do you know who I am?’ squad.

    ‘Perhaps the issue is where the graffiti is being put? People may not want their property disfigured regardless of the justness of the
    sentiment.’

    This has a lot of merit. Scrawled graffiti is invariably an eyesore. We do the Brendan Lillis vigil every week to highlight his case but never go around writing over walls. There is a balancing of rights. We have a right to highlight the case of Brendan Lillis but the local community has a right not to be defaced. We can’t impose our preferences on them. Some form of accommodation has to be reached.

    Mick Hall

    ‘What better way to highlight the urgency of the Lillis situation than to spread word of it via graffiti on the street.’

    Posters, the use of billboards, white line pickets, leafleting, the use of agreed space, writing BL on ever piece of paper money that comes our way, hunger strike vigils, web sites. There are numerous ways to do this. The issue is in the public domain now because of the solid work done by people like Roisin Lynch, Gerard Hodgins, the hunger strike vigil, the public pressure generated.

    The problem with spreading the word is that it should be done in a way that encourages support. I am far from convinced that writing over the walls of nationalist areas wins people over. I feel for certain that were I to do it where I live people would quickly become alienated from Brendan Lillis’s plight. People and communities have rights against republicans and we simply cannot impose on them.

    ‘There is having a zero tolerance to graffiti and using ones common
    sense.’

    If common sense is all that common then everybody will have some and the graffiti writers and those erasing it should be able to come to some understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mick,

    My interest in this is not in the graffiti clean-up initiatives (which I support because in general I see graffiti as vandalism) but in whether or not particular political messages were being targeted. That would concern me. It would be censorship and very much an exercise in what Nuala calls social control. I would be angered if former republican prisoners were specifically discriminating against pro Marian Price slogans while ignoring others. In this case it seems from Paul O’Neill’s article and from conversation I had in Belfast on Friday night that it was not a specific suppression of Marian. It was part of a wider graffiti clean-up initiative. Can a community group on such an initiative clean up only some graffiti and not others? What grounds could it cite as to why it discriminated in favour of some graffiti?

    I think we need to be mindful of Nuala’s point that these things can be a ploy just to provide cover for what is essentially political discrimination. Against that it needs to be considered if the community is behind the initiative rather than simply having it imposed upon them by SF. It is easy to imagine how a community would want graffiti removed to enhance the appearance of the area.

    ‘Having said this, those who put up such political graffiti have a responsibility not to tag it on every street corner.’

    Agreed. If the right to use graffiti is inviolable what is there to stop people placing it on your car or front door? There are limits to these things.

    ‘political graffiti is a useful weapon, and like all weapons in the
    armoury of struggle it should be used responsibly.’

    It was a much more necessary weapon years ago when the means of communicating messages were less available than they are today. I think it should not be ruled out but if we are to go painting on the walls of the communities it should be done through agreement and then artistically. I imagine the image of Brendan Lillis in his jail bed as a mural or a painting of Marian in the isolation of her confinement would be infinitely more impactful than a crudely scrawled slogan.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mackers,
    I think Ruairi hit the nail on the head, graffiti was never a problem when it was a tool deployed by Sinn Fein.
    Had I not lived in a community that would in all probability mirrors many aspects of the one Paul writes about I might have swallowed some of this, with the exception of his comments relating to the prisoners.
    I don't believe a community which is rife with social and economic deprivation would even rate graffiti as a problem, why would it? Graffiti is neither a cause or an intrinsic feature of social or economic deprivation.
    A study or 'consoltation'designed or skewed towards a certain outcome may have produced a desire for this clean up initiative, but I suspect if you asked 500 people experiencing the type of deprivation he cites, to list factors that would improve their lives, the removal of graffiti would not even be mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peadar,

    Of course I can give you examples, "You are now entering free Derry," or in England, "Free George Davies" are two of the best know and most effective. More contentiously I saw one the other month "drug dealer does business from number 56, etc, etc." apparently for months local people had been plagued by an inconsiderate neighbour and nothing was done, hence the graffiti. I'm told after the graffiti went up he closed shop and found premises elsewhere.

    For me Banksy's political graffiti is magnificent, it almost always hits the spot. I think what Paul and AM are highlighting is tagging and that type of seemingly juvenile stuff. (However like many people of my age, I will admit I just do not understand tagging, and would have it washed away, but that in itself does not make it crap)

    Of course much of it is unsightly and if community groups liaising with the community want it removed then i support that.

    Having said that I believe a slogan which simply says 'Free Marian Price' has truth, depth and substances on its side and must be viewed differently. As I said in my originally comment If it is replicated over and again in one area I see no harm in washing some of it away.

    As to the current kerfuffle, if the slogan was accidentally removed, no harm done Paul and his community can decide on a prominent spot were it can reappear, no harm done. There is nothing the powers that be enjoy more than when we squabble amongst ourselves.

    AM

    I believe the use of vandalism to describe graffiti is wrong and far to harsh, because when you go down that road you end up criminalising our own kids.

    Much of it is unsightly, to describe it as an eyesore is correct, but then so are bill boards which push junk, etc, mobile phone masts which may, or may not cause harm. When we start seeing our young people as vandals we are going down the judicial road of our political tormentors.

    I do not feel this type (Price-Lillis) of statement is just about encouraging support, as important as that is. Its precence is also saying this community is against injustice and 'social control' where ever it may originate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As I said in my previous post the use of graffiti was widespread in the days of the H-Blocks. This was organised and by Sinn Fein across the country in order to highlight the prison issue. Few republicans would have opposed the use of graffiti/slogans then unlike some of the opinions being expressed here.

    I also agree with Nuala on the matter. Sinn Fein opposes any message that challenges the political presentation promoted by the party. I refered to the removal recently of a Free Colin Duffy solgan in Derry City by a similar community group conducting a clean up excerise, a seemingly convient excuse. Forgive me if I sound cyncial.

    A more telling incident occurred on the Falls Road several weeks ago when a well known local artist was prevented from painting a mural on the International Wall by members of Sinn Fein. Certain prominent party members were involved in this act of discrimination against a former prisoner/artist leading to claims of attempted intimadation of the individual.

    In my opinion all of the above signifies the type of social/political control refered to by Nuala.





    community group

    ReplyDelete
  14. When is graffiti not graffiti? Just an observation or perhaps a misinterpretation on my part as it sounds like there is an acceptable form of graffiti as long as it is neatly and grammatically correct when applied. The article states that the wishes of the majority of the people in the New Lodge want the graffiti removed (which is understandable) this would imply they want all graffiti removed regardless if it is political or not. I see no reason for a lengthy explanation on the subject. If all the graffiti was gone along with all the hoods and anti social elements certainly the district would look better. Then activists and community leaders could deal with the serious issues that have plagued nationalist areas. You can’t paint over poverty and selective social deprivation. I am curious as to where on the list did people asked for economic investment and job creation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nuala,

    Paul did say when he submitted his piece that he would be away for a week and would not be at a computer. However, it seems to me he is not disputing painting over the slogan. His point would therefore be that he did not target one particular slogan as an act of political discrimination. And by extension to accuse him of such would be wrong.

    ‘Many believe that, this community clean up campaign was simply a flag of convenience engineered to deflect from the real issue, social control.’

    Social control has been a long term and habitual pursuit by SF. It has long annoyed me, given that I felt harassed by it. But I fail to see how cleaning up an area can be reduced to an act of social control particularly if a community genuinely wants it cleaned up. And my experience is that graffiti was never much liked.

    ‘If community projects in North Belfast mirror those in the West which I would imagine they do, then no open door policy exists. All these groups, ex-prisoners included are under the total and absolute control of Sinn Fein.’

    That has been my experience but I am also aware that not every initiative emerging from within them has been at the direct behest of SF. I have personal experience of representing the movement at some of these things and been ‘defied’ by people outside the movement pushing for something different. And there are times that SF interests and the community dovetails. We might not have any time for SF but it does not get the vote from within these communities because those voting them don’t like them. Regardless of what political party represents a constituency I think it has a responsibility to help keep the place clean. In Ballymurphy the litter was a major eyesore; a letter writer to the Irish news described the Whiterock road as looking like what you would expect had an airliner crashed on it. My wife complained consistently to the City Hall about it. SF should have been getting it cleaned up.

    ‘That clean up was totally under the 'movements' control and that is an indisputable fact.’

    Problem with this is that it is being disputed. But if we presume it is true then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with SF getting an area cleaned up. There is a problem if they are using it solely for the purpose of suppressing an alternative political message or perspective. I will be the first to state that ex-prisoners who engage in that activity with the purpose of ensuring Marian Price’s imprisonment was not highlighted are scabbing. In the New Lodge I am far from convinced that this is the case. Moreover, I know Paul O’Neill, his history, and have vigorously disagreed face to face with his political analysis, but do not believe he is the sort to go out specifically targeting political prisoners. There are others who would do exactly that. If I am proved wrong, so be it, but I have seen nothing yet to suggest such.

    ReplyDelete
  16. mackers

    i remember cruncher and got the impression regarding him that you described. He looked a tight wee spud too.

    Derry political activists had to stand up to SF after they tried to control free derry wall as their own. People like Eamon McCann and other activists and groups had to put a mirror in front of them..or smelling salts or both.

    Personally i wouldn't want scrawl painted on my gable wall. Fionnuala, without starting a fight or being cynical, is your gable wall painted on? If not why not? Perhaps you would offer it for a tasteful mural?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Those whose opinion is that SF are suffocating, controlling, power freaks who see themselves as some kind of Republican leviathan --are absolutely right... no more need be said on that.

    That though, is not justification for returning peoples homes and lives into grimmy industrial era squalid housing waiting for redevelopement. Nowadays people are more aware and concerned about their enviroment and well being --not just for asthetic reasons but for good mental health of all the residents. Areas heavily dubbed in graffitti are also areas where people's sense of personal security is also reduced. we live in a very different era than 1981 was --standards are that things done then would be frowned upon today --blanket graffitti is one such.

    T.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mackers,
    Paul O Neill could hardly dispute any of this, as I stated in an earlier post, he was caught red handed or white handed depending on the colour of the paint he was using.
    He claims he is the victim of lies and innuendo and rumour which is nonsense, this story came from the most credible of people.
    Yes, I am totally sceptical about the clean up story and the consultaion process which proceeded it. I also sceptical about his empathy for the prisoners but that is a seperate issue.
    Dictating what a community sees or what it cannot see is control and it is social control and I believe 100% that what underpinned this venture.
    Are you seriously suggesting that you can be at odds with the 'movement' and slide from one community post to another?
    Well if Paul O Neill can, then this is a first. I know he was at pains to over emphazise the fact that he did not belong to any political party, but we all know and know only too well thats not how it works.
    You cannot split a hair between how most of these people think let alone suggest someone dovetailed and actually went into the big wide-world and acted outside the dicatates of the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Larry,
    This is not about my gable, this is you being you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. tiarna
    totally agree. I rent my home. Even though it's not my own, I have absolutely no interest in letting anyone paint on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fionnuala

    "Dictating what a community sees or what it cannot see is control and it is social control and I believe 100% that what underpinned this venture."

    Suggesting that SF are involved in 'social control'is to exagerate --they are certainly involved in domineering and suffocation of discontent or wish to kill what they do not understand or own --that is more obsessive possessing and insecurity --really not social control.

    The power struggle over the graffitti issue is shaping up to be one between two groups who are equally wrong.

    No body need go door to door in any neighbourhood to ask if the residents would rather have their area vandalised in graffitti or not --its a no brainer --all too often graffitti is or becomes thuggish and intimidating -even at the expense of the cause it may wish to promote.

    Larry, thanks and as they say across the water "An englishman's home is his castle --rented or no."

    T.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mick,

    ‘For me Banksy's political graffiti is magnificent, it almost always hits the spot.’

    It is not even whether it hits the spot, it is artistically gifted.

    ‘Of course much of it is unsightly and if community groups liaising with the community want it removed then I support that.’

    That seems the fairest position we can take on the matter.

    ‘I believe a slogan which simply says 'Free Marian Price' has truth, depth and substances on its side and must be viewed differently.’

    I believe it too in terms of truth, depth and substance. It is my opinion but should my opinion be prioritised any differently than say the opinion that ‘Jesus Saves’? Is it just a matter of what cause we pick and then defend what is written about it and in whatever form? I guess if somebody writes ‘jail Marian Price’ many of those who write support slogans for Marian and who would be critics of Paul O’Neill would be seeking it erased.

    Marian Price being jailed is a very serious matter. While terrible for her in a personal sense it is also a grave threat to anyone who has been released on licence. Her situation should be highlighted whether on white line pickets, newspapers, websites, blogs, leaflet campaigns, murals, and graffiti. But as you point out it does not have to be done in such a way that it infringes on the rights of communities to have a tidy environment. Nor is using political graffiti to put it up to SF in a form of territorial dispute what it should be about. The wishes of the community should be central to this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mick

    ‘If it is replicated over and again in one area I see no harm in washing some of it away.’

    But then you could face the same criticism that Paul O’Neill is taking. There seems to be a mindset developing of ‘this we shall maintain.’ A support message goes up and is to be defended or attacked at all costs; then it is a case of who blinks first.

    It seems to me that, touching on the point Rory made a point at the start of this thread, the Sean Kelly slogan is still there. It has long served its purpose. It would be a simple matter of putting a Free Marian slogan there in its place. The community group has decided not to remove that, therefore it can have no objection to it being replaced by something of more contemporary relevance. If it were an eyesore it would presumably be moved by now. If the community group were to object that would be very revealing.

    As for vandalism – I don’t share that view at all. People defacing social amenities, joyriding, breaking swings, depriving the community of facilities it socially benefits from in pursuit of some individualist hedonism, all fit into the anti-social bracket. If it is criminal then that is what it is. The Left critique of the vandalism construct in the 70s and 80s seemed more an attempt to flag up the decriminalisation of the Hooray Henry for activity that working class kids were criminalised for. My view: the hoorays were guilty of criminal damage which they called hi jinks. They should not have been let off the hook. When I was in SF our biggest flood of complaints coming from the community was in relation to anti-social behaviour. When first released from prison it amazed me that this should be so but that is how it was.

    ‘When we start seeing our young people as vandals we are going down the judicial road of our political tormentors.’

    No we are not. We do not see our young people as vandals. We see those of whatever age who vandalise as vandals. Whether we want to use the criminal tag is a matter of choice. It is hard to put it on people not yet at the age of criminal responsibility, whatever that is.

    ‘I do not feel this type (Price-Lillis) of statement is just about encouraging support, as important as that is. Its presence is also saying this community is against injustice and 'social control' where ever it may originate.’

    It says nothing about the community other than perhaps that the writer decided to ignore the community. It says that the writer is opposed to an injustice, no more or less. Yet the writer has a right to protest. I happen to think when we do protest we should do so justly, particularly so if it is against something unjust, like the ongoing imprisonment of Marian.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fionnuala

    'Larry,
    This is not about my gable'

    I rest my case. People don't want their property defaced. I'm 100% in agreement. Take an ad out in the paper or leaflets.

    In the present time, little home owners don't want spray cans and scawl all over the neighbourhood walls. Lowers the value and appeal of the area, even in the recession, people don't want ghetto-ised.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nuala,


    ‘graffiti was never a problem when it was a tool deployed by Sinn Fein.’

    Not a problem for SF, that’s right – but that is a comment on SF’s change of stance and not on the rights and wrongs of graffiti per se. My sense of it was that graffiti was something communities put up with rather than approved. There were few complaints when SF were approving house takeovers and hijacking cars within the community but people hated that and they were reluctant to speak out.

    ‘I don't believe a community which is rife with social and economic deprivation would even rate graffiti as a problem, why would it?’

    I don’t agree. I think graffiti devalues a community. I know no one who wants it scrawled on their property. Having said that the bulk of graffiti is not political and looks terrible. I think a neat tidy concise message is much more appealing even to the eye than scrawl. I think the purpose of a Free Marian message is to impact positively on people rather than be a turn off.

    ‘A study or 'consultation' designed or skewed towards a certain outcome may have produced a desire for this clean up initiative.’

    It would not have to be skewed to produce this result. People want their areas cleaned up.

    ‘if you asked 500 people experiencing the type of deprivation he cites, to list factors that would improve their lives, the removal of graffiti
    would not even be mentioned.’

    I would mention it. I am certain others would also. I think that much is evident from the contributions to this discussion which for the most is between people not at all disposed towards SF’s perspective and who back a free Marian campaign. When I first moved down here before we picked the house there was non political graffiti on the wall close to it and I said to Carrie that it was a mark against. People like to live in well kept locations. I think it is natural to want your neighbourhood as tidy as your home. People prepared to display a Free Marian poster in their window are still unlikely to want it painted on their wall or door.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just got shown this from the most recent North Belfast News.

    http://www.belfastmedia.com/news_article.php?ID=5357

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tiarna,

    ‘Those whose opinion is that SF are suffocating, controlling, power
    freaks who see themselves as some kind of Republican leviathan --are
    absolutely right... no more need be said on that.’

    Absolutely. Sinn Fein will always try to suppress and repress. They are notorious for it. The problem as you point out is one of how communities perceive things like graffiti. While nobody should acquiesce in SF intimidation and bullying the communities should not be squeezed between competing political interests.

    Tain Bo,

    ‘When is graffiti not graffiti?’

    Something usually overlooked in these debates.

    I think a more important question relates to what rights communities have about what takes place in their public space either through displays of graffiti or ‘not graffiti’ and how those rights are expressed. I have no doubt that even if SF are not involved in the current issue the eradication of any alternative political sentiment is the type of thing the party would engage in. It would deny rights to people within the community and would give no space to others to vent an opinion. I wasn’t putting graffiti on the wall when the SF mob came to my door. I wrote about a killing carried out by its altar ego in the Irish News. Oddly enough the community group responsible for that area then said it was angry that myself and Tommy Gorman had made the allegations that we did. A person gunned down in the community and it didn’t give a toss.

    There has to be some way of ensuring the community is not bypassed in these matters

    ‘I am curious as to where on the list did people asked for economic investment and job creation.’

    Going back to my time in the Shinners it was not the type of issue we had put to us. But then people did not come to us about that macro thing feeling perhaps that there were better fora for it. They came to us about the things they thought we could manage. I think one of the criticisms of our centres then was that they were advice centres and little else. But times have changed and community groups particularly those claiming to be engaged in regeneration cannot afford to ignore the economic sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mick

    I Take it your reference was to George Davis who served a long sentence in England.
    If my memory serves me his wrongful conviction was highlighted amongst other places in the charts by Sham 69?
    The message needs to be brought to these sorts of level and not daubed on walls in areas were the support for their release would be surely almost 100%
    Free Derry corner is hardly scrawled graffiti or in the middle of a housing development.
    The widespread use of graffiti in the 80s obviously served its purpose and I suppose the many who who were unhappy about it remained silent due to the times.
    Given today that most have access to the internet, blogs and social networking sites as well as cheap access to printing, do we really have to deface our communities to get the message across. Graffiti breeds all sorts of graffiti and the white line pickets, camps, protests etc have a much greater impact.
    I think it has been agreed that it has limited usefulness (if any) in republican / nationalist areas but the debate appears to be more centred around the reasoning behind its removal.
    There is no doubt that we have all been more aware of it around in the last few days (some written many years ago).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alec,

    ‘Few republicans would have opposed the use of graffiti/slogans then unlike some of the opinions being expressed here.’

    That’s true. I would have painted it. But I would not do it today. I didn’t oppose house takeovers or hijackings then and would today oppose them, albeit not for the self serving reasons of SF. I think the notion that communities had no rights against republicans has seriously weakened over the years and many people have reviewed their position.

    ‘Sinn Fein opposes any message that challenges the political presentation promoted by the party.’

    It is in its DNA. If clean up exercises are only excuses to tackle political opposition (and we can never rule out that there is an element of that in many of them) then it is right that it be confronted. But the question still remains -does the community have the right not to be defaced by graffiti?

    ‘A more telling incident occurred on the Falls Road several weeks ago
    when a well known local artist was prevented from painting a mural on
    the International Wall by members of Sinn Fein. Certain prominent party members were involved in this act of discrimination against a former prisoner/artist leading to claims of attempted intimidation of the individual.’

    This is the more telling incident. This is the type of thing that can really settle the issue. If prisoner support groups are told they should not write on walls but be more artistic and are subsequently denied mural space, then that is where the focus should be. It seems so much more clear cut than the NLR incident.

    But overall there are so many ways to get the message out about republican prisoners. I think it should be done but not in a way that rides roughshod over the rights of communities.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Paul,

    I totally agree with everything you say regarding social deprivation and inequality - and I know for a fact that the consultation you spoke of was carried out in the New Lodge. I also know for a fact that the main issues many residents across all neighbourhood renewal areas stated that graffiti is a major problem for them. I've no doubt either that organisations liaised with political groups on the issue of graffiti.

    However, that consultation process is perhaps five or six years old now and times have well changed since then. Marian Price has been rearrested and Brendan Lillis is dying, for example.

    Other political organisations and lobby groups have emerged in that time - has the CEP liaised with them? Asked their opinions on the best way to deal with the messages they paint on the walls? I think not - and I think you should have.

    Historically republicans have lobbied and informed communties on important issues and raised the profile of mattters - ensuring it stays in the public domain. Granted, graffiti doesnt look great, but unfortunately the groups and organisations that seem to be at the forefront of the Lillis and Price campaigns arent as financially well-off as others who can afford murals, billboards etc.

    It seems too, that the CEP in their clean-ups are very selective in what they clean. The New Lodge was plastered in graffiti a few months ago about a prominent RNU member and it stayed there for God knows how long - it was also plastered in graffiti after an ex republican prisoner had the audacity to write a non-sanctioned book - but like the recent graffiti, this wasnt removed in any clean up either.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mackers,
    I have lived in this area all my life. Over the years and very recently during the election campaign I asked a considerable amount of Clonard people about many of the social issues they believed a new party could address and never once in all those conversations and never once in all these years has anyone ever mentioned graffiti.
    Maybe us people in Clonard are not too bothered if our area does not reflect our homes.
    Personally, I would rather see graffiti on the wall relating to Marian and other relevant political issues, than this culture of, out of sight out of mind that is now predominant.
    To answer Larry's question, I wouldn't give a stuff if they sprayed 'Free Marian' over the front of my house.
    To me, there are issues which are much more important than a bit of sprayed paint, and what is currently happening to her is one of them.

    In relation to the study and with all due respect, how do you know this clean up is what the people wanted?
    How do you know the research did not follow a format which would produce the desired outcome?
    I ask this because, a lot of people in that area had no idea such a consultation (whatever that is supposed to mean?) even took place.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fionnuala,

    You raised some valid points and have given me a bit of food for thought.

    The consultation was part of the british governments Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy for areas of deprivation.

    The brits decided that investment would go into these communities under specific headings and as a result, the consultation did follow a format in order to reach a desired outcome; questions were asked under the headings of 'social', 'economic', 'physcial' and 'community' renewal - under the heading of 'physical renewal'people stated graffiti in their areas was undesirable. No probing was done regarding types of graffiti and at the time of this consultation I'd hazard a guess and say there wasnt the major political issues happening that there is today, so political graffiti wasnt to the forefront of peoples minds - they were most likely just thinking of the run-of-the-mill graffiti marring the walls of the districts.

    Had people been specifically asked if political graffiti was acceptable to get a message across, then perhaps some, if not many, would have said it was.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nuala,

    ‘Paul O Neill could hardly dispute any of this.’

    But he is. He is disputing that clean-up campaign was a ploy just to erase political slogans SF did not approve of. That is what is in dispute not whether he erased the slogans. He has stated that he erased the political slogans.

    ‘He claims he is the victim of lies and innuendo and rumour which is nonsense.’

    He says the innuendo etc lies in the allegation that he was deliberately attempting to target the Marian slogan rather than it being removed as part of a clean-up campaign.

    ‘Yes, I am totally sceptical about the clean up story and the consultation process which proceeded it.’

    That’s your call. Others, as you can see, do not buy into it so readily.

    ‘I also sceptical about his empathy for the prisoners but that is a separate issue.’

    Again your own opinion, but one not shared by others.

    ‘Dictating what a community sees or what it cannot see is control and it is social control.’

    But also telling a community what it must see and has no rights against what others determine it must see is no less a form of social control.

    ‘I believe 100% that is what underpinned this venture.’

    Which is an opinion you are absolutely entitled to but from what I see here it is not a view that has 100% backing. Quite a few of the comments suggest that some people who are not sympathetic to SF are not buying into that interpretation.

    ‘Are you seriously suggesting that you can be at odds with the 'movement' and slide from one community post to another? Well if Paul O Neill can, then this is a first.’

    In my view the late Skeet had some serious difficulties but was still in a job. Also in terms of a ‘first’ this is the first time somebody of that persuasion has specifically written an article for this blog to make a case. That never happens. You might conclude that he was told to do so but I doubt it.

    In trying not to prejudge this issue and learn more about it I have been in contact with a number of people including one who has been attending Maghaberry protests for years, has in the past sprayed slogans himself in West Belfast because some of his close friends were in Maghaberry, and still supports the use of all means of support including graffiti. He knows Paul O’Neill well, and is at odds with his political perspective. He says this:

    ‘I can say without doubt that this incident was not a case of PSF supporters going around painting out slogans with the deliberate agenda of silencing political expression or to stem support for Marian or for the prisoners in general. I read his article that was posted on the Pensive Quill. What he is saying is a genuine and an honest reflection of his perspective. I find it truly depressing when I consider the issues associated with this incident. While I can understand why some will chose to criticise painting over the slogans, I find myself reluctant to do so in this instance as I have some insight into his attitude and thoughts towards the treatment of republican prisoners in Maghaberry and I know there was no deliberate political intent behind what occurred. He genuinely sees it as a legitimate community activity to improve the environment in the area. He was not ‘caught out’ as Fionnuala Perry has claimed in a comment on your blog. I can also say for a fact that he has been involved in helping ‘dissident’ ex-prisoners who have come out of Maghaberry in various ways ...Can anyone be identified that has ever been turned away on the basis of political affiliation? I think not.’

    I think Nuala, we have to take all views into consideration. My view, your view, the view expressed above or another view can never be the definitive word on the matter. You have challenged Paul O’Neill’s view and your view in turn is challenged. It’s what makes discussion and debate possible rather than diktat and edict.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Larry,

    ‘Derry political activists had to stand up to SF after they tried to
    control free derry wall as their own.’

    This is always the SF instinct

    Tiarna,

    In my view Nuala is right on SF being very much into and social control. It has a record of persistent bullying and intimidation to get its way. I do think however that issues like the cleanup can and need to be done regardless of what SF thinks.


    Nuala,

    ‘never once in all those conversations and never once in all these years has anyone ever mentioned graffiti.’

    Different experiences. Others have different memories. There has been enough said in comments on this topic by now to indicate that your experience and others differ. The comments by belfast Bookworm for example show that in their experience graffiti has been a community concern.

    ‘Personally, I would rather see graffiti on the wall relating to Marian and other relevant political issues, than this culture of, out of sight
    out of mind that is now predominant.’

    But it is not out sight nor out of mind. The very much 'in mind' campaigns around prisoners are in my view not down to slogans painted on walls, even where they have contributed, but toi the very real effort put in by supprt groups. Out of sight out of mind is the way SF might wish it to be, in fact has long sought it. But they have been resisted on it. I long resisted it but never once took to using graffiti to do so. There are other ways that highhlight the point without dictating to communities.

    ‘To me, there are issues which are much more important than a bit of
    sprayed paint, and what is currently happening to her is one of them.’

    That would not appear to be in dispute. The issue is one of whether I have a right to paint political slogans anywhere I choose without reference to anyone else. I don’t believe I do. If I believed that I would be holding the attitude I have long criticised SF for having: dictating to people what they will put up with because I say so.

    ‘In relation to the study and with all due respect, how do you know this clean up is what the people wanted?’

    I don’t. But I imagine people always want to see their area improved and cleaned up.

    'How do you know the research did not follow a format which would produce the desired outcome?'

    I don’t. But it seems that a desired outcome would be the removal of graffiti that people tend not to want in their neighbourhood.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Belfast Bookworm,

    I think you have added to our understanding of this issue greatly. The attitude toward graffiti you refer to would gel with my own experience as well as corresponding to my sentiment on the matter.

    ‘I also know for a fact that the main issues many residents across all neighbourhood renewal areas stated that graffiti is a major problem for them.’

    While I don’t know this for a fact it seems so plausible. I can’t imagine why people would not raise it.

    ‘However, that consultation process is perhaps five or six years old now and times have well changed since then. Marian Price has been rearrested and Brendan Lillis is dying, for example. Other political organisations and lobby groups have emerged in that time - has the CEP liaised with them? Asked their opinions on the best way to deal with the messages they paint on the walls? I think not - and I think you should have.’

    I think this is a point CEP and Paul O’Neill are obligated to answer.

    ‘graffiti doesnt look great, but unfortunately the groups and organisations that seem to be at the forefront of the Lillis and Price campaigns aren’t as financially well-off as others who can afford murals, billboards etc.’

    Another well made observation which touches on some of the points Alec raised.

    ‘It seems too, that the CEP in their clean-ups are very selective in what they clean. The New Lodge was plastered in graffiti a few months ago about a prominent RNU member and it stayed there for God knows how long - it was also plastered in graffiti after an ex republican prisoner had the audacity to write a non-sanctioned book - but like the recent graffiti, this wasn’t removed in any clean up either.’

    This goes to the heart of the matter and an explanation should be forthcoming. As Peadar suggested the discussion is hardly about whether graffiti is an eyesore – most seem to accept that it is – but the motivations behind this particular community clean up. And you raise very relevant points in that respect.

    ReplyDelete
  36. maybe a fund should be organised, a kitty, that people can get the money for paint or spray cans if they wish to put graffiti on their own property at no cost to themselves?

    Even at that, the neighbours may be unimpressed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mackers,
    I think you have went all out to defend this, which is your entitlement of course.
    As for the annoymous writer or source, I believe when someone does not justify their opinion with their name, it totally detracts from everything they say.
    Nothing has been said here to change my first impressions of what Paul O Neill did or why he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nuala,

    I don't accept that I have gone all out to defend this. Although Carrie thinks you are right! I have not seen Paul O'Neill in years and have no dog in the fight. It matters not to me if he is proved right or wrong. I would be very disappointed if he did discriminate against Marian. I do believe he should be treated justly and I think that principle has been applied throughout the discussion. Whatever came in about it was carried, for or against.

    But even if true that I went all out to defend it has it been any more 'all out' that your attack on it? Which is of course your right. I simply have not been persuaded by the merits of your argument, nor you by mine or the others who do not feel the issue is cut and dried. I can live with that. This is not a nodding head site. It does not mean you are wrong, just that I think the balance of probability does not lie in favour of your case.

    What I believe I have sought to do is ensure that the issue is properly explored and all views aired.

    'As for the annoymous writer or source, I believe when someone does not justify their opinion with their name, it totally detracts from everything they say.'

    It certainly does not carry the weight of someone using their name. On this blog some people use blogger names and we allow it and exchange ideas with them. But the person was writing to me, not the blog, in the course of a conversation I was having with him. And I thought it legitimate to illustrate my view that there is a different take on it out there. I don't think the points made by Belfast Blogger, for example, are less relevant because they do not use their name.

    'Nothing has been said here to change my first impressions of what Paul O Neill did or why he did it.'

    Your call. You make the judgmenet on the information available to you and the context in which you believe this took place. Fair play. I see it differently.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I,ve just nipped home to grab some fishing gear ,havent time to bless myself lol. then straight back to a wee lake full of hungry trout, had to say I totally agree with Nuala here, P.O.Neill (any relation to yer man I wonder)says it was a community response to graffiti, can Paul tell us if he gets paid for removing graffiti? people like election census worker Joanne Mathers or anyone else who interfered with early prm graffiti didnt just get told of or have a few tomatoes chucked at them.I by the way have some of the earliest posters ever printed by the prm and if Paul is interested in high standards he would die laughing at these juvenile attempts at political resistance,indeed if Paul is genuine he should remove the free Sean Kelly slogan from the top of the flats and replace it with beautifully written Free Marian Price political prisioner of war.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think those who make a distinction between political graffiti and mindless vandalism are missing the point. The house residents themselves in consultation with the rest of the community ought to be the ones who decide what - if anything - is painted on their gable walls. Nuala says she would be quite happy to accommodate 'Free Marian Price' graffiti on her gable wall, but I doubt she'd approve if someone scrawled 'Up Gerry Adams' or 'RIRA traitors' on it. She would have the right to remove such slogans from the wall of her house if she chose, just as the residents of the New Lodge area are entitled to have graffiti removed from their houses. If they want to keep the Provo murals/slogans and paint over the dissident material, then that is the residents' prerogative. However, there should be an open, uninhibited consultation process to establish what exactly the local community wants and to provide legitimate public spaces for expression of alternative political opinions.

    My father has republican sympathies, but I know that if he saw anyone daubing any sort of graffiti on our house, he would get his shotgun!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Larry,
    you can stop crawling now, I'm sure Cruncher O Neill is well impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alfie

    'My father has republican sympathies, but I know that if he saw anyone daubing any sort of graffiti on our house, he would get his shotgun!'

    Love it.

    Fionnuala

    'Larry,
    you can stop crawling now, I'm sure Cruncher O Neill is well impressed'.

    not for the first time you can't handle differing views. It must be the dormant provo in ya lol

    ive ordered you paint and a brush online, it will be with you tomorrow, do try not to paint over the windows.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Alfie,
    your da has too much of that old RIC blood running through his veins.
    If you had read the comments by 'Belfast Bookworm' you would know that the consultation which proceeded the clean up was skewed and designed to get a desired result.
    The consultation and no doubt the clean up was at the behest of the British Government Neighbourhood Strategy.
    Alfie, the area where I live is overrun with anti-social elements.
    It has been sold off in part to private landlords.
    People here live in constant fear and it is not from the people on the other side of the peace wall it is from their own.
    Like all the area's we have our neighbourhood watch, our neighbourhood development, our regeneration schemes, action committees, resident committees, restorative justice and maybe now a graffiti committee.
    Yet nothing ever gets done. Our area is a mess and it is nothing to do with litter or graffiti.
    The Brits continue to throw money at these ventures and these endless schemes and committees and the people get thrown to the wolves.
    Yes I would be proud to have 'Free Marian' on my wall, at least it would be pure and alive and coming from a social conscience and not tainted or muddied by British handouts and those who are only too glad to accept them.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Alfie
    tell yer Da to be sure and have ball-bearing cartridges, them ordinary 12 gage are fukn useless.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nuala,

    "your da has too much of that old RIC blood running through his veins."

    Why? Because he is not afraid to stand up for his rights?

    "If you had read the comments by 'Belfast Bookworm' you would know that the consultation which proceeded the clean up was skewed and designed to get a desired result."

    While I did not read his comments closely, I was aware that Belfast Bookworm alleged that the consultation process had a predetermined outcome. The only evidence he provided for this claim is (a) that the consultation was carried out under the auspices of a British government body, and (b) that the survey through which residents were consulted did not probe the distinctions between political and non-political graffiti. This is a somewhat tenuous argument.

    Firstly, it would be silly to suggest that the British government skewed a survey five or six years ago in order to legitimise graffiti removal today. Did they have a crystal ball back then? Secondly, I would imagine that most residents would object to any slogan - however noble the sentiment behind it - being daubed on their walls without their permission. I wonder how many people came out of their houses and asked Paul O'Neill not to remove the political graffiti on their own walls.

    Nevertheless, I think it would probably be a good idea for residents committees and community organisations to hold open meetings in order to establish what the majority of the community wants. Even then, I think if the residents of a given house want to remove any sort of graffiti from their property, they should have the right to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Alfie,

    sometimes these discussions produce intemperate language. It is just in the heat of the debate. I got called Conor Cruise O'Brien and Ruth Dudley Edwards one time by a very close friend because I did not share some view or other about republicanism. It doesn't last and we all move on. I think your father is quite entitled to have a view that graffiti is wrong without him being labelled pejoratively. But we all do it at some point or another depending on how passionately we feel about the topic.

    As for Belfast Bookworm I did not read their comment in the way that Nuala did. I think BB made it clear that graffiti was a problem in the minds of most people. I don't feel they were saying the consultation process was carefully fine tuned to produce what happened on the NLR. In fact I think they made the point that there was a vacuum in the consultation process which should have been addressed by wider consultation with the groups that had emerged in the six year period since it was initiated. I could be wrong and BB might come back to clarify.

    At the heel of the hunt the community has rights which republicanism should not violate in the promotion of its cause.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Alphie,

    Doesn't almost every consultation have a predetermined outcome to some degree? Otherwise, why consult in the first place?

    The Nieghbourhood Renewal strategy targetted specific issues/areas for regeneration and the questions in that consultation were desinged to get answers from residents on these specific issue.

    I speak with authority on the matter when I say the consultation didnt make distinctions between political and non-political graffiti. While you only have my word for this, someone like Paul O'Neill could confirm it.

    My own opinion on it is, as Anthony says, that it wasnt 'fine-tuned' - but there were holes in it, ie, when residents raised issues of graffiti in their district, there was no room to probe whether graffiti of a political nature was acceptable to them. If there was, we wouldnt be having this debate.

    I'm also of the opinion that those groups or bodies who painted messages on the walls havent been consulted. Again, if they had we definitely wouldnt be having this debate. Those groups should have been consulted though, just like PSF and RNU and the IRSP were several years ago, and the CEP, to be consistent in its zero tolerance policy, should clean up all graffiti. This hasnt happened consistently in the past and I believe it's this kind of 'selective clean-up' that is angering many in our communities.

    Just for the record, I'd have no problem having 'Free Marian Price' across my gable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. belfast bookworm

    'Just for the record, I'd have no problem having 'Free Marian Price' across my gable'.

    just for the record, is there one on it? Is there going to be?

    I think a lot of people have no problem with graffiti, on other peoples property. No offence, just what i feel to be the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Larry,

    Your comment; 'I think a lot of people have no problem with graffiti, on other peoples property' kind of implies that I have a 'So long as I'm all right Jack' attitude. Perhaps you think I live in some sort of ivory tower with no real concept of what goes on in the real world, but I can assure you nothing can be further from the truth.

    Just last night I was looking through old family photos and remarked at how many were of us playing in the streets of perhaps one of the most deprived and dangerous enclaves of Belfast, with all sorts of political slogans scrawled across the walls. In fact, every single first communion photo of mine had Bobby Sands MP painted on walls in the background - every single one. Political graffiti was part of the patchwork of my life and I believe absolutely that this, in part, influenced my own thinking. Graffiti is a powerful tool of communication and it helps highlight issues relevant and current. I personally have no objection to it - no matter where it is.

    I've since moved out of that area, and while there's no slogan on my wall and probably not likely to be, there are many slogans not too far from me - and by not too far I mean I dont have to go searching. I reiterate, I would have no problem whatsoever in having political graffit around me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Belfast Bookworm,

    'and the CEP, to be consistent in its zero tolerance policy, should clean up all graffiti. This hasn’t happened consistently in the past and I believe it's this kind of 'selective clean-up' that is angering many in our communities.'

    CEP should explain selective clean ups. Because if they permit pro SF graffiti to remain while the graffiti of others is targeted then there is a serious hole in their case.

    Graffiti has a use albeit not so much these days as people are no longer so dependent on it to get a message out. It is about where it is placed. And no one group should have any more rights than any other to use it. If someone were to put up on the walls ‘inform on republicans’ I imagine many of those who oppose the erasure of Free Marian Price would be rubbing it out.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Belfast bookworm

    'there are many slogans not too far from me - and by not too far I mean I dont have to go searching. I reiterate, I would have no problem whatsoever in having political graffit around me'.

    Detect a slight alteration in stance there. Not doubting the history and relevance of graffiti where you grew up. I'm just aluding to my own perception that 'today' in this changed climate people are unlikely to want or tolerate their property being disfigured.

    I'm seperating the moral issue of Marian from the reality that it's a different political landscape and temperature from the 1981 era. No-matter how much a minority wish to re-live that, it's not going to happen.

    Having graffiti on your house is not only NOT a priority, most people in my opinion don't want it. Including yourself perhaps if you are honest, and Fionnuala too.

    It's like supporting stiffing a Brit but having no notion of actually doing it.

    I get the feeling this issue was an opportunity to get a political dig in at SF and others. That's power for the course. I'm not convinced by the line from people suggesting cleaning up graffiti is somehow a lack of support for the prisoners. Particularly as the strongest advocates don't have any on their houses. THATS THE REALITY.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Larry,

    'Detect a slight alteration in stance there.'

    There's been absolutely no alteration in my stance. I stated facts, and made it clear they were facts, then I stated my own personal opinion, making that clear too.

    'I'm not convinced by the line from people suggesting cleaning up graffiti is somehow a lack of support for the prisoners.'

    Paul O'Neill says he certainly supports all prisoners, their release and their human rights and I dont doubt him - not for one second. The work he does, his background and history speak for itself as far as I'm concerned.

    But THE REALITY is that some graffiti is removed almost straightaway, and some has been allowed to linger a bit longer. In other words, the zero tolerance policy isnt rigidly applied and the truth of the matter is that the graffiti which could be considered pro PSF is the graffiti that's stayed up longest while the graffiti that could be perceived as pro dissident, is taken down straight away.

    Some residents believe that it's been removed because they dont give a care one way or another about political prisoners while others are perceiving it as a ploy ensuring dissident bodies arent given any 'airtime' to highlight the campaigns they're behind.

    The fact that the CEP didnt liaise with those writing the slogans before removing the paint is perhaps evidence of this...they're not even important enough to consult so we'll remove their messages and be damned - shut them up, dont give them any credence, undermine any clout or importance they might have in these communities and no-one will take them seriously or support them.


    And of course I dont want graffiti on my house - I doubt there's many who would. I wish there was no need for graffiti, but there is.

    ReplyDelete
  53. zero tolerance if it has been adopted, should mean exactly that, regardless.

    ReplyDelete