Friday, December 30, 2016

Tagged under: ,

Ignoring Britain's Role In Conflict

In Today's Irish News, New York Attorney-at-Law, Martin Galvin, in responds to Trevor Ringland's call for Injury Pensions (Irish News 8 December 2016).

A chara,

While I have no quarrel with Trevor Ringland's call for 'Injury pensions,' (December 8th) I cannot ignore his attempt to write off Britain's responsibility. Mr. Ringland invokes an African saying about much grass being trampled when two elephants fight. However, calling Republicans and unionists the two elephants in the Irish conflict ignores the big proverbial elephant in the room.

Mr. Ringland casts the struggle as a fight between two "flawed ideologies" of Irish Republicanism and Unionism. What of the ideology behind Britain's belief in its entitlement to rule as much of Ireland, among other nations, as it could hold? Do the many political theories, (or contrived excuses) defending violence in the name of British rule not count as an ideology? Are there no flaws in that ideology?

Begin with those hundreds of killings committed by Theresa May's "bravest of the brave" at places like Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday, which British colonial officials Villiers and Brokenshire acknowledge. Add those murdered by the Military Reaction Force Terror Unit, most not officially admitted. Was nothing trampled and no one hurt? 

Whose ideology deserves blame for more than a thousand murders attributed to loyalist paramilitaries? Was it exclusively "narrow and exclusive" unionism? Did unionism force the Force Research Unit to give weapons, targets, immunity, pay and supervision to loyalist murder squads ? Were the FRU and their superiors within the British cabinet and military serving unionism or did they use loyalists to serve their own separate British agenda? 

Who created 'narrow and exclusive' unionism ? Surely it was the British who devised and exploited a governmental system grounded upon religious divisions and even carved out an Orange state to serve British rule. How could unionists ever force Westminster to indulge their sectarian system unless it benefited Britain to do so?

Where did Republicanism begin and why did so many join a decades' long fight to free themselves from British rule and second-class citizenship? It was not some sudden interest in Wolfe Tone's writings or 1916. Republicans believed that those who imposed an Orange State, used internment and answered civil rights marchers with Bloody Sunday would never give them justice.

Arlene Foster falls over herself curtseying to minor English royalty, is unwilling to make Dee Stitt resign, and is incapable of halting a 'money to burn' RHI scheme. Could she really block legacy inquests if Westminster was not burying the truths which such inquests might unearth?

Mr. Ringland is certainly entitled to his view that Britain was an innocent party drawn into a conflict that was not of its making. He should not expect to intrude such views into this newspaper without being challenged. 

1 comments :

eurofree3 said...

some of the points Mr Galvin made with regards to Unionists/loyalists are expressed here . Enjoy

https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/scoop-exclusive-interview-truth-unveiled-all-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about/