Bin Laden, Dervish and the Mystery of the Government Press Site

The Government have a fancy MerrionStreet.ie website that’s designed to “afford a view of government from the vantage point of Government Buildings itself.” According to its “about” section it is produced by a team in Government Buildings, involving the Government Information Service, Government Press and IT - all fully paid up civil servants at the disposal of the Government to bring you the news from your elected representatives. I’m not sure how much it costs, but I doubt it’s cheap. On the 4th May, a statement appeared on this Government press site;

“SHATTER PRESS RELEASE – Shatter critical of cyber-bullying The Irish Palestinian Solidarity Group’s (IPSG) action in directing its members to “target” the website of the musical group Dervish in order to intimidate the group into cancelling their planned concerts in Israel is nothing other than cyber-bullying. The invitation to Dervish to perform in Israel came from a fellow musician who “worked to bridge divides between people through music for much of his life” and the objective of the concerts was “to promote love between two divided communities”. It is absolutely understandable that the group, in the face of an “avalanche of negativity” and “venom” on social media websites took the decision to cancel their concerts – but it is a great pity that the bullying tactics of the IPSG worked. If the IPSG were in any way interested in promoting peace and reconciliation in a troubled part of the world they would recognise the value of cultural and artistic exchanges and the contribution such events make to fostering understanding and tolerance. But, unfortunately, IPSG’s interest is not in peace and reconciliation.”

There are a number of problems with this. It’s quite obvious that Minister Alan Shatter was in fact referring to the IPSC here but that aside, did this statement go out on this website in his capacity as Minister for Justice and Equality, or Minister for Defence, or just plain old Alan Shatter? If this statement went out in his capacity as Minister for Justice, it makes a mockery of cabinet positions. I can’t think of any other state where a Minister for Justice would have so little to do, he would draft a press statement because some activist group supporting a cultural boycott of Israel, succeeded in getting a group to not play in Israel. Maybe he had tickets for Dervish in Tel Aviv and was just really annoyed over it. The interesting thing about this statement is (aside from people in a Government Press Office are paid to write such god-awful statements) that if he is speaking in a personal capacity then there are serious questions to be asked as to why taxpayers’ money is being used to facilitate a press service for government TDs when they aren’t speaking in reference to their Ministerial remit. I can’t see anything in this statement even remotely related to Justice and Equality, or Defence, so what are the criteria for allowing TDs to use it? Can opposition TDs use it too? And no it’s not just about Dervish, Al Qaeda get a mention too when he goes on to say;

“Worryingly, reports of newly declassified documents, seized from his hideout in Pakistan following his death last year, indicate that the actions of the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Group (IPSG) and its associates have caught the attention of some of Osama Bin Ladens followers who now see Ireland as promising ground for support.”

Actually the Irish Times covered these “declassified documents” which (if they are genuine) basically said, Irish people are mostly Catholic but they’re really upset with the Catholic Church now, and they are generally more tolerant of Muslims than other religions so they might be open to conversion to Islam. Interestingly, the document didn’t refer to the IPSC at any point, or its associates or followers, but did mention “the soft treatment of the judicial system to Muslims accused of terrorist acts." Funny that Alan Shatter, the Minister for Justice, left that bit out. He concludes;

“IPSG’s appeal to human rights rings hollow. It ignores the constitutional rights of Irish citizens and those who live in this State to get on with their lives, to travel and to perform around the world free from bullying, intimidation and discrimination. It is particularly extraordinary that the orchestrated campaign targeted at Dervish occurred at a time when thousands have lost their lives in Syria and the IPSG have remained silent about the crimes against humanity being committed there.”

I have one word in response to this, and it’s “Gaza.”

Why being pro-choice is the only choice for republicans

Last week saw the first ever dedicated debate on abortion take place in the Dáil. It was an historic occasion. It was momentous. A small group of TDs tabled legislation to give effect to the European Court of Human Rights judgment that said the State was obliged to legislate for abortion in cases where it is already legal. Abortion is theoretically legal in Ireland (south) in cases that fit the terms of the 1992 X Case judgment – that is, where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, including a risk of suicide. It does not include categories of risk to health, or rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality. In short it would allow abortion in cases where a woman would die should she continue her pregnancy.

Sinn Féin have a position of being in favour of legislating for abortion under the terms of the X Case, and in some other narrow criteria so voted in favour of the legislation, which in any event failed to pass. Party leader Deputy Gerry Adams outlined the position during the debate as follows; “Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. We believe all possible means of education and support services should be in place. However, in cases of rape, incest and sexual abuse, or in which a woman’s life and mental health are at risk or in grave danger, Sinn Féin accepts that the final decision should rest with the woman concerned.” During the weeks of the lead-up to the debate I had a number of discussions with other republicans on the issue. Some republicans are adamantly in favour of allowing abortion on demand on the basis that they recognise women as people – as individuals who have the capacity to decide what is best for them, and what should happen to their bodies. The vast majority of republicans are in favour of allowing abortion in cases where there is a risk to the life or mental health of a pregnant woman. For the purposes of this discussion we must set aside the difficulties of deciding how risky exactly a risk has to be to a woman’s health before it becomes a risk to her life (does she have to have a 4% chance of dying or a 74%?). A very small number of republicans that I spoke to were not in favour of allowing abortion in *any* circumstances, and this view appears to be based in a misinformed belief that Ireland has the best maternal healthcare in the world. This is a myth.

The point is, that republicans probably reflect broader Irish society when it comes to varying views on when abortion is or is not acceptable. During the discussions that I had, one or two people said to me that they thought that abortion and decisions related to it was a “personal thing” and it wasn’t for anyone to legislate on. Aside from the fact that the “personal thing” argument is nonsensical (you’re not exactly allowing anyone the right to make a decision on this “personal thing” when you refuse to legislate on it - Contraception is a personal thing but needs legislation, so is adoption. Your right to privacy is legislated. Personal things require legislation), some of those people developed the argument further and said that it was not republican to legislate to allow abortion.

In fact, the correct republican position is quite obviously one which would be pro-choice.

Now, I would never be so sectarian as to suggest that one political party can claim ownership of republicanism, similarly to how I believe no single political unit or party can claim ownership of socialism, and I am loathe to begin dictating the terms of what is and is not “republican.” If I recall correctly, the 1916 Proclamation or the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil never specifically mentioned fracking or the need for Whistleblower’s Legislation, however republicans are quite happy to take “republican” positions on these issues because you can extrapolate certain things from principles contained in documents that republicans take their ideology from. There are a few core principles that I think every republican can agree are truly “republican” regardless of their party affiliation; beliefs in freedom, anti-racism, economic and social equality - including gender equality. I don’t think anyone would dispute the idea that to be a republican you have to believe in equality between the genders.

Abortion for republicans should be an equality issue.

If you believe that women are people and therefore deserving of human rights, then the logical conclusion is that they would have a right to decide what happens to their bodies.

Which leads me to the issue of ‘foetal rights’; Nearly all of the republicans I spoke to about abortion and who were against it in general, grounded their disagreement with the validity of abortion rights on the idea that the foetus had a right to life that surpassed that of the pregnant woman. I disagree with the notion that a right to life can be afforded to a *potential* human being above the human rights of the actual living human being that the foetus is contained in, however I understand the difficulty that people have with abortion if they genuinely believe the foetus is a human life deserving of the same rights as, say, a pubescent 13 year old girl. They believe the foetal right to life surpasses that of the pregnant woman’s right to healthcare, her right to self-determination of the person, her right to privacy, her right to bodily integrity among others. According to them, the right to life is so important it trumps everything regardless of the consequences. The foetal right to life card is what anti-choicers generally pull out when they’ve lost the argument that women are people who should be allowed make their own health decisions, but some people who I like to think have better politics sometimes use it too.

What I cannot fathom, is how the republicans I know who will defend the right to armed struggle in particular conditions, can marry the idea set out above (that the right to life trumps every other right) with the idea that armed struggle in *any* condition is a legitimate option. If the right to life is so important that it can transgress the rights of another person’s right to privacy or bodily integrity, then surely there is no point at which a republican can defend the taking of another person’s life. If the foetal right to life is supreme to a pregnant woman’s right not to live in poverty, then the logical conclusion is that the right to life of a British soldier occupying West Belfast in 1987 reigned supreme to the rights of people to live in peace and not be oppressed – because the right to life – if you believe it a foetus has life – trumps all because it is supreme to all other rights. If you believe that armed struggle is acceptable in certain circumstances and with certain conditions it is acceptable to take the life of another, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the ‘right to life’ of a person (or the foetus that you have awarded it personhood) is not absolute in all circumstances. The logical conclusion is the right to life does not trump all, and thus the foetal right to life does not surpass all of the pregnant woman’s rights.

If the response to this argument is to say that a British soldier in 1980s Belfast somehow gave up his right to life by virtue of the fact that he occupied Ireland, then it is inconsistent to say that the *right* to life that trumps all other rights, in all other circumstances. For republicans who believed in (at one point or another) the legitimacy of armed struggle, there is no way around it.

Republicans, throughout the recent conflict, argued and acted in accordance with the principle that the right to life was not absolute. Facing oppression and the denial of fundamental human rights, republicans took up arms to resist - knowing that in doing so, lives would be lost. Republicans believed that the violation of the right to life of another to defend the rights of the nationalist community in the Six Counties was a legitimate and moral choice. This was not an easy choice to make, but it was a choice that they believed was right, and in the long run for the betterment of their community and wider society. It was a choice most modern republicans would agree with even while regretting profoundly the suffering caused by the necessity of making that choice. The anti-choice argument hinges on the belief that in any and all circumstances, the right to life of a foetus is superior to the rights of a woman to self-determination, to privacy, to freedom, to independence, to make choices about her bodily integrity.

The natural extension of the anti-choice argument is that women are to be oppressed, forced by the State to carry a foetus to term regardless of their personal choice, or the psychological or physical damage this can inflict on them, and their families. In essence, anti-choicers believe that the State should, for example, stand up for the right of the rapist to force a woman to bear his child, and those who hold this view and claim to be republicans, argue that Sinn Féin should use the mechanisms of State power to ensure this happens. But if you consider yourself a republican, and acknowledge that gender equality is a core principle of republicanism, then it is quite obvious that the logical conclusion is to favour a woman’s right to choose regardless of the circumstances.

Either women are equal in all circumstances, or they are not.