Turf War?
Billy Mitchell
The current regrettable conflict that is tearing the heart out of the loyalist community has been put down as a �turf war� being waged between two criminal gangs to see who can gain overall control of a criminal empire that includes drugs, racketeering and prostitution. This simplistic and wholly inaccurate analysis is commonplace within the media and certain sections of church and state.
For those who have short memories, the first indications of fractured relations within loyalism after the declarations of the ceasefire in 1994 was the rise of dissident voices within the Mid Ulster UVF. It is common knowledge that a split was engineered by certain anti-peace politicians who had tried and failed to get the UVF not to declare a ceasefire. The result was the expulsion of a number of individuals from the Mid Ulster UVF and the setting up of the LVF.
This fracture led to a concerted campaign of vilification and violence against the Progressive Unionist Party because it was seen that the bulk of the UVF membership was willing to listen to the political analysis of the PUP. The vilification and felon-setting has come from both anti-agreement unionists and anti-agreement paramilitaries. This campaign has intensified during the past two years resulting in the killing of six people who were associated with the PUP or who accepted the political analysis of the PUP. Around two dozen other individuals were subjected to direct intimidation and violence.
If there has been a �turf war� for the past year it has been a war to exclude the voice of radical progressive politics from the loyalist turf. It has been primarily a one-sided war and it has been waged, not just by paramilitaries, but by so-called constitutional politicians and religious fundamentalists as well. The object of the campaign is to demonise, marginalize and eliminate the voice of radical democratic politics within loyalism.
Let us focus for a moment on the events and aftermath of Saturday 19th August. I want to ask a few straight questions to those newscasters, media commentators and tabloid scribblers who claim that the events of that violent day was a feud between two sides in a turf war over drugs, prostitution and racketeering.
��Were the seven people who were injured in two separate gun attacks on the Rex Bar shot because they were drug dealers, pimps and racketeers�? That is the logical conclusion of the media�s flawed analysis of the situation. If the media really believes that then they must come out from behind the cover of insinuation and innuendo and name the activities that each of the injured people were involved in. This way the victims of those attacks can face their accusers openly and have their day in court
What about the thirty odd families that were violently expelled from the turf of the Lower Shankill Estate? Were these men, women and children all expelled from their homes because they were competing for a slice of� criminal action? If this was a turf war over drugs, prostitution and rackets the media needs to tell us how many prostitutes the elderly disabled pensioner whom we saw on television last Monday was pimping for? They need to identify how many businesses� were paying protection money to the young lady who had her wedding plans wrecked when her home was looted and her savings pilfered? They need to provide evidence that people like Gusty Spence were expelled from their homes because they� controlled rival drug empires to that of their attackers?
It is sad enough that these families should have suffered the humiliation and trauma of being forced out of their homes, but it is doubly humiliating that the media, supported by prejudiced politicians and out-of-touch clergy, should �justify� their victimisation by claiming that they were on one side of a mafia-like turf war.
These families, like the customers leaving the Rex Bar, were not involved in any war or feud. More importantly, they were not involved in drug dealing, prostitution or protection rackets. The simply supported the development of radical political thought within their community. However, if the media and its sources believe that they have evidence to the contrary let them name names and allow the victims of their insinuations to have their day in court.
One columnist put the conflict down a battle for political power within the area. Lets look at the facts. Alderman Hugh Smyth, leader of the PUP, is the longest serving member on Belfast City Council. He topped the poll at the last council elections with three times the quota required. If it is about political turf, Hughie doesn�t need to go to war to claim it, he just needs to stand for election and the people give their verdict. The same applies to Billy Hutchinson. His political credibility and electability has been gained through genuine political activity and representation. He has no need for violent feuding. Then again, all that would be lost on a political columnist whose sole agenda is to scapegoat the objects of his displeasure.
Calls for mediation from Shankill Community workers is to be� welcomed by all who earnestly desire an end to the bitterness and bloodletting. I would, however, rule out those politicians and clergy who have endorsed the analysis of the media. How can those who do not understand the cause and nature of the problem provide any help in solving it. Mediation calls for people with open minds and a non-prejudicial approach. Sadly, few of the politicians and clergy that I have heard speaking recently meet the criteria.