pup-ni.org.uk Party Articles

Billy McCaughey Memorial Lecture 2007

Peter Bunting — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:00:00 GMT

The Progressive Unionist Party annual conference.

13 Oct 2007

By Peter Bunting,
Assistant General Secretary, ICTU

I stand before you today as the son of a man who was expelled from his workplace by Billy McCaughey. My Father was forced to go on a journey he did not want to make. Billy McCaughey made him do it.

Later in his own life, Billy McCaughey made a journey of his own, one that took him far away from where he was in 1971. Because of that journey made by Billy McCaughey, it is my honour to be here today, offering the Billy McCaughey memorial lecture to you, his friends and comrades.

I feel genuinely honoured today to have the opportunity to address the Progressive Unionist Party’s annual conference. Like every person in this room, I still mourn the passing of David Ervine, but I must accentuate the positive and start things off by paying tribute to your party activists for having the fortitude to carry on after many had written off the PUP, and the backbone and the brains that it took to have Dawn Purvis elected as a worthy successor to Big Davey’s seat in the Assembly.

It is essential that the PUP perseveres on the political scene. As a party, and as a set of ideas and as a collection of individuals, the PUP represent something bigger than one seat in the Stormont Assembly. That is not just hyperbole or a wishful hunch. Just look as the transfers that come to the PUP under proportional representation.

The PUP attracts second and third preference votes from voters of all parties, on top of those who gave Dawn their first preference. That tells me that there is enormous goodwill for the message that the PUP sends out, and it is the task of your party activists to persuade those well-intentioned voters to give their first choice on the ballot paper to the PUP.

You are also a successful party. Yesterday, the Water Review Panel made a series of recommendations to the Minister for Regional Development on the payment system for water and sewage. The unfair system of separate water charges were supposed to be imposed by direct rule ministers last April. What stopped them from this fraudulent double tax was not the high and mighty making side deals at St. Andrews. It was not even on the election plans of the big four to campaign on water charges, beyond some vague hints that the might do something about it.

This campaign was won in the small community halls and housing estates from Creggan to Cregagh. It was won by dedicated community activists and trade unionists and members of what is patronisingly referred to as the ‘small parties’. PUP activists were heavily involved and the role of Dawn Purvis was crucial in enduring that the doorstep issue of the election was not policing, as the big parties thought.

Water was the issue of the election and it is a great credit to the hundreds of activists from small parties and no party, the womens’ groups and the trades’ councils, and just ordinary people dismayed at the injustice of water charges.

This is a great victory for the PUP and this is a great victory for the trade union movement. We deserve, I think to do more than coolly reflect upon this. We deserve to bask in the extraordinary success of this campaign. A year ago it looked hopeless. Now, the boot is on the other foot, and the carefully laid plans for the sneaky privatisation of our water service is, well, up the Swannee.

This shows what can be achieved at community and grassroots level. This is an example and template for future action. And if you’re wondering what the strange and unfamiliar feeling in your gut is, it is called victory. Enjoy it. Savour it. And remember it, because it does not happen often enough. But if you remember it, then you should want to repeat it someday. And you will.

You represent a tradition in Northern Ireland’s politics that is not as often celebrated as more divisive traditions. Yours is a voice of a distinction that is not divisive. We all know what confessional ‘side’ most of your activists come from. You are unashamedly for the continuation of the union with Great Britain. But what makes you different from the two big unionist parties is your commitment to a vision of an articulate and progressive working class playing its full role in the political life of Northern Ireland.

This is a distinction worth maintaining. As a party, you have challenged the easy assumptions put about that all unionists are highly conservative on all social and economic issues. The PUP has challenged the cosy consensus on the Eleven-Plus and have instead focused on the drastic failure rates afflicting school leavers from the state schools. The retention of self-selecting grammar schools is a major contributory factor in the creation of a two-tier education system in this region.

And when I speak of a two-tier system, I do not mean the confessional segregation that we in Congress have long opposed. I speak of the chasm that operates within each system, state and maintained. We tolerate a cruel divide that weeds out friendships and life chances for children who have not yet reached puberty.

Let us have an education system for all, and not a two-tier system that is rigged to subsidize the lucky and stigmatize the unfortunate. This is not, of course, the fault of those teachers who strive to better the life chances of the children. We have a systemic series of fault lines running through education here, and we should not be surprised when so many of our young citizens fall through the cracks.

When a party like the PUP stands up for justice in our schools, it speaks of a view of society that is instinctively fairer than the one that we have or the various versions of offer from some other parties. The root of that is that distinction which I mentioned earlier, a distinction which is not a divide. Let me give an example.

Three decades ago as the cloud of the troubles started to descent upon Northern Ireland, other political agitations were alive in other societies. One was the politicisation of women. When faced with an assertion that women were trying to ‘take over’ from men, Germaine Greer answered in this manner. “The opposite of patriarchy is not some system of matriarchy. The opposite is fraternity.”

Fraternity. Equality. Liberty. Solidarity.

Those are key words of the distinctive tradition that the PUP inhabits. And you are not alone. There are decent and out spoken individuals in those parties that do not share progressive policies, just as there are parties which espouse progressive rhetoric while making room for members that are distinctly reactionary.

We now have a system that ties in the ‘Big Four’ parties into a coalition that threatens to be a permanent fact. A system like this one requires a watchful opposition. With one MLA, the PUP can still punch above its weight by speaking truth to power, by challenging the assumption that the compromises reached around the Executive table reflect the entirety of the 1.7 million people living in Northern Ireland.

Thomas Jefferson was in a bad mood when he said that “democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” George Bernard Shaw was equally cheery when he sneered that “Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better then we deserve.”

But another voice, the American Jewish Socialist Meyer London, was more truthful and more upbeat. “Democracy does not mean perfection. It means a chance to fight for improvement.”

With your seat at the Assembly, you have a base, and an office which is kept busy and a profile. Most importantly, you have the power of example. You have eyes. You can see that change is happening at a furious pace. Some of it is good, some of it is worrying. You can do all of politics a favour and continue the mission of David Ervine in being as honest as possible, of employing what George Orwell called “the power of facing unpleasant facts.”

The fact is that the Northern Ireland that dominates the structure of politics here is more fragile than it thinks. The sectarian monoliths are increasingly megalithic. It is no longer possible to assume that everybody gets their religion, their politics and their football team in one inherited package. Not all of our children love to wear the stuff their father wore.

More people are telling pollsters that they are secular, or agnostic, or free thinkers, and are also acting accordingly. Many of our young, especially our bright, protestant young, are moving to England and Scotland for a university education and too many do not come back. There is no way to measure this, but the ‘brain drain’ must be having an adverse affect on our business culture here. There must be some connection between us having the lowest rates of business start-ups in the UK and the export of such intellectual capital at the age of 18.

And yet, in too many communities across this region and especially this city, there are places where isolation is such a daily fact of life that this has become commonplace to assume that there will be no contact with people who are not the same as us. And I don’t mean interface communities which have bourn the brunt of the violence of the past three decades, whose areas are traduced by fear and reinforced concrete barriers and whose teenagers define their self-identity as not being like those on the other side whose they have never met, not even to have and ordinary and banal conversation about girls and boys and sport and Big Brother.

Ten years ago, the Belfast novelist Robert McLiam Wilson looked across his city as it came to terms with life after the troubles, and stared at its fault lines. He wrote: “Some call it religion, some call it politics. But the most reliable, the most ubiquitous division is money. Money is the division you can always put your money on.”

There are other systems of segregation which are strangling the hopes of decent people and their faith and fatherland have nothing to do with it. The recent Rowntree report on social exclusion contains some hair-raising statistics. Did you know that four-fifths of social housing has no principal bread-winner in paid employment? Consider that for a moment, and consider the causes and consequences. The causes are generational long-term unemployment and the conspiracy under the last Tory government to massage the figures by encouraging the long-term unemployed to apply for DLA or other forms of welfare apart from the Brew.

There are other causes which are no more shaming. There are thousands of people so damaged by the violence of the troubles that they are physically or mentally incapable of dealing with the necessities of life, or are simply too afraid to cross their own door or immediate area. There are thousands of women in particular in interface areas who are state-sponsored junkies, their minds laden and dulled by prescription drugs as a solution to the barbarism they have been forced to witness.

We have the lowest unemployment figure ever in Northern Ireland, but ten times that figure, over half-a-million people are dumped into the category of ‘economic inactivity’. They are the people who occupy 80% of our social housing. What must it be like to grow up in such surroundings?

What are the life chances of a boy born around the time of the 1994 ceasefires, and now a grown-up feisty teenager? Where are the positive role models who can lead by a daily simple example, such as the advantages of staying in school, of going to a local university, of getting a decent job, of providing for his family, of improving his community by running a football club, by helping his elderly neighbours, by joining in a lobby of the council for better street lighting or traffic calming, of getting involved in his trade union and learning the skills of organisation, and leading those changes himself by running for the council?

I suspect that I am addressing several men who have done just that, but had to pass more significant hurdles, such as getting used to life after imprisonment, of making the decision that they could make a real difference by being militant for change, rather than being militaristic for the status quo. And that is just the men.

The real lions of such communities over the past decades have been, of course, the lionesses. The Myna Wardles and the Debbie Watters. Women like Pearl Sagar, women like May Blood, the only peer or peeress I can think of who deserves the title she was bestowed – a working peer.

Oh, did I neglect to mention Dawn Purvis? Dawn is a shining example of the possibility of change through the ballot box. She shifts the possible to the probable, that some day soon there will be others like her on the benches of Stormont, making trouble for the right reasons, and making improvements for her constituents, who stretch beyond East Belfast. A woman like Dawn Purvis understands that her job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I don’t know if Germaine Greer has ever heard of Dawn Purvis, but if she has, she ought to be proud of her.

Dawn has written her own rulebook but we know that she had some fine mentors, especially Davy Ervine. In turn, Davy had his role models and exemplars – men who made similar journeys as Billy McCaughey. Men with iconic status in their neighbourhoods, such as Hughie Smyth, Gusty Spence and the late Billy Mitchell.

Davy had his peers, who are still out there working to give good people the chance for better lives, like Billy Hutchinson in Mount Vernon and Tom Roberts of EPIC.

They too, understand the importance of being militant for a change, making real and lasting changes to the daily lived experience of politically isolated and often demonised people.

These people were also the architects of the PUP’s founding statement of aims, the one that promotes “the political, social and economic emancipation of the people of Northern Ireland and, more particularly, of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or brain for the means of life.”

Once upon a time, there was a party that knew this. A century ago, exactly 100 years ago last January, the first ever Labour Party conference was held in this city, at the Wellington Hall in Belfast. It was addressed by Kier Hardie, one of the great orators of his day.

The same conference also left in its wake, one Liverpool-born man who would convulse the trade union movement in Ireland – James Larkin.

Within month, Larkin had organised the dockers of Belfast and history followed like a clap of thunder.

Belfast was paralysed as its dockers and carters organised themselves into effective trade unions and went on strike for a fairer deal and abetter life. If went on for months and won hearts and minds of the public. The Independent Orange Order was a vital player in the dispute. The police mutinied in support of the strikers and Dublin Castle had to send in thousands of troops and cavalry to impose order on the streets.

The lessons of that time were learnt by the trade union movement across this island. The lessons were also learnt by many of the strikers, who learnt the skills of agitation and street politics. It is quite true, as John Gray observes in his history of the strike, that many of the tactics of 1907 were used in 1912 by the same men – this time in opposition to the Home Rule Bill and in support of Edward Carson.

And the early radicalism of the Independent Orange Order echoes still. Its founding document was known as the Magheramourne Manifesto, and it chimed with such ringing phrases as this: “We stand once more on the banks of the Boyne not as victors in the fight, nor to applaud the noble deeds of our ancestors, but to bridge the gulf that has long divided Ireland into camps, and to hold out the right hand of fellowship to those who, while worshipping at different shrines, are yet our countrymen … and to co-operate with all those who put Ireland first in their affections…”

This was the time when Ireland was united, albeit under the Crown. The manifesto has been interpreted in many ways, but it is justifiable to argue that the small farmers and working class Protestants addressed in 1904 were being urged to find commonalities with their Catholic equivalents, rather than fine points of division.

It called for a single and secular educational system. It harangued landlordism and the Tory minded who “made the Orange Institution a stepping stone to place and emolument for themselves and their families.” If argues that fairer economic treatment for all of Ireland would undermine the separatists.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Solidarity, Unionism.

There is no contradiction between unionism and equality between British or Ulster Unionism and trade unionism. Nor should any unionists fear political ostracisation by declaring themselves as socialists.

There is a long and decent history of working class radicalism in this region that has never been properly recognised, but nor has it ever been fully quenched. It is like a crimson thread running horizontally through the vertical stripes of green and orange and red and blue. It is the threat in the 1920s by Northern Ireland Labour to official Unionism, which lead to the electoral system being changed from Proportional Representation to first-past-the-post. Despite that, and the years of the Red Scare, Belfast in particular was a centre of Labour success right up to the late 1960s.

The trade unions were active in issues that went beyond the relations between employer and worker. There were walk-outs in the shipyard over hikes in bus fares. That spirit lived on in some politicians who joined other unionist parties, especially in north and west Belfast. Let us also remember the constitution of the PUP, imported wholesale from the British old Labour – Clause 4 included.

But like many parties of the left, you are facing what a Tory intellectual called the ‘Progressive Dilemma’. How do progressive people maintain a belief in the principle of equality while recognizing the fact of an increasingly diverse society? The welfare states of Europe were planned and implemented at a time when national populations were relatively homogenous. In other words, it was easier to share the wealth among people who were identifiably ‘just like us’.

If Northern Ireland can act as a society that is a model for what Freud called the “narcissism of small differences”, how then are we to balance our rights as citizens with our duties as hosts. Cross-community nativism is the worst possible answer. We are in a global economy. The heavy engineering jobs that once formed the backbone of industry here are now in South Korea or Mexico. We all know that education and permanent upskilling of the workforce is the key to any future viable economy.

We are also attractive for workers from other countries, some for a short stay, but others are putting down roots, just as generations of people from here have made new homes across the Irish Sea, the English Channel, or in the New Worlds of Australia, Canada and America.

We need to avoid the mistakes we have made with each other for generations being replicated on migrant workers. We should remember that we are no more an amorphous community than are THE Poles, THE Lithuanians or THE South Africans. They are like us and not like us. They are individuals.

We often speak with real feeling about our experiences of struggling for equality. We can pat ourselves on the back for the necessary changes made to help every person reach their full potential as human beings. But we cannot allow ourselves to think about our new fellow workers as being parts of some homogenous bloc, as we often do about ‘Catholics’ or ‘Protestants’.

What does a nurse from the Philippines have in common with a fruit picker from Latvia? Are dreams and emotions the same for a Portuguese food processor and a Ukranian plasterer? Do all Polish plumbers dream the same dreams?

Of course not. No more than a catholic barrister is ‘the same’ as a catholic barman. Therefore, integration has to be based on the first principle of citizenship, not in the legal sense of applying for permits and passports, but a more globalised idea of citizenship based on the individual value of humanity.

Let me tell you about something I saw in Dublin in the 1980s. The people then living in inner city were the most deprived in the country. Bad housing, high crime, generational unemployment and were bad enough scourges, and then along came heroin. By the end of the decade, cheap heroin had thousands of young people in its grip, and the practice of sharing needles assisted a chronic epidemic of HIV and AIDS. It was estimated that over 8,000 people in Dublin’s inner city had what they called ‘the virus’.

Then their mothers revolted. They formed groups with names like ‘Mothers against AIDS’, and they fought the authorities for basic rights for their sick and dying sons and daughters. They lobbied and demonstrated for clean needles, for drug rehabilitation and for medical care in the face of medical and political establishments that viewed them and especially their children as pariahs and scum.

There were communities not noted for their tolerance towards homosexuality but hard campaigns make fine alliances. Just they saw AIDS victims as their loved ones, as complicated and decent human beings, they could see the individuality and humanity of gay men who were also fighting the system for that most basic of human rights, the right to life.

Similar mothers learnt the same lessons in Liverpool and Glasgow and Edinburgh. That’s the personal becoming political. By looking outwards and feeling inside that allies make strange bedfellows, but allies make you not only stringer but also wiser.

We are where we are. The ‘national question’ has been settled for a long time to come. What we have is a struggling economy with social evils that afflict all faiths and birthplaces. As ever, we can struggle together, or agitate apart, but we all know that as allies, we have a better chance of winning tangible improvements in the lives of our members, your voters, and all their and our families.

That is the deal that history has dealt us. Let us pick up our cards and play to win.

And so, in summary, let us return to the life and times of Billy McCaughey. Let us consider the man he was in 1971, and the man he became. Like Billy Mitchell and Gusty Spence, age did not wither him. Rather, it made him more of a man, not in the sense of cheap machismo, but as a full and rounded person, at peace with his own presence and being.

Billy McCaughey was prepared to kill for what he saw as his people. At the end of his days, he had lived for more people than he could have ever dreamed about in 1971. He was part of a wider community than his immediate neighbours, of his fellow believers. I would like to think that he died with a far wider definition of what constituted the brotherhood of man and the common wealth of humanity.

I would also like to think that, if my father had lived long enough to witness the full life of Billy McCaughey, then he too, would have recognised him as a brother and a comrade.

On that fraternal note, I thank you for listening, and wish you the best for your conference.

Thank You.

Crime and Punishment

Cllr Dr John Kyle — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Is it time to embrace Restorative Justice?

Like death and taxes crime seems to be always with us. Community safety is at the top of nearly every political party’s agenda. This is hardly surprising since surveys of residents’ priorities in numerous cities have highlighted concern about personal safety as consistently as a capacity gate at a Manchester United home game. It is estimated that the cost of dealing with crime in Belfast equates to over £4000 per resident every year and that does not even begin to measure the fear and psychological trauma which many have suffered. The quality of our lives is affected by how secure we feel in the places in which we live and work.

Given the widespread concern about crime and antisocial behaviour it may come as a surprise to learn that Restorative Justice Programmes can be remarkably effective in dealing with it. Recent Home Office research showed that 85% of victims and 80% of offenders were satisfied with their experience of a Restorative Justice conference and only 6 out of 216 victims and 6 out of 152 offenders were dissatisfied after taking part. That approval rating must come close to Lawrie Sanchez’ when he was manager of Northern Ireland. It is all the more striking when compared to the Criminal Justice system where only a third of victims feel that their needs have been met.

Restorative Justice has been shown to not only reduce the post-traumatic stress symptoms of victims and help them return to work following serious crime but it can also substantially reduce re-offending rates. Impressed?

How does Restorative Justice work? Essentially it creates a context in which victim, offender and community can work together to understand the impact of the crime, to help heal the relationships and to integrate offenders back into the community. Community Based Restorative Justice projects, of which there are several in Northern Ireland, have sprung up in the communities which have suffered most from sectarian conflict and from antisocial behaviour. Their success has come in part from the participation of the community in the justice process. While in the traditional Criminal Justice process victim and community are passive observers, in restorative justice they, with the offender, become active participants regaining a sense of control.

Critics of Community Based Restorative Justice schemes raise a number of objections: for example that they are a front for paramilitary organisations and help them maintain control over their communities. The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland in its report launched on Wednesday 26th October 2007 found no evidence for this in schemes run in loyalist communities. But, others argue, they rely on coercion by paramilitaries to force clients to take part. Again the Inspectorate found no evidence of this, in fact the report states ‘We found that the schemes worked to a high standard with difficult young people…and have widespread support in their communities’.

Surely this is good news for the people of Northern Ireland and surely it is now time for the government to fund and expand these schemes. Community Based Restorative Justice is not appropriate for every crime but given its effectiveness can we afford to withhold funding and leave it in quarantine indefinitely?

May Day Parade

Dugald McCullough — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:08:57 GMT

Below are pictures of the PUP contribution to the 2007 May Day parade in Belfast. The PUP delegation was warmly welcomed by the organisers. Although PUP members have marched on May Day as individual socialists and Trades Unionists in the past, this is the first year the Party has been represented by an identified group, with banner resplendent!

A Rubicon has been Crossed

John Kyle — Fri, 04 May 2007 10:18:09 GMT

The historic statement issued on 3rd May 2007 by the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commandos is to be welcomed by all sections of the community. While it may not have gone as far as many would wish, it none the less points to a profoundly significant process of reflection and transformation which has been taking place over the past three years.

In a process provoked by David Ervine’s challenge to bring an end to paramilitarism and assisted by the wise counsel of, among others, the late Billy Mitchell, the organisations have been involved in a carefully considered examination of their past, present and future.

Their conclusions are to be commended. Put simply the paramilitarists want something different and better for their children and grandchildren. While they are proud of their role in defending their communities at a time of great danger and escalating violence, they recognise that our society has changed, we are in a new dispensation and violence is redundant. It is ineffective in achieving political aims and can no longer be justified. The leadership, in a decision endorsed by the membership, has determined to stand down the organisation. A Rubicon has been crossed and the process is now one of ‘normalisation’ and integration into local communities.

I believe this represents a genuine conversion of hearts and minds as demonstrated by the reiteration of ‘abject and true remorse’ for the suffering of innocent victims. It is not political expediency or an attempt to inveigle money out of the government. Rather than ask for money they are looking for a commitment on the part of the government to deal more actively with the social inequalities that continue to blight loyalist working class communities. They are aware, more than most, of the deprivation and suffering in disadvantaged communities and of the sense among loyalists that the dividends of political progress have been unequally distributed. Their aim is to re-channel their energy and abilities into addressing these social issues primarily by supporting existing community based projects. They expect government to play its full part in this work.

Ambiguity may remain concerning certain terms used in the statement. The absence of transparent decommissioning of weapons is, to my mind, regrettable but placing weapons ‘beyond reach’ is a significant step in an ongoing process which has momentum and is moving in a positive direction. The principle deterrent to decommissioning has been a lack of confidence that politicians would deliver stable devolved government. Given the rhetoric of the DUP over the past couple of years this is understandable. The widespread reaction of relief and surprise when the DUP and Sinn Fein finally agreed to share power is evidence that they were not alone in having these doubts. Further progress in establishing a healthy democracy with a devolved government will make full decommissioning of weapons more likely.

For their part the UVF and RHC need to follow their words with actions. Demobilizing a paramilitary organisation and re-deploying its members in exclusively peaceful activities cannot be achieved overnight. The management of change requires forethought and skill but much work has already been done within the organisations in learning new skills including mediation and negotiation skills.

Dealing with criminality is clearly the work of the PSNI and full co-operation from the UVF and RHC should be forthcoming. Community Policing needs to become a reality not just a topic of discussion. Restorative justice projects need to be given adequate funding and support. Astonishingly no government funding has been forthcoming for these projects despite glowing evaluations by independent assessors and a recent Criminal Justice Inspectorate report which was fulsome in its praise.

There is much work to be done in the communities from which these organisations sprang and it will require the best efforts of many of us working together to accomplish it. Edith Schaeffer once said ‘If you want perfection or nothing you will get nothing’. The statement of intent is not perfect but I believe it is a genuine expression of a transformation process which is now well established in Loyalist communities. Furthermore it is a very significant step toward a goal which we all seek, namely an end to paramilitarism and the creation of a peaceful, just and prosperous society.

The Pity of War

Billy Mitchell — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:51:22 GMT

On 28th June 1914 a young Bosnian-Serb, Gavrilo Princip, shot dead archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. That fatal shot, fired in the cause of Serbian nationalism, set in train a series of events that led to four and a half years of bloody conflict in Europe, and beyond. Within months the major European powers were mobilising their armies in preparation for war.

At 5.00am on 11th November 1918 an Armistice was signed in a railway carriage in the Forest of Compiegne. Six hours later, at 11.00am, the guns fell silent across Western Europe thus bringing to a close one of the worst bloody conflicts that the peoples of Europe had thus far endured.

Lloyd George said that the Great War was “the cruellest and most terrible war that has ever scourged mankind”. His statement must, of course, be read within the context of the nature and extent of the Great War. Unlike previous European wars the 1914-1918 conflict involved not just standing armies comprised of professional soldiers; it involved the mobilisation of whole nations. It was, to quote Vernon Bogdamor, “the first people’s war”.

Estimates vary, but it is said that some nine million combatants and five million civilians lost their lives between August 1914 and November 1918 – fourteen million people slaughtered in a war that should never have happened. When we remember – as we seldom do – that the killing continued in Eastern Europe for another four years, the list of dead and injured increases dramatically. There were more casualties between 1918 and 1922 than there were between 1914 and 1918 – some twelve million in Russia alone.

It was supposed to be a “war to end all wars” – sadly it did not. Since 1918 it appears that we have known nothing but war. Eighty-two years later we still reach for the gun in the fond belief that when politics fail, “might is right”. The philosophy that “might is right” has, since Armistice Day 1918, done nothing but add to the gruesome casualty list of that terrible conflict. Even within recent weeks at home we have seen the sad and sorrowful outcome of that philosophy.

Remembrance Day for me is not about war. It is, to use the words of the poet, Wilfred Owen, about “the pity of war”. It is a time to reflect on the tragedy of war and to remember those, from whatever side, who lost their lives in war. Notwithstanding W.B. Yeat’s churlish dismissal of war poetry, I believe that poets, especially those who have served in war and who have experienced its horrors at first hand, help us to approach Remembrance Day with a sensitive attitude.

Samuel Johnston once said that the task of the poet was to reach through to the senses of his/her reader. When we turn to remember the tragedy of war we ought to do so with our senses rather than with our intellect. We ought to adopt the sensitive approach of the poet rather than the cold intellectual approach of the political analyst or historian.

When we approach the subject of war through the intellect it soon becomes clear that those who see conflict through their own particular set of political lenses will differ greatly from others. With the intellect we approach war from our own political philosophy. Thus, politically, we attempt to justify the actions of “our” side while condemning the actions of the “other” side. Very often it is a case of “our killings good, your killings bad”.

So long as we approach Remembrance Day through our own political lenses there can be no shared memory. It is only when we “remember” with our senses that we can approach some sort of shared memory. Friend and foe alike share common emotions and it is the poet rather than the politician or military historian who is able to tap into those emotions and help us all to find a shared approach to war.

Whether we read Wilfred Owen or Alfred Liechtenstein; Isaac Rosenberg or Guillaume Apollinaire we cannot fail to grasp the lessons they are trying to teach us about war. We find the same lessons about the “pity of war” in Erich Maria Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front” and Siegfried Sassoon’s “Memoirs of an Infantry Officer”. Both have become classics and ought to be recommended reading for every student of war and peace.

The power, cynicism and realism that characterises the poetry of Owen, Rosenberg, and Sassoon speak volumes to the heart and to the senses. As Owen himself acknowledged, they were not so much interested in writing poetry as they were in writing about war. “My subject is War”, wrote Owen, “And the Pity of War. The poetry is in the pity”. The war poets felt that their duty was to warn future generations about the tragedy of war. It is our duty to listen.

Sadly we are not all that good at it.

The Causes of the Conflict

Billy Mitchell — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:03:36 GMT

Frequently during the debate on decommissioning spokespersons for mainstream republicanism reiterated the mantra “there can be no decommissioning until the causes of the conflict are removed”. For republicans “the causes of the conflict” are rooted in so-called British imperialism. Get “the Brits” out and the core cause of the conflict will be removed and the unionist community will suddenly realise that they were Irish all along. Problem solved. Conflict over. Republicans, by and large, are nationalists at heart. They subscribe to the doctrine that for every nation there must be a state. Thus, if Ireland is a nation, there must be an all-Ireland state and that can only be achieved when the British are expelled from Ireland .

For unionists “the causes of the conflict” stem from the nationalist doctrine that all who live on the island of Ireland constitute an Irish Gaelic Nation that must have its own political state and model of citizenship. Unionists make a distinction between “national identity”, “citizenship” and “nationalism”. For unionists, citizenship within the context of the United Kingdom is about political identity rather than about national identity. Those citizens of the United Kingdom who regard themselves as Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish in terms of national identity are still able to enjoy full citizenship within the United Kingdom . Citizenship within the United Kingdom has nothing to do with nationalism, culture or religion. It is about political identity and loyalty to the concept of the Union .

The peoples who form the unionist community come from a number of diverse cultures and traditions – Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh and some of Huguenot descent. Thus they wish to maintain citizenship within a state that acknowledges and validates their historic family origins and the traditions and culture that flow from those historic roots. Since the political rupture of this island when 26 counties seceded from the Union the six counties that form Northern Ireland remain part of the Union and continue to enjoy British citizenship. Even those people of (southern) Irish descent living in Great Britain who look to the Republic of Ireland as home and who are regarded by the Irish Government as part of the Irish Diaspora are still able to enjoy full citizenship within the United Kingdom . It is estimated that some seven million people of (southern) Irish extraction living in Great Britain enjoy full British citizenship. That is considerably more, almost double, the number of Irish people living in the Irish Republic .

The 1916 Proclamation was quite specific that “The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman”. The framers of the 1916 Proclamation thus claimed that the unionist community must give allegiance to the Irish Republic– an allegiance that they were not prepared to give. Ever since, Irish Republicanism has consistently demanded that the unionist community gives up its citizenship of the United Kingdom and pledges allegiance to the Irish Republic . This demand is based on the flawed belief that (1) there is only one people living on the island of Ireland who owe their allegiance to an independent Irish state and (2) that the Irish state has a right to exercise political control over the whole island.

The assumption by nationalists that Ireland was always one single undivided nation until the intervention of the British is without historical foundation. It is a well cultivated myth that no credible historian or politician takes seriously. Indeed it was not until the seventeenth century that Ireland was united for the first time under a central administration – by the English.

The assumption that because Ireland is an island the people of the island constitute an Irish Nation that has a right to political control of that island has no legal standing in either natural law or international law. If such a law did exist it would have political implications for a great many nations. Bernard Crick has pointed out that “while the nationalist theory of the state is a common one, it is not a universal rule”. Crick goes on to identify a number of modern multi-national states.

According to the argument put forward by republicans neither Wales nor Scotland are justified in seeking independence. Both are part of the one geographical island-unit and, since the English are the majority on that island, it is really up to the English what happens to Scotland and Wales . Two political nation-states – Haiti and the Dominican Republic – exist side by side on the one island. There are approximately twenty “land locked” countries with no outlet to the open sea that function as sovereign states. Who set the boundaries for these countries? Why should all, or some, of these states not be incorporated into a larger neighbouring state? There are also a number of sovereign states known in international law as “total enclaves” which are situated within other sovereign states: - Lesotho within South Africa, San Marino within Italy, Vatican City within Italy, Singapore within Malaysia, Monaco within France and Gambia within Senegal. Why have they a right to opt out of the states within which they are located? Who set the boundaries? Why can the same criteria not be applied to Northern Ireland ?

The unionist community insist that they have a right to a homeland on the island of Ireland . Our people have been here for over three hundred years – longer than Europeans have been in America – and we regard this as our home. Geographically, we live on the island of Ireland and in that sense are Irish. But politically we choose to be citizens of the United Kingdom and to maintain the historic social, economic and cultural links between all the peoples of these islands. In determining the rights of people to possess the land the question to be asked is not, “Which state lays claim to the land”? but “Which state do the inhabitants wish to belong to”? Michael Walzer, sometime Professor of Government at Harvard University , argues, “it is the coming together of a people that establishes the integrity of a territory”. The integrity of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom lies in the will of the people of Northern Ireland .

Before there can be geographical unity there must be a unity of purpose and a unity of ideology between all the people of this island. That unity of purpose and unity of ideology is missing. Bombing the Brits out of Ireland or the unionist community into a united Ireland will not remove the causes of the conflict.

1916 – 2016 Vision and Revision

Billy Mitchell — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:00:01 GMT

A Loyalist Appraisal of 20th Century Republicanism

According to Martin Mansergh, "The 1916 Proclamation and Rising have remained the central locus of Irish republicanism". This Proclamation, according to Padraig Pearce, was rooted in the vision and ideals of the United Irishmen. A body of men and women to whom Mitchel Mc Laughlin traces the vision and ideals of the modern Republican Movement.

Both the United Irishmen and the framers of the 1916 Proclamation envisaged a Republic in which there would be full civil and religious liberty for all and in which "all the children of the nation" would be cherished without distinction of class, creed or political opinion. Again, according to Martin Mansergh, the 1916 Proclamation "did not express an ethos of majoritarian rule in religious terms".

That was the vision. But what is the reality?

De Valera’s Revision

The Irish Republic, under Fianna Fail committed itself to the development of a society that was rooted in Catholic Nationalism rather than in the secular pluralism envisaged by both the United Irishmen and James Connolly.

As early as 1931 Eamon de Valera, revered by republicans in both political jurisdictions as the father of modern republicanism, claimed that "There was an Irish solution that had no reference to any other country; a solution that came from our traditional attitude to life that was Irish and Catholic. That was the solution they were going to stand for so long as they were Catholic”. The terms "Irish" and "Catholic" under Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein were to become synonymous with republicanism.

Four years later, in his St. Patrick's Day address to the nation, de Valera made it quite clear that Ireland was a Catholic nation - "Since the coming of St Patrick 1500 years ago Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation" and, he concluded, "she will remain a Catholic nation". Such a declaration, made by the acknowledged leader of Irish Republicanism in an address to "all the children of the nation" on the Republic's national Saints Day, is hardly in keeping with the principles of either the United Irishmen or the 1916 Proclamation.

De Valera, whose special relationship with Archbishop John Charles Mc Quaide led to the drafting of a Catholic Constitution for a Catholic Nation, had no qualms in spelling out the implications of this for Protestants - "If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other was a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic".

When Mayo County Council refused to appoint a graduate of Trinity College Dublin to a post in the county library, de Valera supported the decision on the grounds that the candidate was a Protestant and that the Catholic community, which had a 98% majority in the county, had a right to insist on a Catholic being appointed. Was this not religious majoritarianism in practice?

Connolly's Vision

Where did Irish socialism stand in all this? Was Connolly's vision for a secular socialist republic embraced by the Irish labour and trade union movement? Connolly gave his life for a Proclamation, and a Republic, that was to be wholly inclusive, socialist and non-sectarian. Yet, by 1924, Sinn Fein was proclaiming that “We will oppose any and every proposal which is for the interest of a class instead of the nation”.

Sinn Fein’s position, which was based on de Valera’s “Labour can wait” policy, heralded a decline in socialist and trade union influence within republicanism. In the six years between 1924 and 1930 trade union membership dropped by over 55,000 from 126,522 members to 70,000 members.

Labour’s Revision

By 1936 the Irish Trade Union Congress was looking to papal encyclicals rather than to the writings of Connolly or Larkin for inspiration. In his address to the annual Congress in 1936, the President of the ITUC made it clear that the people of Ireland "must with confidence seek solutions on the lines adumbrated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI in the encyclicals dealing with social issues”.

Within twenty years of Connolly's execution Irish Labour had surrendered to the social policies of the Catholic Church. Indeed his old union, the ITGWU, collaborated with both Fianna Fail and the Catholic Standard in their witch hunt of socialists during the 1930’s.

At the 1937 Labour Party Conference, Gerard Mc Gown TD, announced that "we are Catholics first and politicians afterwards". Thus giving succour and moral support to those ‘labour’ members who refused to challenge the Irish Catholic hierarchy’s support for Franco’s war against democracy in Spain.

Even the Executive of the left wing Workers Union of Ireland displayed its preference for Catholic majoritarianism when it banned its members from speaking on anti-fascist platforms during the Spanish Civil War. Republicanism was okay in Ireland where it had wedded itself to Catholic Nationalism, but not in Spain where it sought to be democratic, secular and pluralist.

The Irish Labour Party officially nailed its Catholic colours to the mast when William Norton announced that the party had severed its links with the Second International and rejected the principle of international working class solidarity.

Peadar O'Donnell, former activist with both the ITGWU and the IRA, complained that Connolly's chair was left vacant and that the place which he had purchased for the Labour movement in the leadership of the new republic was denied to them. "Connolly's works, teaching, martyrdom, left no imprint on the policy of the Irish working class", declared O'Donnell.

The fact that Jacqueline Dana could write a thesis entitled "Connolly Ain't Nothing but a Train Station in Dublin" speaks volumes. Ms Dana's paper should be read by all who want an insight into how the legacy of James Connolly was hi-jacked by republicans who cared nothing for his vision.

IRA’s Revision

And what of the IRA? How did they view their Protestant fellow citizens?. When several busloads of Protestants from Belfast who had aligned themselves with the Republican Congress established by Peadar O'Donnell and George Gilmore attended the annual Bodenstown commemorations in 1934 they were met by units of the IRA and ordered to go back home.

The right wing of the IRA Army Council, led by Sean MacBride and Moss Twomey, had no room for organised groups of Protestant socialists who might actually demand that all the children of the nation be cherished with equality and that Catholic majoritarianism might be brought to an end. George Gilmore later remarked that it would be a long time before "Come on the Shankill" would be heard again at Bodenstown.

Gilmore’s comments were prophetic. Protestants and Dissenters have never since believed that 20th century republicanism has the spirit to accommodate non-Catholics. Clearly the clause, "Cherishing all the children of the nation equally", had been deleted from the IRA's copy of the 1916 Proclamation.

MacBride Principles

Things had changed little by their fifties. The refusal of former IRA leader Sean MacBride, when in government, to stand up to the power of the Catholic Church confirms the comments of J. Bowyer Bell that "In power republicans were as subservient to Rome as they were rebellious in opposition". MacBride's willingness to uphold the Catholic nature of modern republicanism was well documented during the infamous "Mother & Child" controversy in 1951.

Rather than support his colleague Dr Noel Browne, who was the then Minister for Health, MacBride opted to back the bishops. The 1951 version of the “MacBride Principles” insisted that secular republicanism must take second place to the teaching of the bishops. Religious majoritarianism at work again!

Sinn Fein’s Revision

It is my belief that the current Sinn Fein party has embraced the Catholic Nationalism of de Valera. As far back as 1989 Gerry Adams stated that “socialism was not on the agenda” and, in his “Politics of Irish Freedom”, Adams was clear that the “Republican struggle should not at this stage of development style itself socialist republican”.

Whereas the vision of Wolfe Tone was to replace the terms Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter with the common name of Irish-person, Sinn Fein’s revision is to replace the terms Catholic, Nationalist and Republican with the common name of Irish-person. Something quite different to the original vision.

Sinn Fein spokespersons repeatedly refer to their community indiscriminately as "the Catholic community", "the Nationalist community" and "the Republican Community" thus reminding Protestants that even as we move into the 21st century the Republican Movement sees itself primarily as a Catholic Nationalist movement which holds the title deeds to the term “Irish”.

While Sinn Fein’s move towards non-violent constitutional politics must be welcomed and encouraged by all, I see little ideological difference between Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein and 32 County Sovereignty Movement. The difference in simply one of violence and non-violence, none have the will or the desire to create a Republic that would enjoy the support of Harry Mc Cracken, Jemmy Hope or James Connolly.

2016?

Gerry Adams has predicted that the vision of the men and women of 1916 for an independent 32-county Irish Republic will be fulfilled by 2016. In the light of history we must ask, “If he is proved to be right, will it be the Vision or the Revision”?

One must also ask, “How does republicanism intend to achieve in the next sixteen years for the whole of Ireland what it has failed to achieve in the Irish Republic during the past ninety years?

The history of republicanism is a history of revision and betrayal. The non-sectarian pluralism of the United Irishmen and the secular working class ethos of Connolly and Mellows will always be marginalised in the inevitable populist swing towards Catholic Nationalism.

I am not suggesting for one moment that loyalists will find the republican socialism of Connolly and Mellows any more appealing than the Catholic Nationalism of Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein. Other than the short-lived projects of Saor Eire and Republican Congress in the nineteen-thirties, the vision of Connolly has never been attempted. Consequently there have been no practical outcomes for us to evaluate.

What is certain, there is nothing about a republic that is rooted in Catholic Nationalism that appeals to loyalists. We feel more secure within a larger multi-cultural union of 50 million people where the vision for a pluralist society is progressively being consolidated.

What Future Unionism?

David Rose — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:11:38 GMT

At the dawn of the 21st century British Unionism appears to be in terminal decline. The Conservative Party no longer commands mass support outside the English Home Counties, having long ago been eclipsed by Nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland. And in Northern Ireland, though still commanding majority support, Unionism seems ill equipped to meet the challenge posed by the rising tide of Nationalism. Like Public Schools, the House of Lords and Monarchy itself, Unionism appears dated and irrelevant in the modern world. Most disturbing of all, Unionists throughout the UK have failed to articulate a fresh approach. Be it the Tories carping about Europe or Ulster Unionists clinging to their imagined golden age, Unionism's only vision comes from the past.

If the Unionist ideal dies its leaders will bear a heavy burden of responsibility. By failing to recognize the changing nature of the UK they have allowed Unionism to stagnate to a point where many see it as a protest movement, devoted to the preservation of institutions and morality conceived in the 19th century. To avoid terminal decay Unionists must be prepared for a painful period of revision.

Revisionist Unionism by its very nature will offend. If it is to provide a political platform relevant in the modern world the cause of Unionism's decay, no matter how painful, must be identified and discarded. Sacred cows can simultaneously be the original source of legitimacy and eventual cause of decline. Being inviolate the philosophy they represent cannot evolve, and inevitably it loses relevance which, alongside the symbolism, fades into the past. New thinking can have the opposite effect. For proof look no further than Sinn Fein.

In a generation Sinn Fein has moved their supporters from a narrow 19th century nationalist agenda to a broad based republican platform, and in doing so have proved how powerful political revision can be. Both the '32 county socialist republic' and 'legitimate armed struggle' have been replaced by a modern civil rights agenda, resulting in an avalanche of votes and international good will. I say good luck to them. All political parties present their interpretation of history, the most convincing win elections. My concern is how well Unionism will respond.

At present the Unionist establishment resembles a rump. Traumatised by rapid decline they compensate by fighting each other. The Tories play King Canute over Europe, and mainstream Unionism in Northern Ireland, unable to imagine life without the IRA, tears itself apart. In their hearts they know the game is up for 19th century political philosophies, only stubborn pride and self-interest prevents them admitting it. Progressive Unionist thinkers throughout the UK must reverse this trend and begin the task of revision. Failure to act will aid the collapse of Unionism.

In some quarters revisionism is well established. The present peace process in Northern Ireland is built on political arrangements advocated by a generation of Loyalists, incarcerated for resisting violent nationalism. As far back as the 1970's when the Unionist and Nationalist establishments clung to outdated dogma, Loyalists were advocating dialogue, agreement and flexibility as the road to peace. Today agreement has been reached and though dialogue is not yet universal, it is common. And to their credit mainstream politicians heeded Loyalist wisdom and adopted a more flexible approach. Unionism throughout the UK should fearlessly follow suit. Unionists must ask themselves some tough questions. In the 21st century, what does Unionism stand for? Can Unionism accommodate British republicanism? Is it logical for British Unionists to be the most vocal opponents of European Unionism? Why does Unionism flourish in the USA and flounder in the UK? And most important of all, how can Unionism broaden its image and appeal?

Having spent two days writing this I'm not letting you away without giving my two pennies worth. As I see it British Unionism needs to reinvent itself as a movement based on principled opposition to nationalist politics. Painfully for the Thatcherite Right and traditional Ulster Unionists this will require them to acknowledge and reject their own Home Counties and Ulster Protestant nationalisms. If they did, de-nationalised Unionism could adopt a set of democratic principles designed to protect identity through collective co-operation.

Enshrining the finest elements of the US Constitution, Treaty of Rome and United Nations Charter a set of Unionist Principles should include commitments to support:
(a) Peaceful democratic politics.
(b) International Institutions.
(c) International legislation on human rights.
(d) Minority inclusion.
(e) Individual and collective responsibilities.
(f) Universal access to education.
(g) Religious freedom.
(h) Legislated separation of Church and State,

and most controversially, the
(i) Right to express loyalty to the Head of State and/or the Peoples.

By doing this Unionists would be laying the foundation of broad-based Unionism, capable of garnering sufficient support for the struggle against single identity nationalism.

Just imagine how good positive Unionism would be. As Nationalists call on people to separate, Unionists would draw them together. When Nationalists demand their rights, Unionists would talk of collective responsibility. And where Nationalists preach absolute solidarity to an imposed identity, Unionists would advocate freedom of expression. But most important of all by modeling its principles on established unionist entities like the European Union, USA and United Nations; the UK would no longer rely on divisive British nationalism for legitimacy.

If Unionism ever finds the courage to revise itself, it is entirely possible that Unionist principles might prove attractive to Irish Republicans. With Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter protected and loyalty to royalty an option, Republicans might seize the moment and undo the damage done in 1920 when nationalism divided the peoples of these Islands, despite having no UK mandate to do so.

David Rose is a teacher and PUP member

Key Issues Relating to Children & Young People

David Rose — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:04:57 GMT

As Northern Ireland emerges from a sustained period of civil conflict it is important to address the needs of our young people. These needs are varied, including those that are unique to Northern Ireland as well as many that are found throughout the United Kingdom. It has long been the view of the Progressive Unionist Party that the best way to address these problems was through a wider ‘Conflict Transformation’ package that seeks to overcome the key issues in post conflict Northern Ireland.

In this short submission the PUP will highlight what we believe the key needs are. We are willing to take part in consultations that aim to find answers.

The Key Issues

Education: The ongoing failure of the education system to deliver for a significant proportion of our young people is of grave concern.
Drugs and alcohol: As with the rest of the UK young people’s consumption of illegal and legal drugs as well as alcohol is at an unprecedented level.
Paramilitary recruitment: Young people continue to be recruited into paramilitary groups in ever greater numbers.
Children of former paramilitary prisoners: The children of former paramilitary prisoners are a group with particular needs. They have had to endure prolonged periods of separation from a parent and now find that they are discriminated against because of their background.
Lack of Opportunity: Many children in Northern Ireland are facing a life on government assistance. This is due to poor education and an absence of meaningful employment opportunities.
Sectarianism: Northern Ireland remains a sectarian society. Whilst they may ‘condemn’ sectarianism the vast majority of political ‘leaders’ exploit it for electoral gain. This is embedding a sectarian culture into another generation.

Is Abortion Always Wrong?

Dawn Purvis — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:03:02 GMT

There are groups within Northern Ireland who would argue that abortion is always wrong. There are others who would argue that it is only wrong in certain circumstances and others still who say it is a matter of choice for the woman concerned. Who determines whether abortion is right or wrong and do they have the authority to make that judgement?

The issue of abortion in Northern Ireland has always been both emotive and controversial. Traditionally, as history has shown, politics and religious views overlap somewhat when it comes to decision-making or the introduction of social policy. An example of this would be the age of consent for what is deemed adult sex whether it is for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

In both cases the law differs in Northern Ireland compared to that in the rest of the United Kingdom i.e. 16 years of age for heterosexuals in Great Britain (GB) and 16 years of age for homosexuals. Compare that to 17 years of age for heterosexuals in Northern Ireland and if the current Bill to lower the age of consent for homosexuals, passes through Parliament, it will not be reduced to 16 years of age as in GB, it will be lowered to that of heterosexuals in Northern Ireland i.e. 17 years of age.

The fact that differentials exist, it could be argued, is because of the influence that churches have in Northern Ireland over our politicians.

In 1984, the now defunct Northern Ireland Assembly debated a motion opposing the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act or anything similar to Northern Ireland. The religious influence with the politicians is reflected in sections of the debate such as “we have to leave the question of deformity in the providence of Almighty God”; “Parents should accept what God has ordained”; “If a deformed child is born after rape it ought to be accepted as the will of God”. (FPA, 1997)

More recently, two Private Member Bills calling for the extension of the 1967 Act, failed to achieve the required fifty signatories.

One of the sponsors, Mr Harry Barnes, a Labour MP was reported to have said that no Bill would succeed without the support of the 18 Northern Ireland MP’s, who incidentally are all male and include a Presbyterian Minister.

In 1990 during one of the debates, Virginia Bottomley, Secretary of State for Health said that “Abortion is offensive to the overwhelming majority of those in the province… there is no will in Northern Ireland for such change”. (FPA, 1997) Mrs Bottomley obviously ignored the fact that 56,000 women have travelled from Northern Ireland to England for abortions since 1967. (FPA, 1997)

One could conclude that because the Northern Ireland MP’s think abortion is wrong – then there should be no legislation governing such practice.

The law surrounding abortion in Northern Ireland is certainly ambiguous, it is based on the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act which was subsequently enacted for Northern Ireland in 1945 as the Criminal Justice (NI) Act.

The Act states that a person would be found guilty of “child destruction” if they destroyed “the life of a child capable of being born alive”. (FPA, 1997) This was presumed to mean that abortion was illegal after the 28^th week of pregnancy but there was no clarity as to what happened in the first 27 weeks – was it legal or illegal to perform an abortion?

Another section of the Act stated if the abortion was performed “in good faith” to save the life of the mother, then no person would be found guilty. This is very similar to the views of Protestant churches on the issue of abortion i.e. that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother.

In 1938, Dr Alex Bourne challenged the law in England in relation to abortion when it was not necessary to save a woman from actual death. Dr Bourne had carried out an abortion on a 14 year-old rape victim. He testified in court that had the young woman been forced to continue with the pregnancy, she would have become “a mental and physical wreck”. The judge acquitted Dr Bourne stating that the law should be interpreted in “a reasonable sense” and that the doctors opinion and “knowledge of probable consequences” should be viewed as his “operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother”. (FPA, 1997)

This became known as the ‘Bourne Judgement’ and entered into English case law as a precedent. It could now be argued that the grounds for abortion were extended to include the mental and physical well-being of the woman.

The 1967 Abortion Act was introduced to resolve the ambiguity of the existing laws. The Act was not extended to Northern Ireland although abortion is available under certain circumstances and is known as therapeutic. There are no official statistics and because doctors impose their individual judgements, availability can vary depending on that judgement.

In a survey conducted by C Francome in 1992, Northern Ireland’s gynaecologists were asked to record their views and practice on abortion. There were conflicting positions taken by a few and just under half had a conscientious objection but the overall majority said they would carry out abortions – a clear indication, in my opinion, that gynaecologists do not think that abortion is always wrong.

GP’s in Northern Ireland are of a similar position. When surveyed in 1994, 70% of the respondents said that “the decision as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor”. (FPA, 1997) The British Medical Association has expressed its support for the retention and extension of the 1967 Abortion Act.

Public attitudes in Northern Ireland have changed considerably over the last number of years with recorded increases in the level of support for abortion at the request of the woman i.e. 25% in 1992 to 30% in 1994. On all grounds, Protestants are more likely to support legal abortion than Catholics e.g. in cases of severe handicap, 74% of Protestants as against 39% of Catholics. On the grounds of sexual assault or the physical or mental health of the woman, a majority of Catholics supported in each case. (FPA, 1997)

The attitudes of Protestants in the surveys, closely resembles the view of the main Protestant churches i.e. that abortion can be justified in cases where there is a threat to the mother’s life or well-being or in cases of rape or incest.

Catholic attitudes vary somewhat from their churches view. The Catholic Church believes abortion to be morally wrong in every case although this was not the view until the late 19^th Century. Before that, a female child could be aborted before the ‘quickening’ (i.e. feeling movement) but not a male child. The ‘quickening’ was regarded as the moment of ‘ensoulment’ and occurred on the 40^th day for the male child and the 80^th day for the female child. (C Coppens, Moral Principles and Medical Practice)

This view changed when the church ruled that “the embryonic child has a human soul, and therefore is a man from the time of its conception”. (Tribunal of the Holy Office, 1889) No exceptions exist in the Catholic Churches view that abortion is wrong even in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. The Tribunal of the Holy Office indicated in March 1902 “that no action is lawful which directly destroys foetal life” even if the mother is in “immediate danger of death”. (C Coppens)

Sally McMulkin concluded in her analysis of the 1989 Northern Ireland Social Attitudes Survey “that religious affiliation is a large influence in determining attitudes to abortion”. (1993, P.38) This is certainly reflected in the various surveys conducted over recent years in Northern Ireland.

But what of the woman’s view?

In May 1980 the ‘Northern Ireland Abortion Campaign’ was set up after the death of a woman as a direct result of a back street abortion. Campaigners set about trying to gain the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. They did not succeed in this but the campaign did raise the issue in public debate. Since the 1990’s another group has formed to campaign not only for legislation but also to raise the issue for debate; this group is called ‘Alliance for Choice’.

To date they have succeeded in hi-lighting the issue but there has been no proper, informed debate. A measure of their success so far has been the formation of anti-abortion groups such as ‘Precious Life’ based in Ballymena, Northern Ireland’s ‘Bible belt’ (so named for the concentration of deeply religious people). This group uses similar ‘shock’ tactics to promote their campaign as have been used by various American extremists.

They recently circulated a video tape entitled “The Truth about Abortion”. In it, American anti-abortion campaigners talk and show shocking scenes of abortion practice. The United States permit abortion up to full-term pregnancy i.e. 40 weeks. The scenes shown in this video were of ‘late’ abortions. Abortion in the UK is only permitted up to and including the 22^nd week of pregnancy.

There is no doubt that groups like Precious Life are engaged in a propaganda war aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland, using whatever means necessary. Their recent advertising campaign caused a storm of protest from pro-choice groups and family planning professionals who accused Precious Life of “encouraging back street abortions”. (Sunday World, 21 March 1999) Those opposed to the tactics employed by Precious Life, called for an informed debate on the issue to be conducted in a calm and rational environment.

Whatever the views of the churches, medics, pro or anti groups, abortion practice is a reality as Audrey Simpson of the Family Planning Association pointed out, “This is a service that women will always access”. (Sunday World, 21 March 1999)

Whilst the government holds the authority in determining whether abortion is right or wrong in legal terms, the influence of the churches can still be a deciding factor for many women. Of the 2,000 women (FPA,1997) from Northern Ireland who travel to England every year for an abortion, whether people tell them it is wrong or not, it is obviously right for them.

I am sure for every woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy, there are many who choose not to. Without properly collated statistics, it is impossible to tell. What is important, at the end of it all, churches, politicians, public opinion aside, a woman chooses whether abortion is right or wrong for herself.