IFC NewsList - June 2001
BACK to SEARCH - IFC NewsList Archives
| 06 08 01 - No State Inquest for Robert Hamill
06 06 01 - No Murder Charge for Quinn Boys' Accused 06 06 01 - European Court Rules against Britain 06 05 01 - Climate of Fear for Lawyers Working in the North 06 05 01 - Bernadette Devlin McAliskey in NY 06 03 01 - The
New Face of British Occupation
- Regulation of Investigatory Powers |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 8:52 AM Subject: No State Inquest for Robert Hamill No State Inquest for Robert Hamill The Crown Coroner in Belfast issued a statement yesterday determining that the mob murder of Robert Hamill will not be investigated by the State, because witnesses lives might be put in danger. It is unclear from the statement if the Coroner is specifically referring to the potential danger for mob attacks from loitering Loyalist gangs, which the RUC has already shown to have no interest or ability in preventing. Robert Hamill was kicked to death on his way home from a Church dance in Portadown on April 27, 1997. An RUC Landrover, manned with four RUC officers armed with body armour, plastic bullets, revolvers, machine guns, riot gear, and sophisticated communications devices watched the entire event from 20 yards away. The police barracks were located 200 yards from the scene; a little over one US city block away. The obvious message to the world is that the murder of Robert Hammill has been fully sanctioned by the RUC, the NIO, the Belfast Coroner, and the entire British Government. For further information on the Robert Hamill Campaign, see their website at: http://www.bigwig.net/hamill Please sign the on-line petition. The family will continue to pursue an independent inquiry against the RUC, which investigated itself following the public outcry but found its officers innocent of any wrongdoing. The Irish Freedom Committee www.irishfreedomcommittee.net *************************************************** Killing Inquest Dropped After Fears Over Witness Safety PA 06/07/00 06:13 Copyright 2000 PA News By Rosie Cowan, PA News There will be no inquest into the killing of a man who died in hospital 10 days after being beaten up by a mob within yards of a police Land Rover, because witnesses' lives would be in danger, a coroner said today. Nationalists have called for an independent inquiry into the death of Portadown Catholic Robert Hamill on 27 April 1997. A statement from Greater Belfast Coroner James Leckey said he had regrettably decided not to hold an inquest due to concerns for the safety of certain witnesses. It is understood these are civilians. "He is satisfied their lives would be placed in danger if their evidence were to be given at, or placed in documentary form before an inquest," said the statement. "The Coroner believes that if an inquest were to be held without the evidence of these witnesses a seriously incomplete account of the circumstances of Mr Hamill's death would be given, which would not add materially to the evidence already in the public domain." But the statement added: "The circumstances surrounding Mr Hamill's death are profoundly disturbing and but for the consideration mentioned would undoubtedly require that an inquest should be held." Murder charges against one man, Paul Rodney Marc Hobson, were dropped in March last year but he was sentenced to four years for his part in causing a public affray. Charges against five others were withdrawn due to lack of evidence. Police investigated claims that RUC officers failed to intervene at the scene of the attack but the Director of Public Prosecutions found there were no grounds for a case against any officer. The Coroner's statement added that the Hamill family's solicitor had agreed that no useful public purpose would be served by an inquest. But Sinn Fein Upper Bann Assemblywoman Dara O'Hagan condemned the decision as "a disgrace" and called for an independent inquiry. "The state has failed Robert Hamill and his family since the night he was murdered in April 1997. "The four RUC personnel who sat in a Jeep as Robert was brutally kicked to death failed him and his family. The subsequent RUC investigation failed Robert, his family and all those concerned with justice and human rights. "The legal system that failed to convict anyone for his murder also failed Robert. This latest decision strengthens the case for a totally independent inquiry," she said. *************************************************** (Statement from Belfast Coroner --- Wednesday June 6, 2000) Forwarded Press Release from Belfast Coroner ROBERT HAMILL, DECEASED The Coroner for Greater Belfast, Mr J.L.Leckey, has decided not to hold an inquest into the death of Robert Hamill who died in the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast on 8 May 1997 from severe head injuries sustained when he was assaulted in Portadown in the early hours of Sunday 27 April 1997. The circumstances surrounding Mr Hamill’s death are profoundly disturbing and, but for the consideration mentioned below, would undoubtedly require that an inquest be held. However, after much anxious consideration, and with great regret, the Coroner has concluded in this instance that an inquest should not be held. He has reached this conclusion solely because of his concerns for the safety of certain witnesses. He is satisfied that their lives would be placed in danger if their evidence were to be given at, or placed in documentary form before an inquest. Because of these concerns he has come to the reluctant conclusion that their evidence could not be introduced at an inquest. The Coroner believes that if an inquest were to be held without the evidence of these witnesses a seriously incomplete account of the circumstances of Mr Hamill’s death would be given, which would not add materially to the evidence already in the public domain following the trial of Paul Rodney Marc Hobson. Accordingly, in these circumstance, he has concluded that no useful public purpose would be served by holding an inquest. The same view has been expressed to the Coroner by the solicitor acting for Mr Hamill’s next of kin END *************************************************** Other related stories in IFC Updates Archives: ”ICPC Produces Worthless Document” -- Friday May 19, 2000 “The Culture of Lynching” -- Thursday May 4, 2000 “New Sites to Bookmark” (Seamus Ludlow Inquiry) -- Tuesday March 28, 2000 “The ‘New’ RUC” (ICPC/ Internal RUC policing)-- Wednesday January 19, 2000 *************************************************** |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:37 PM Subject: No Murder Charge for Quinn Boys' Accused No Murder Charge for Quinn Boys' Accused A judge ruled yesterday that Garfield Gilmour, who had been charged in the murder of the three Quinn boys 2 years ago, will have his sentence overturned on appeal. The judge determined that in most cases petrol bombings don’t end in death, but only “a blaze which might do some damage, put the occupants in fear and intimidate them into moving from the house.'' As this, according to the judge, is the expected outcome of a petrol bombing; the subsequent deaths of the three boys would not be Mr. Gilmour’s fault. The judgment flies in the face of earlier evidence which showed that Mr. Gilmour was well aware of whose home he was attacking, and in fact had a long-standing “grudge” against the uncle of the Quinn boys, who did not live in the home that was attacked. The Quinn family had come under threat in the preceding weeks, due to the mixed marriage of the Catholic mother and Protestant father. The three boys, ages 9 to 11, were burned alive on July 12, 1998. The Irish Freedom Committee www.irishfreedomcommittee.net *********************************************** Irish Independent, June 6, 2000 http://www.independent.ie/2000/157/d06c.shtml Garfield Gilmour: manslaughter Man cleared of murdering three Quinn boys By IVAN McMICHAEL A MAN was cleared on appeal yesterday of murdering the three Quinn brothers who died in a sectarian petrol bomb attack two years ago. But Garfield Gilmour (25) was convicted of the manslaughter of the boys in their home at Ballymoney, Co Antrim on July 12, 1998. Richard (11), Mark (10) and Jason Quinn (9) were trapped by the flames and died from the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. Their killing came at the height of violence sparked by the Orange parade stand-off at Drumcree. Gilmour, from Newhill Park, Ballymoney, had been sentenced to life. He can expect a shorter prison term when he is sentenced, probably later this month. After the verdict in the Belfast Court of Appeal, Gilmour was taken back to prison. The three appeal judges - Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell, Lord Justice Nicholson and Mr Justice Coghlin - also quashed Gilmour's convictions and concurrent sentences of 12 years on charges of causing grievous bodily harm to the boys' mother Christine Quinn, her then boyfriend Raymond Craig and Christina Archibald, a family friend. Gilmour was convicted last October by Lord Justice McCollum who found that when he drove other men to the Quinn home at Carnany Park he was aware they intended to carry out a petrol bomb attack and that their intention was to cause grievous bodily harm. The judge said it was a ``UVF attack with a clear inference that its motive was sectarian''. Gilmour's appeal was heard in April when his lawyer argued that the evidence at his trial did not prove he knew the men in his car had any murderous intent until the last minute when he saw a large whiskey bottle full of petrol. In yesterday's judgment, Sir Robert Carswell said the issue on which the appeal turned was the intention to be attributed to Gilmour and whether the trial judge's conclusion that he realised the petrol bomb was to be used to cause serious injury could be sustained. Sir Robert said petrol bombing of houses was regrettably common but it was only rarely that people were injured and the majority caused only minor fires. ``It would be difficult to attribute to him with any degree of certainty an intention that the attack should result in more than a blaze which might do some damage, put the occupants in fear and intimidate them into moving from the house.'' *********************************************** The Irish News June 6, 2000 Family of Quinn boys incensed by verdict By Alan Erwin THE outraged family of the tragic Quinn brothers last night condemned Northern Ireland’s top judge for comments made as he cleared a man of their murder. Garfield Gilmour (25), from Newhill Park, Ballymoney, was convicted of the manslaughter of Richard (11), 10-year-old Mark and Jason (9) at the court of appeal in Belfast yesterday. The three children were killed in a petrol bomb attack on their Ballymoney home on July 12 1998 during that year’s Drumcree standoff. Making his ruling, Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell said petrol bombing houses was regrettably common but only rarely were people injured and most caused only minor fires. He said it would be difficult to be certain Gilmour intended the attack to cause any more than “a blaze which might do some damage” and intimidate the occupants into moving house. “There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant (Gilmour) was aware that the petrol was contained in an unusually large bottle which might be expected to cause a larger conflagration and result in greater danger to the occupants,” the judge added. But the boys’ uncle, Frankie Quinn, was incensed by his comments. “The judge should have been there that night. He wouldn’t have said what he said,” Mr Quinn insisted. “They didn’t throw an ordinary petrol bomb, they threw in a gallon of petrol. “That was thrown in so that it killed everyone in the house. They tried to murder everybody in the house. It was a planned operation by the UVF.” SDLP assembly member John Dallat branded the lord chief justice “totally irresponsible”. “A petrol bomb is no different from a bullet, nobody can be sure who is going to be killed by it. “Over the years petrol bombs have caused a lot of deaths.” Mr Quinn also expressed dismay that Gilmour can now expect a shorter prison term when he is sentenced, probably later this month. “I’m angry that it has got reduced to manslaughter. That shouldn’t have happened,” he said. Gilmour had been sentenced to three life terms for the attack after driving others to the Quinn home at Carnany Park. When he was convicted last October the judge said from the evidence he was convinced he had “aided and abetted” the UVF attack. At his appeal in April his lawyer argued evidence in his trial did not prove he knew those in his car intended to murder until the last minute. The lord chief justice – along with Lord Justice Nicholson and Mr Justice Coghlin – also quashed Gilmour’s convictions and concurrent sentences of 12 years on charges of causing grievous bodily harm to the boys’ mother Christine Quinn, her former partner Raymond Craig and family friend Christina Archibald. *********************************************** Sunday Tribune October 31, 1999 By Susan McKay "My son is a very decent, caring and well brought up young gentleman," Gilmour was the driver of the car in which the killers travelled. "My son Mr Justice Liam McCollum did not think so. He told Belfast’s Crown Court The judge referred to Gilmour’s confessions, which described "how Johnny Mrs Gilmour said her son would have been unable to believe that anyone Gilmour and the other killers were driving around Ballymoney while Chrissy The killers may even have watched as the three small charred bodies, each Underneath paramilitary insignia, the front of the cards had a little Ballymoney refuses to believe it. Last week the level of hatred directed His wife spoke about the television interview which Chrissy Quinn gave a A UVF man said the UVF cards had not been sent by the UVF, and that The Orange Order has responded to the jailing of Gilmour by claiming that Loyalists armed with cudgels surrounded the nationalist village of Dunloy The 11th night is always manic. Loyalists drink deep on the eve of the The little Quinns had gathered wood with their friends, and spent the The Gilmour’s had done their best for their boy. He had gone to prep *********************************************** |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:21 PM Subject: European Court Rules Against Britain European Court Rules Against Britain The European Court of Human Rights has ruled today that a conviction in 1988, based on a confession made in the absence of an attorney and under allegations of police abuse, is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The decision showed that Gerard Magee “had been prevailed upon in the coercive environment of Castlereagh Police Office to incriminate himself without the benefit of legal advice”, and that the presence of an attorney would have provided “a counterweight to the intimidating atmosphere specifically devised to sap his will and make him confide in his interrogators.” Mr. Magee’s requests to have an attorney present at the time were refused. This decision has far-reaching ramifications for the many hundreds of convictions at Castlereagh or Gough Barracks in the past 12 years; most of which were based on interviews made without the presence of an attorney, and often under physical duress. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right of a fair trial, and the right to legal assistance. The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int The Irish Freedom Committee www.irishfreedomcommittee.net *********************************************** PRESS RELEASE MADDEN & FINUCANE SOLICITORS GERARD MAGEE –V- UK GOVERNMENT The European Court of Human Rights has today issued a judgement in respect of the case of Gerard Magee in which the Court has found that the UK Government is in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Gerard Magee was arrested in December 1988 and detained in Castlereagh Holding Centre over two days without access to a solicitor. Access had been deferred for 48 hours under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He made allegations of ill treatment while in custody and was interviewed in the absence of a solicitor. The only evidence against Gerard Magee when he was subsequently tried was his own statement which was extracted during the 48 hour period he was denied access to a solicitor. Mr Magee was tried for possession of explosives with intent and conspiracy to cause explosions and convicted by a Diplock court in 1991 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Mr Magee appealed his conviction but this was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in 1994. He subsequently lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights but served the majority of his 10 year sentence. In his European Application Mr Magee alleged that the admission extracted from him at interview, which was obtained over the 48 hours he was denied access to a solicitor, was in breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention. Patricia Coyle, Solicitor of Madden & Finucane, Solicitors, acting for Mr Magee stated today "This decision, taken in conjunction with the European Court’s decision in the case of Murray, raises the prospect that any conviction over the last 12 years based on confessions obtained in Castlereagh or Gough Barracks in the absence of a solicitor will be open to challenge on the basis that they are unsafe and in breach of the right to a fair trial." *********************************************** PRESS RELEASE - Part 2 MADDEN & FINUCANE SOLICITORS GERARD MAGEE –V- UK GOVERNMENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAGEE v. UNITED KINGDOM 6.6.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAGEE v. UNITED KINGDOM In a judgment [fn] notified in writing on 6 June 2000 in the case of Magee v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(c) (right to a fair trial; right to legal assistance) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court warded the applicant 10,000 pounds sterling in respect of legal costs and expenses, minus the amount he received under the Council of Europe’s legal aid scheme. 1. Principal facts The applicant, Gerard Magee, an Irish citizen, was born in 1964 and lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland. On 16 December 1988 the applicant was arrested under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 in connection with an attempted bomb attack on military personnel. He was taken to Castlereagh Police Office. He was refused access to a solicitor until 1 p.m. on 18 December 1988. During that period he was questioned intensely by rotating teams of detectives about his part in the bombing incident. He admitted to his involvement at the 6th interview which took place between 9.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 17 December 1988 and signed a lengthy confession statement.The applicant was convicted on 21 December 1990 by a judge sitting alone. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 June 1994. The case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 14 September 1999. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian),Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),Pranas Kuris (Lithuanian),Sir Nicolas Bratza (British),Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian),Kristaq Traja Albanian), judges,and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar. 3. Summary of the judgment Complaints The applicant complained that his right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) had been breached. He further complained that he had been discriminated against in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. Decision of the Court Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3(c)The Court observed that no adverse inferences were drawn by the trial judge from the applicant’s failure to testify at his trial. It confined itself therefore to the central issue raised by the applicant’s case, namely that he had been prevailed upon in the coercive environment of Castlereagh Police Office to incriminate himself without the benefit of legal advice.The Court noted that the applicant had made a specific request to see a solicitor on arrival at Castlereagh Police Office. However, a decision was taken to delay access and he was questioned for more than forty-eight hours without having the benefit of legal advice. During this time he was to all intents and purposes kept incommunicado and intensively questioned by teams of police officers operating in relays. In the Court’s view, the austerity of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his exclusion from outside contact were intended to be psychologically coercive and conducive to breaking down any resolve he may have manifested at the beginning of his detention to remain silent. As a matter of procedural fairness the applicant should have been given access to a solicitor at the initial stages of his interrogation as a counterweight to the intimidating atmosphere specifically devised to sap his will and make him confide in his interrogators. The Court further noted that the caution administered to him at the start of the bouts of nterrogation was an additional form of pressure which argued in favour of allowing him to consult a lawyer.The Court did not dispute the findings of the domestic courts that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment during his interrogation. However, it remained the case that the applicant was deprived of legal assistance for over forty-eight hours and the incriminating statements which he made at the end of the first twenty-four hours became the central platform of the prosecution’s case and the basis for his conviction. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(c) as regards the denial of access to a solicitor. Article 14 The Court rejected the applicant’s arguments that he was unfairly discriminated against since people arrested under prevention of terrorism legislation in England and Wales are entitled to immediate access to a solicitor. In the Court’s opinion, the difference in treatment between people arrested and detained in Northern Ireland and those arrested and detained in other parts of the United Kingdom under such legislation is to be explained in terms of geographical location and not personal characteristics of the type referred to in Article 14. Accordingly there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6.Article 41The Court awarded the applicant GBP 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses, minus the amount he received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. ***The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site http://www.echr.coe.int).Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.[fn] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. *********************************************** |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:18 PM Subject: Climate of Fear for Lawyers in North of Ireland Climate of Fear for Lawyers in North of Ireland Over the weeekend a conference in Dublin revealed some of the very real fears that human rights attorneys working in the Occupied Six Counties are faced with, as they go about their business of representing communities and individuals under the siege of State terrorism. See "IFC at Notre Dame", (March 3, 2000 in the IFC Updates Archives), for a related story on Eamonn McMenamen; an attorney with Derry's Pat Finucane Center, who must live with the constant threat of attack as a matter of day-to-day life. We are also republishing a letter from Ed Lynch, Chairman of the Lawyer's Alliance, in response to the British Government decision not to prosecute the officers who had repeatedly threatened Rosemary Nelson with death. Website for the Rosemary Nelson Campaign: http://www.rosemarynelsoncampaign.com/ The Pat Finucane Center website: www.serve.com/pfc Website for the Lawyer's Alliance: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3257/ The Irish Freedom Committee www.irishfreedomcommittee.net ********************************************* The Irish Examiner June 5, 2000 Climate of fear hanging over the legal profession in North by Caroline O'Doherty CHARITIES supported by murdered human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson were unable to get legal representation because her death left solicitors too scared to help. A leading human rights organisation says it also has difficulty getting solicitors to take on cases involving alleged offences by the security forces in the North against both republican and loyalists victims because of concerns for their safety. The climate of fear hanging over the legal profession in Northern Ireland was highlighted at a weekend conference in Dublin at which the families of Mrs Nelson and fellow human rights lawyer, Pat Finucane, renewed calls for independent public inquiries into their deaths. The conference, hosted by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), heard there was ample evidence that security forces either actively assisted in the murders or did nothing to prevent them happening. Pat Finucane's son, Michael, vice-chairperson of the ICCL, claimed at the time of his father's death 11 years ago, there was a deliberate British Government policy of targeting for murder those who were considered dangerous or troublesome. Mr Finucane said an independent inquiry was an essential part of the peace process. "As long as the truth remains hidden and unclear, and as long as the past remains indistinct and distorted, then forward progress is made that much more difficult, if not impossible." Eunan Magee, the schoolteacher brother of Rosemary Nelson, said his sister should never have been subjected to death threats or abuse from those who claimed to uphold the law. "No lawyer who is simply doing his or her work to the best of their ability deserves to die for this reason. Rosemary, who had integrity, decency, honest and believed in the rule of law, would not have forgiven us should we not have at least tried to get justice for her." The families' calls were backed by United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence and Impartiality of Lawyers and Judges, Param Cumaraswamy, and the British Irish Rights Watch organisation. Mr Cumaraswamy said he found difficult to understand the British government's failure to respond to the repeated demand for an independent inquiry into Pat Finucane's death. And while he had initially recommended that the police inquiry into Rosemary Nelson's murder be given a chance, he now had concerns about it and was eager to meet Colin Port, the Deputy Chief Constable in charge of it. "If Pat Finucane's murder had been totally investigated, including all aspects of the security forces, Rosemary Nelson's life would have been spared," he said. British-Irish Rights Watch director, Jane Winter, applauded the Government's call to the British authorities in February this year for a new inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder, but she said the time had come to repeat the demand and more forcefully than before. She also urged the Government to take similar steps on behalf of Rosemary Nelson. "If ever there was a chronicle of a death foretold, it was Rosemary's. The only fitting memorial to her is for measures to be put in place to ensure it never happens again." Ms Winter said the fear currently felt by lawyers in the North posed a direct threat to the protection of human rights, both their own and those of prospective clients. "We are having a difficulty persuading solicitors to take up cases where they might get a lot of publicity or be identified with the client they are asked to represent." Carmel McKenna, a voluntary worker at an education resource centre and respite care unit Mrs Nelson supported, said it had been extremely difficult to find a solicitor who would handle their service contracts and other minor legal matters after her death. A former colleague of Mrs Nelson at the legal practice she set up had to take on the job because no one else would. ********************************************* Correspondence from Ed Lynch, Chairman of the US-based Lawyer’s Alliance, and the British Government’s Independent Commission for Police Complaints—- who have refused to prosecute the named RUC officers who repeatedly issued death threats to Rosemary Nelson. -------------------------- May 16, 2000 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: After more than one year of delay, the ICPC has finally responded to my letters seeking a decision on the demand for discipline of the RUC Officers identified as having issued death threats and obscene insults against the late solicitor Rosemary Nelson. The ICPC and the RUC will take no action to discipline these In pertinent part ICPC Chief Executive Brian G. McClelland, BA, " At this stage, it is the responsibility of the Commission to The evidence presented in Commander Mulvihill's investigation
---------------------------------------------- Rosemary Nelson and at least 5 independent witnesses gave sworn I ask Chief Executive McClelland and Chief Constable Flanagan what What other conclusion can be drawn from the clean bill given by the On the day that Rosemary Nelson was killed, Ronnie Flanagan called Edmund Lynch Denville, NJ USA Padraigin Drinan yesterday alleged her plea for security was recently Ms Drinan, who succeeds the late Mrs Nelson as lawyer for the Garvaghy Furious that her protection plea appears to have fallen on deaf ears, she “It appears there is a difference between a threat and when the attack is Ms Drinan revealed yesterday that she contacted both the Irish and British “The RUC is well aware of the threats. They seem to be doing the same to Despite fears for her life Ms Drinan, a close friend of the late Mrs “I’m not being brave, it’s just the way things are – you get through it. An RUC spokeswoman last night said decisions about placing people on the |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:08 PM Subject: Bernadette Devlin McAliskey in NY Bernadette Devlin McAliskey in NY Bernadette Devlin McAliskey was in New York last month, speaking at an event in Manhattan. The text of her speech is transcribed below. As always she is brilliant, and succinct in her analysis of the British-engineered "peace process", and "whose peace it is we are currently processing." **************************************** May 3, 2000 Bernadette Devlin McAliskey at Rocky Sullivan's, NYC -------------------------- The Peace Process is… A great deal has been written about the peace process and I’ve not written a lot, but what I’ve written I think has mattered and you can read it if you like. For where the peace process is, indeed what the peace process is, very much depends on yourselves and where you are. Some people think the peace process is the successful culmination of the 30-year struggle for self-determination, sovereignty, social justice, equality—nevermind socialism and all the hard bits—and that we are looking within the peace process at the culmination of the success, at the just achievements, won again through hard struggle and sacrifice. Other people, and here I’m talking about people on our side of the line if you want to put that at its broadest point, other people within the broad civil rights, civil libertarian, progressive democratic movement will say that the peace process is the worst thing that has happened to us since we lost the 1798 Rebellion. Others would say, well not quite, but certainly since we lost the War of Independence; and others would say, well maybe not quite, but certainly since we lost the Civil War. So where you are in the peace process, as I say, is really a test of where your own politics lies. And that makes it quite different and quite difficult for people to address the whole process, because what ought to be an ideological, a political or even a pragmatic debate becomes very much a personalised debate. And those of us who have right from the outset warned against the dangers of embarking on this particular strategy to bring the war to an end have been on the receiving end of considerable personal animosity—based, I think, on people not being quite sure of themselves about the nature of the political debate. So I’m going to talk about things tonight and I’ll be taking some questions and answers later. I would like to exclude as much as possible that kind of approach from the discussion. I don’t think anybody involved in the struggle over the past 30 years has set about consciously to betray the struggle. I don’t think anybody who has been part of the struggle for over 30 years is about to trade in a good set of clothes and annual wage for their principles. I don’t think that’s where it is at all. I think the real issue is about the process itself. The real issue is to try and analyse and understand what exactly is happening here and whose peace it is we are currently processing. And if you look at it from that point of view, I think some very serious questions have to be asked. Decommissioning: A New Word At the minute, within the peace process, we’re sort of at a point where the key issues appear to be things like ‘decommissioning’. Decommissioning is very interesting because prior to the existence of the peace process, the word itself did not exist. Not even the process, not even the strategy, but the word did not exist. Decommissioning, like a whole lot of words, are themselves the product of the Irish peace process. There used to be commissioning, like you could be a commissioned officer in an army or you could commission services—but you either did or you didn’t. So the opposite of commissioning was not to bother. You didn’t actually commission and then decommission. If you commissioned something and then decided not to commission, it wasn’t decommissioning, it was changing your mind and deciding not to commission afterall. So when we talk about the IRA decommissioning, we’re really talking about whether other people are changing their minds about whether they will commission the IRA or not. When you see it like that, you say, ‘Look what has this got to do with any kind of realism?’ Decommissioning is not a real word; decommissioning is not a real concept; and, decommissioning is not a real issue. But at the minute, people get bogged down in it because it has been a consistent pattern from the beginning of this whole process to create a situation for the simple purpose of diffusing it. And many people, if they can move outside the complexities of the Irish situation will understand this better from the concept of their own lives. How many people, for example, have been told in their working lives, that things aren't going well, the workers will have to take a wage cut. And everybody gets ready to seek, and wish they had joined a union, and wonder how they could get into one quick, and start to worry about their wages getting cut. Now at somewhere in their heads they had been just about to ask for a wage rise; but before they got time to ask for it, the employers came along and announced that it was going to be necessary to have a wage cut. There is a whole battle which ensues. The union leadership gets everybody to join and declares a victory—that in order to maintain the solidarity of the workforce and the recognition of the work that everybody has done, everybody’s wages are going to remain static for the next three years. And, everybody thinks they have won because they haven't had their wages cut. And, everybody forgets that the discussion actually started with people being entitled to more money. If you’re merely a consumer and you’ve gone into the shoppes to buy things, the same policy works—people will tell you the cost of food is going to rise dramatically. You want to rent an apartment; rents are going to go up dramatically. And, when it doesn’t happen, you think you have won something—even though they go up a bit. The whole peace process has worked on the same basis. Unionists say… The unionists say hell will freeze over before we share power with the republicans. Now I don’t recall any fundamental tenet of republicanism ever being that we would assist the unionists in sharing out British controlled power. It was never a part of the discussion, but somehow because the unionists said, they got the first blow in, they said, oh not till hell freezes over will we allow the republicans to assist us to administer British rule. Oh no we wont. Oh never, said Mr Paisley, never never never! And the republicans said, Oh yes you will. And so we had the ‘Oh no we wont–Oh yes you will’ debate which led to a republican ‘victory’. The republicans won the right to assist the British government in administering British rule and sharing British power with the unionists—or as much as the British would allow either of them to have. And so when we lost, we thought we had won. And then having got the principle over, and if you go back to the beginning you’ll remember it, it was John Major, who with a straight face in Parliament, said talking to Gerry Adams would make his stomach heave. His stomach had been heaving for 6 stricken years, because that’s how long he’d been in discussions with the republican movement! But he said publicly that his stomach would heave if he had to talk to Gerry Adams and everybody got upset. Decent American people got upset too, and said how dare you be so rude and so racist and say that you wouldn’t talk to Gerry Adams. So the republicans demanded, and the democrats demanded, that John Major talk to Gerry Adams. But of course he’d been doing it for 6 years. Now if that hadn't happened, we may all have taken a different point of view when we discovered that Gerry Adams was talking to John Major. But by the time we discovered it, we were on a whole different debate—we were on the ‘right to be talked at’. The Right to be Talked At As part of our human rights now, we have a right to be talked at! We have a right to be sitting at every meeting and allowed to put an opinion on every issue, none of which will be taken into account. But it is our basic human right to be there. We all have a right—there is not a single party to be held in Washington, not a cupcake to be eaten, not an invitation to be sent out—that we have a fundamental freedom, and human rights under the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, to an invitation. And we have secured victory, because we got those things. And bit by bit, people have convinced themselves that we have won major victories. Step back a minute and ask ourselves: what this was, what it was all about? I mean, if all we wanted was to help the unionists share power in the Northern Ireland Assembly, why didn’t we democratise Ulster when Cathal Goulding asked us to? They were all there, this is not a new idea (and Cathal Goulding had better politics, if you don’t mind me saying so, when he was attempting to share power!) But if that’s what we wanted to do, why didn’t we do it before 30 years of conflict and dying and killing and going to prison all happened? Why didn’t we do it then? If that was all that we wanted—was to share power with Fianna Fáil in the South of Ireland, what was the difference between sharing the power now, Fianna Fáil now, and sharing power with Cumann na nGaedheal then? What did we fight the Civil War for, if we were prepared to administer shared power in a partitioned state within the social order imposed upon us by the British government? So never mind what did we fight this war for, what did we fight the Civil War for? Why didn’t we listen to poor old Michael Collins? Because we’re not saying anything different than he said then. The freedom to win freedom, the freedom to work for freedom. And I don’t have a difficulty about people saying, ‘Time goes on Bernadette, and we get older, and we get wiser, and we realise that maybe that’s what we should have done’. I have absolutely no problem with that. I think that’s inherent in everybody’s right to say if I had it to do again, I might have done it differently. Maybe in retrospect, looking at the way things happened and looking at the forces of power that developed, maybe we should have gone down the ‘deomcratisation of Ulster’ road in the early ‘70s. Maybe if we’re in a position now, where if we really want to, at any cost, take the SDLP’s clothing and be the biggest social democratic and vaguely Catholic party in the North of Ireland. Why didn’t we do that in ’72? In fact, why didn’t everybody just join the SDLP and elbow John Hume aside years ago? What is Republicanism? If people want to say to me, that is maybe in retrospect what we should have done, that’s fair enough. What worries me is when people say no no, that’s not what we’re saying, what we are saying is that this is fundamentally different—idealogically, socially, politically and economically different—this is victory, this is victory for republicanism. And I have to say, right, let’s go back to that very bottom point because republicanism itself is not a flawless ideology. Republicanism comes of the days of Thomas Paine and republicanism itself is being revised as we go along. When we were coming in, just as an aside, when we were coming in to JFK, probably those of you who live here don’t notice it anymore but the beginning of the American Constitution is written along the wall, and as you’re going along the walkway, you can read it you know. And my husband, Michael, was suggesting, since this was his first time in through that airport, he was suggesting that of all the ideas that we get from America these days, we ought to incorporate this one so when people arrive in Northern Ireland, the Special Powers Act should be written along the wall! So people would know where they were coming. And it would say, ‘Welcome to Northern Ireland. Police may enter your house at any time, they may come and take you away. Aye, you can be interned, you will not get a lawyer. You can be shot in the street. We run a shoot-to-kill policy here. Don’t send for a lawyer, we shoot them too,’ and incorporate that good American idea! But looking along, as I was looking at it, there are things we forget about flaws in republicanism itself. The words in the American constitution are actually very beautiful about equal rights and the rights of people to secure their person, and the fundamental freedoms, and the right of citizens to bear arms, and all this was written against a background of slavery. All of this was written against the background where key elements of our society got left off the equality equations. And, republicanism as a concept has moved on in it’s best form to recognise those weaknesses, and then as far as it can to incorporate equality for all citizens, for all human beings. And that kind of republicanism over the years has become socialist republicanism. And republicanism in crisis has only one of two ways to go. In crisis, republicanism as a democratic ideology will move towards socialism and equality or it will move towards nationalism. And, when republicanism is forced to move, either left or even right, the reality of our history is that Sinn Féin as an organisation has never moved any way but right. James Connolly was not a member of Sinn Féin, ladies and gentlemen, and Sinn Féin at a crucial point in their existence took their politics back into the constitutional movement. So don’t be too hard on Gerry Adams; he’s going the way of his forefathers. Every last one of them in the leadership of the organisation went that way. And every last one of them, within the leadership of labour movement as well, can have that path laid out in front of them. I can see as clearly as they must be able to see, as anybody who wants to look at it outside of issues like trust and loyalty and pragmatism and personalities, that this is not about good men or bad men or difficult women. This is about politics. And right through the history of our country at moments of clear crisis, the republican ideology has been submerged. The republican ideology has been abandoned for constitutional, nationalist all-class alliances. And every time that it has happened, it has benefitted the greedy who aren't the members of Sinn Féin—they’re the members of Fianna Fáil, they’re the members of the unionist party, they’re the members of the national bourgeoisie of Ireland. Every single time that this new alliance has been created, the people who have suffered have been the poor in Ireland. The dissidents in Ireland. The radicals in Ireland. The women in Ireland. And at every single point, this kind of politics has been bad for the people who have always mattered to us—bad for the people that mattered to the leadership of Sinn Féin, and bad for republican politics—bad for republicanism. The War is Over but the Struggle Continues You would imagine that people would approach this with due caution and care and be very very careful not to fall for any of the tricks of the trade that have been pulled out in the past. And yet that hasn’t happened. The people have not staggered, they have virtually stampeded towards pacification. The war is over. Everybody knows the war is over. And that’s probably the only good thing we have going for us at this point is that the war is over. Nobody likes war and nobody wants war. The war came and the war is now over, but the war is not won. And time will tell, in the fullness of time whether or not the war was actually lost. But the war is over—win, lose or draw. The struggle continues and the struggle is immeasurably weakened by the peace process. Immeasurably weakened. When the Downing Street Declaration was first written, I wrote a small piece in response to it, and I said the purpose of the Downing Street Declaration and the peace process which it created was to demobilise, demilitarise and demoralise the republican people of Ireland—and it has done all three. At this point, people will say to you, ‘Is the peace process stalling?’ No, it is not. The peace process is exactly where it is; it is exactly where those who are controlling it want it to be. It is not stalling. There is no panic here. This is just part of the choreography that has taken place. It will go on whether the IRA part with a single bullet, part with a single Armalite, part with a single ounce of Semtex—wont make any difference, the peace process will go on and Sinn Féin will continue to be drawn further and further into it. And they are now so far into it, it is highly unlikely a) that they can be got out of it and b) that even if they got out of it, its unwavering movement forward to advance the shared power interest of the British and Irish governments, and the class of people they represent, can’t in the short or relatively long term, be stopped, or even be slowed down. How do I know the peace process will continue? It is important to the Irish government that it continue. Not because their heart bleeds for me or you, for the people who went to prison—these are the same class of people who executed Joe McKelvey. This is the same class and government of people that took republicans out during the war and shot them. This is the government, the ideology and the politics that filled New York and Chicago and San Francisco with the political dissidents it wouldn’t allow to earn a living at home, and with wave after wave of immigrants it wouldn’t share wealth with. And now those who have made their money are invited home to join the wealthy. But let me tell you this, you see if you’re not hacking it here folks, don’t count on Bertie pulling you out when you get home! It will be up to Darndale, along with the rest, is where you’ll be and learn to pull your socks up. These things aren't different. So why is Bertie stuck to enacting the peace process? It gives him a stable society. It brings all the strands of nationalism back under his leadership. What is the big discussion in the revolutionary leadership of the most consistently fought struggle against British imperialism in the history of Ireland? What is the key internal debate in the organisation at the minute? On what terms will they sit in government with Fianna Fáil? I have the simple answer to that for them all: Don’t lose any sleep over it boys, it’ll be on the terms that Bertie lets you in! That’s the terms you’ll sit with Bertie—on the terms he lets you in. And the terms he lets you in are that you sit in power in the North first, that you go through the cleansing ritual and be a safe pair of hands for government. And that means, whether you like it or not, there’ll be less talk about socialism, unless its me that’s doing the talking, there is no talk about socialism anyway. And unless you’re buying Fourthwrite (second issue which will be out very shortly) there’s nobody writing about socialism. But what does it mean for the people? What does it mean for the people on the ground, apart from that the fact the war is over and that there are maybe less soldiers on the street that can be brought out. That maybe fewer people are being killed by loyalists because its not politically suitable. But there is nothing in place to stop those things from all coming back again, if and when we need to be threatened. So all that we have at the minute is the absence of war and the existence of large amounts of European money. What do the British get out of the peace process? So what do the British get out of the peace process? The de-militarisation, the de-radicalisation, the de-mobilisation of the resistance movement in the North. It is demoralised. The most radical thing it can do now is vote to increase the Nationalist agenda by moving 1) Sinn Féin, 2) SDLP—as if we were all mates out of the same stable or 1) SDLP and 2) Sinn Féin because there are no differences, no ideological differences between these people any more, because there’s no war. So what did the British get? The British got, as I say, stabilising, demilitarising, mobilising and caught in the expenditure of war. That has great feedback in inward American investment, which is what the Americans got as well. They got rid of the annoying and irritating insistence constitutionally by the people of Ireland that the territory didn’t belong to them. It’s gone. Now we used to have these debates about whether or not you would go to the United Nations on the basis of the Constitution. That debate is no longer valid because of people of the South of Ireland, while Sinn Féin kept its mouth shut, dropped a right that they didn’t even own! And, that was a right to abandon the North—but it’s gone. So if the peace process falls apart and the North’s teachta go with it, and the ministerial North-South-East-West Council of something or other goes with it, and we have to go back to the drawing board, by what right is Bertie Ahern at the table? By what right, if this agreement goes by the board, and it’s back to the drawing board and start again, and all the interested parties who have a right to determine the future of the North of Ireland are called to another conference. What will be on the invitation to the government of the 26-county Republic of Ireland? What will distinguish them from the French government or the German government or any other member state of the European Union to come in and mind somebody else's business? They have no standing if this agreement falls to play ball in the next round. So Britain got pacification, got a stable society, got rid of the annoying interference such as it was or potential interference from the South. It doesn’t actually have to put up with unionist rule because it may never happen. The British don’t care if it doesn’t happen. The place is actually cheaper to run the way it is now. Pay the secretary of state, pay the civil service. It would be a bonus if you could get somebody else to take the blame for political and social and economic weaknesses of the country. But it’s not necessary. The British can run the country very easily. So it doesn’t matter if the peace process doesn’t move another inch, it actually doesn’t matter—the British are in a better position than they were in before they started it. What do the Irish get out of the peace process? Now as I say, the Irish government from our point of view is in a worse position because we don’t have the constitutional position on which to push the government into constitutional action, into non-violent, political international action. We don’t have it. But they may not want it—the Irish government to be able to get up the next time around and say, ‘Look I’m very sorry, it’s not our fault. The people voted.’ And so they did; it’s the people’s fault, and ignorance is no defence, and stupidity is less. The people voted to abandon the North, and it remains abandoned. Now the people have to vote in a referendum to change it; but, the government has to hold the referendum first. Do you think that any government in the South of Ireland is going to hold a referendum to ask the people to allow them to get themselves into the mess it taken them all this time to get out of. So they’re alright. But if all falls through, and Sinn Féin stop jumping through hoops, what position will they be in? What of the gains that they have made for themselves or for the people will they be able to hold on to? American visas? Not a chance. They’ll not be let into this country if they don’t behave themselves. We’ve all been there, we know what that’s like. They’ll be no more big dinners courtesy of the Democratic Party because it will not be fashionable any longer to be seen on the arm of shinners. All that they have in this myth of American support can go like that. And of course the good people who fought the good fight to get them the visibility and get the doors opened that were opened will continue that fight. But the door will be shut. Peter King will always be there doing what Peter King has always done, but Peter also remembers when the door was shut in his face. And that door can be shut again, and voting is a great invention. There are people in this room and people not in this room, who want to know whoever gave the people the vote anyway, because they do the most ridiculous things with it. And, the people who have gone out in their droves and voted for Sinn Féin, who never lifted their finger for human rights. And there are many hundreds of people, thousands of people, who voted for Sinn Féin when the penalty for it was getting shot. And, there are many decent men and women standing for Sinn Féin in elections now who stood for election when the penalty for standing for election was getting shot. And there were kids and older people who went out and worked and put up posters for republicans when you got crucified for it. But there is a new breed of voter, who used to vote for the SDLP, now they’re voting for Sinn Féin—not because they had a radical change of heart, but because Gerry Adams is younger, smarter and better looking than John Hume. And he’s going to be around longer. Now once he cannot deliver, once he cannot deliver, that insulting vote will walk away again—will walk away again to a safer pair of hands, and they’ll be back where they started. And so you say, how did they get in to the peace process and why don’t they get out of it? At some point there is a dignity in when you can do nothing else, gathering your dignity and walking away. And even of this era, if they could do that, instead of running off to Westminster demanding that Stormont be put back together again so they can sit in it and play revolutionary politics. Why don’t they just send a message to Mr Blair saying, ‘look, been there/done it, when yous are serious about resolving, conflict resolving problems, you know where we live,’ and then just walk away from it? They can’t. They can’t because so much energy has been vested in it. They can’t because it’s a very seductive system and far too many of their own people now like it. It’s Like a Funnel When I came here in whatever it was, ’94, and I said at the time where it was all going, nobody believed me. I counselled them not to be blaming Gerry Adams when it went to where it was inevitably going, because it was very clear that that’s where it was going and when it would come to this point, he would have very choices left because it’s like a funnel. There will be people in the four corners of the world in military and political academies studying the absolute genius of this British strategy. And when they get up to draw the diagram, the diagram will be the funnel. How people were got to the lip, and each option they made, and each choice they made, actively limited the number of choices then open to them, and increased the chances of them having to choose the only choice the British wanted them to make the next time around. And each time they did it, the funnel got narrower. And Sinn Féin are now hanging by their finger nails. You know the wee narrow bit that goes right inside the neck of the bottle? That’s where they are. And the slope down has got steeper. They’re already inside the bottle but they’re still hanging on to the funnel. And it’s very very hard for them to start that climb back. If Gerry Adams, I believe, turned now, the majority of his own party wouldn’t come with him because for some it’s too steep a climb back and for others there's a nice warm breeze, and nice smell, and I don’t know what it is in that bottle, but far too many people like it and they’re happier to move on in. The reality, however, is that it has nothing to do with politics as we know it, nothing to do with the things that those of us who are republicans believe in, nothing to do with carrying forward the ideology and the struggle and the capacity to create an independent, sovereign, free and socialist Ireland. Not even an independent, free and democratic Ireland. The game has changed. And as I said at the beginning, every human being is entitled to change their position in life. Everybody is entitled to say, ‘Could you stop the bus for a moment? I want to get off here.’ But nobody is entitled, and there’s a man at the top of O’Connell Street who says it all the time, ‘nobody even looks the road he’s on.’ Charles G Parnell said, ‘nobody has a right to put a halt to the march of a nation.’ And Sinn Féin do not have the right, and the peace process does not have the right to say, ‘this is where the bus stops, this is the terminal, this is where everybody gets off,’ because this has nothing to do with the things we struggled for. This has nothing to do with equality, nothing to do with human rights, nothing with the working class, nothing to do with socialism. This is how yet again the British buy in to constitutional politics the leadership of the revolutionary movement. Its about nothing more and nothing less. And it is a measure of the length of the struggle, the loyalty of the people and the calibre of the leadership that so many people followed them to their own destruction. Thank you. **************************************** |
| From: Irish Freedom Committee News List Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 4:34 PM Subject: The New Face of British Occupation The New Face of British Occupation As announcements come forth in the news today about British Government promises to recall soldiers and dismantle a number of army installations across the north, a far more insidious British occupation is establishing itself in all of our homes and lives, regardless of where we live. "'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever'" 1984, George Orwell, 1949 The Irish Freedom Committee NewsList www.irishfreedomcommittee.net *************************************************** Scientific American June 2000 COMPUTERS - PRIVACY Paul Wallich The Orwell Awards In recognition of efforts to trample personal liberties on the electronic frontier TORONTO--1984 was 16 years ago, but the culture of surveillance is still in full swing, say privacy advocates who gathered for the Orwell Awards 2000, presented at the 10th annual Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy. In a ceremony that opened to the rousing strains of South Park's "Blame Canada," Simon Davies of Privacy International in Washington, D.C., presented the "honors" to those in the U.S. deemed by a panel of judges to have posed the worst threats to privacy in the past year. Davies, dressed as the glossy-pated Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers films, started with the Worst Single Project category, whose laurels went to the Federal Aviation Administration's idea to deploy whole-body x-ray scanners in U.S. airports. A fictitious "Dr. Milton Exray," accepting the award on behalf of the FAA, extolled future developments, including ultrasound and DNA profiling to take pictures of potential terrorists even before they are born. (Such fantasies of state intrusion may have been superfluous in the face of real government initiatives such as the U.K.'s proposed Regulation of Investigatory Powers statute, which would compel citizens to decrypt any file that a law-enforcement official believes to contain data needed for an investigation. Those who fail to do so and cannot prove they have lost, forgotten or destroyed the presumed key could face two years in jail.) (For rest of story go to: http://www.sciam.com/2000/0600issue/0600scicit6.html ) *************************************************** The Guardian Hooked on secrecy Knowledge is therapeutic. Let it flow Thursday June 1, 2000 Peter Taylor's towering trilogy about Northern Ireland came to a close on BBC2 last night. It has been an extraordinary series in which terrorists, soldiers, politicians and spies have spoken frankly about the last 30 years in a troubled corner of the United Kingdom. Only a journalist of his standing could have persuaded people from all sides of this conflict to cooperate in such a manner. The result was a first rate piece of journalism. It was also first rate history. Much that has hitherto been obscure or hidden was revealed or clarified for the first time. More satisfying still, the programmes also felt as though they were some part of a process of truth and reconciliation. There was a feeling of closure in the way that former enemies were willing to speak about their spent hatreds and grim deeds. Apart from what the series told us about Northern Ireland there are two wider points to be made. One is about the BBC. The entire series took five years to make. It was never going to reach a mass audience (though many serious newspapers and magazines would be pleased to reach its audience of 1.5m). It involved thousands of hours of research, a hundred hours of filming and, in Peter Taylor's case, a lifetime of contacts and reading. It is no coincidence that the other outstanding documentary series of the past five years, Norma Percy's The Death of Yugoslavia, was also commissioned and shown by the BBC. Every time a Murdoch tabloid sneers at the BBC, remember these two series. There is still such a thing as serious television journalism in this country and it appears to be increasingly pointless to expect it any more from ITV. There was some small irony that the last episode of Mr Taylor's series coincided with the Independent Television Commission asking whether public service broadcasting can be sustained - or is even "needed" - any longer on commercial channels. The second point concerns the role of journalists in informing citizens about what the security services do in their name. Peter Taylor had no cooperation from the Ministry of Defence in tracking down and speaking to former members of the intelligence community in Northern Ireland. Some of those he did trace were warned against speaking to him, with the threat of ostracism or financial penalty. We can confidently predict that those who defied these threats will not be prosecuted. Mr Taylor's reputation for responsible film-making is so well established that it would be madness to pick on those who cooperated with him. Colonel Nigel Wylde, a holder of the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his work in Northern Ireland, is less fortunate. He is currently being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly helping the author Tony Geraghty with research. The MoD has nine injunctions in place against former soldiers preventing them from publishing books or speaking out. The government also has an injunction preventing the Sunday Times and its Irish correspondent Liam Clarke from writing about collusion between army intelligence officers and Loyalists. The Guardian and its sister paper, the Observer, are both being pursued by the police to hand over material which might incriminate the former MI5 officer, David Shayler. The former head of MI5, Stella Rimington, is being demonised for writing an account of her time in the security services. A secret offshoot of the cabinet office's joint intelligence committee, chaired by a diplomat, Michael Pakenham, is reported to be behind these Draconian attempts to pursue individuals, with Mr Blair's blessing. At the same time the government is passing still further laws jeopardising journalists working in this area. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill extends existing bugging and tapping powers to all forms of communication, including mobile phones, emails and pictures sent electronically. The police would find it much easier to acquire data, including addresses of emails sent and received as well as websites hit and browsed by journalists, who could then no longer guarantee the security and identity of their sources. The Terrorism Bill, also going through the Lords, makes it an offence for anyone - including journalists - not to disclose to the police any information obtained about the activities or intentions of "terrorists", or those they suspect of being "terrorists" - a term capable of very broad definition. All this is on top of a "Freedom of Information" Bill exempting all disclosures about the security services as well as any information which "would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs". Labour's FoI Act would have been no help to Peter Taylor. He could, in future, be prosecuted under no fewer than three further acts for the sort of programmes he makes. This government may have few liberal instincts. But self-preservation alone should surely hold it back from alienating every single journalist in the land by its current coordinated assaults on free speech. ************************************************** (Poster’s note: This independent action by the ICCL to the European Courts comes without backing of the Dublin Government, which in January of this year accepted British assurances that phones were not tapped “indiscriminately”—see accompanying story below.) ----------------------- The Irish Times Thursday, June 01, 2000 Phone taps breached civil rights - ICCL By Roddy O'Sullivan The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) yesterday applied to the European Court of Human Rights for a declaration that its staff and clients' civil rights were breached by telephone taps carried out by the British government. The ICCL, the British National Council for Civil Liberties and British-Irish Rights Watch say they are concerned about a Channel 4 report last summer that from 1990 to 1997 all telephone, fax, email and data communications between Ireland and Britain were intercepted by the Ministry of Defence. In their court application the organisations say they were in regular contact at the time with people who sought their help with alleged violations of civil liberties and human rights. The alleged interception means "their capacity to give legal advice has been damaged and their ability to work together with human rights organisations has been adversely affected". They are seeking compensation for what they believe to be a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Channel 4 reported that an electronic test facility at Capenhurst, Cheshire, was being used by the UK Department of Defence to intercept public telecommunications carried on microwave radio. It said the interceptions were to combat terrorism, but the information gathered was also of economic and commercial significance. The data were gathered without the necessary warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, according to Channel 4. A Home Office spokesman refused to comment at the time. The facility was closed down in 1998. Most telecommunications traffic is now transmitted via fibre optic cables. Following the report, the Government instructed the Irish Ambassador to Britain, Mr Ted Barrington, to investigate the matter. He met the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr David Manning, in London that month and submitted a two-page report to the Government in August. Sources said his report was inconclusive. All three civil rights organisations have already lodged complaints with the Interception of Communications Tribunal in the UK. They have also asked the British Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police to investigate the interceptions. The tribunal concluded that there had been "no contravention" of the Act, while the police said their inquiries had not revealed an offence. The organisations' application to the court alleges that the Act allows interference with telephonic communications for any purpose. The intercepted material is later "sifted" to discover if the material falls within the scope of a warrant. The scheme therefore does not prohibit interferences which are outside the scope of the Act, the application claims. It says the interference "does not correspond to a pressing social need, is not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons given by the national authority to justify the interference are not relevant and sufficient". The Capenhurst facility on the England-Wales border comprised a windowless 47-metre tower which cost £20 million to build. It had three floors of aerial galleries on top of eight floors of electronics. It could intercept 10,000 simultaneous telephone channels coming from Dublin to London and on to the Continent. *************************************************** Canadian National Post Monday, May 29, 2000 Airlines will feed profiles to customs Jim Bronskill Southam News OTTAWA - The federal customs agency plans to assemble computerized profiles of people who fly into Canada. The proposal involves commercial airlines collecting personal and travel information from passengers, then transferring it to Canadian customs and immigration officials before the plane touches the ground. The agencies would use the information to create profiles and select "high-risk" travellers, such as possible drug smugglers, for detailed questioning. The information would include the person's name, gender, citizenship, nationality and itinerary as well as seating arrangements, number of bags, date of reservation and travel agent. A combination of certain details might flag a passenger for scrutiny. For example, officials have apparently come to associate drug dealers with frequent cancellations and last-minute bookings. A decision to subject a traveller to detailed questioning would rest with customs officers, who would be able to compare the information supplied by an airline with other data, such as a person's criminal background. Objections from the office of Bruce Phillips, the federal privacy commissioner, prompted customs and immigration officials to drop demands for lifestyle information, including a traveller's income, class of ticket, dietary preferences and whether meals were eaten on the plane. Officials assume passengers smuggling drugs in their stomachs would be unlikely to eat during the flight. The privacy commissioner questioned how some of the information was relevant to an assessment of an individual's right to enter Canada, and doubted the airlines' ability to provide the details. *************************************************** The Chicago Tribune May 11, '00 BRITAIN PLANS SPY CENTER FOR PRIVATE E-MAIL Associated Press LONDON- The British government plans to set up a spy center capable of tracking every e-mail and Internet hit in the country, a move it says will help fight cyber-crime but which civil libertarians contend heralds the arrival of an Orwellian state. The new cyber-snooping base, which will bear the unassuming title of Government Technical Assistance Center, reportedly will be housed within the fortresslike London headquarters of the MI5 spy agency. It will be established as part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is expected to become law this fall. "We regard it as an outrageous piece of legislation," Said Yaman Akdeniz, director of the watchdog group Cyber-Rights and Cyber Liberties. As part of the bill, Internet service providers will have to establish secure channels to transmit information about Internet traffic to the government cyber-center. The bill also gives law-enforcement authorities the power to demand that Internet users hand over the keys to decode encrypted messages, commonly used by business and in e-commerce transactions. The legislation is wending its way through Parliament, but the government already has established a so-called encryption coordination unit to oversee creation of the $40 million spy center. The government argues the bill protects individual rights, setting out strict safeguards. *************************************************** MI5 GTAC e-mail surveillance The Sunday Times April 30 2000 BRITAIN MI5 builds new centre to read e-mails on the net Nicholas Rufford MI5 is building a new £25m e-mail surveillance centre that will have the power to monitor all e-mails and internet messages sent and received in Britain. The government is to require internet service providers, such as Freeserve and AOL, to have "hardwire" links to the new computer facility so that messages can be traced across the internet. The security service and the police will still need Home Office permission to search for e-mails and internet traffic, but they can apply for general warrants that would enable them to intercept communications for a company or an organisation. The new computer centre, codenamed GTAC - government technical assistance centre - which will be up and running by the end of the year inside MI5's London headquarters, has provoked concern among civil liberties groups. "With this facility, the government can track every website that a person visits, without a warrant, giving rise to a culture of suspicion by association," said Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. The government already has powers to tap phone lines linking computers, but the growth of the internet has made it impossible to read all material. By requiring service providers to install cables that will download material to MI5, the government will have the technical capability to read everything that passes over the internet. Home Office officials say the centre is needed to tackle the use of the internet and mobile phone networks by terrorists and international crime gangs.Charles Clark, the minister in charge of the spy centre project, said it would allow police to keep pace with technology. "Hardly anyone was using the internet or mobile phones 15 years ago," a Home Office source said. "Now criminals can communicate with each other by a huge array of devices and channels and can encrypt their messages, putting them beyond the reach of conventional eavesdropping." There has been an explosion in the use of the internet for crime in Britain and across the world, leading to fears in western intelligence agencies that they will soon be left behind as criminals abandon the telephone and resort to encrypted e-mails to run drug rings and illegal prostitution and immigration rackets. The new spy centre will decode messages that have been encrypted. Under new powers due to come into force this summer, police will be able to require individuals and companies to hand over computer "keys", special codes that unlock scrambled messages. There is controversy over how the costs of intercepting internet traffic should be shared between government and industry. Experts estimate that the cost to Britain's 400 service providers will be £30m in the first year. Internet companies say that this is too expensive, especially as many are making losses. About 15m people in Britain have internet access. Legal experts have warned that many are unguarded in the messages they send or the material they download, believing that they are safe from prying eyes. "The arrival of this spy centre means that Big Brother is finally here," said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes. "The balance between the state and individual privacy has swung too far in favour of the state." *************************************************** January 25, 2000 Republic accepts bug denials By Staff Reporter THE Irish government yesterday accepted British denials that telephone calls, faxes and e-mails from Ireland were systematically bugged for a decade. Charges made in a Channel 4 TV programme last year centred on activities at a monitoring tower in Cheshire and subsequent Dublin requests for an explanation encountered diplomatic rebuffs. But after bi-lateral talks with Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in Brussels today during a European Union General Affairs meeting, Irish Foreign Minister David Andrews said he was satisfied that there had been no indiscriminate interception of calls. Mr Cook stressed that the only calls monitored had been those linked to potential threats to security. *************************************************** Read George Orwell’s “1984”, in its entirety, On-Line: http://kulichki-lat.rambler.ru/moshkow/ORWELL/r1984ch1.txt *************************************************** To Subscribe to this list go to http://IFCUpdates.listbot.com/ and click SUBSCRIBE. To view Archives, follow HELP instructions or email deemail@msn.com for assistance. *************************************************** |