Irish Political News

[ED: Sorry comments left closed by mistake. Now open.] Following Rowan Williams lecture on Tuesday about the blasphemy law, Dave Walker has a piece on some of the reactions to it. Here’s my take. As someone with a full-time job, I don’t have the 3 days necessary to grapple with every sentence in the AB of C’s lecture. It is what it is: a lecture, not an article in the Sun. It’s all the more disappointing that some of the reports and reactions don’t take this into account. The Times report gives just as much airtime to Terry Sanderson, the president of the rent-a-quote National Secular Society (membership 7,000), who called the lecture a ‘blatant pitch for new legislation to replace the blasphemy laws’. Sorry Mr. S, but the one thing you can’t accuse Rowan Williams of being is blatant. Nuanced, dense, impenetrable even (I don’t know if this got a laugh at the lecture - at one stage he restates one of his phrases ‘in plainer English’), but not blatant. Jerry Springer the Opera 1, Church of England 0? Williams basic argument seems to be that the blasphemy law is finished, but that we do need to provide some sort of protection against religious abuse. Hence he has been shot at by American conservatives for being limp on the blasphemy law, and by secularists for wanting to protect religion. But judging by the picture, he’s still smiling. (more…)

From the absence of updates to today’s report by the BBC on the Northern Ireland Executive meeting today, I can only assume that the decision to retrospectively authorise the Social Development minister, the SDLP’s Margaret Ritchie, to cut the funding to the UDA-linked CTI project [and avoid the implications of that decision, despite the legal advice - Ed] has been put off again. As it was at the last Executive meeting.. Ah.. If it wasn’t for that legal case.. and those disputed minutes..

HIV / AIDS is a modern scourge, having been with us for almost three decades. Despite significant progress in the developed world there is still an overwhelming problem in the developing world especially in Africa where 64% of infected people live with only 1 in 5 getting treatment. Here in the UK with complex antiretroviral therapy doctors talk in terms of almost normal life expectancy. That is far, far from the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are, however, suggestions that significant reductions in the number of new HIV infections could be achieved in low and middle income countries.

Previously some on the religious right have advocated the ABC campaign of “Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms” viewing condoms as a last resort. As the, New England Journal of Medicine article I quoted earlier observes this view has been less heavily promoted recently.

There remain vast challenges in the fight against HIV in Africa. A number of problems of AIDS denialism have been stopped recently with Thabo Mbeki now supporting the view that HIV is indeed the cause of AIDS; though leading politician Jacob Zuma has made bizarre remarks about showering reducing the risk of HIV transmission. Also (though nothing to do with Zuma) the myth continues that sex with a virgin can cure the virus.

Whilst no one solution apart possibly from a vaccine (though recent results have been disappointing) will be effective; simple strategies such as treatment of other sexually transmitted infections, increased condom usage and increased anti retroviral availability are likely to be effective as noted above (link 4). One issue which would probably be helpful but is extremely difficult to address is the place of women in society. There is some scientific evidence that intimate partner violence and high levels of male control in a relationship are associated with HIV infection. In addition some medical researchers who are by no means associated with the religious right are advocating not merely ABC but a lot more letters including E for Empowerment of women in sexual decision making.

Of course the cost and potential distribution problems with condoms may at times present problems with their availability. There is of course also a much more basic problem. Let us be frank about this; men prefer not to wear condoms during sex and empowering women to demand such whilst extremely difficult in view of societal structure and sexual taboos would be useful; let alone empowering women to demand abstinence or faithfulness. As such the ABC approach might have had some merit but by moralising on sexual behaviour and its religious message it seems to have been relatively ineffective (even in societies with high levels of religious observance). On the other hand, however, one could at least in part regard it as an issue of women’s empowerment. The idea of women’s empowerment is not, however, closely associated with the religious right; and fear of cultural insensitivity may at times result in not equipping women (frequently the forgotten people in “culture”) with the ability to demand safer sexual practices. It may be time for groups other than the religious right to talk about ABCDEF etc.

Of course our own society with its rising levels of rape, and woefully low conviction rate, let alone the tendancy for women to be viewed as sex objects is hardly in much of a position to lecture others on the position of women. In terms of AIDS, however, we have the extreme good fortune that HIV is relatively rare and of course, as noted earlier, we have fairly effective drugs for its treatment.

Interesting piece from Spotlight on the problem of Northern Ireland losing talent to the FAI. Darron Gibson of Derry City apparently is only the third NI born player to make the A team of the Irish Republic, but a pro-active campaign on the part of the FAI suggests that pressures in the modern game may be forcing its hand someone. Interestingly, the FAI declined a camera interview. FIFA, who don’t come well out it at all, produced an internal circular 901 last May which asserted a new set of rules over extra territorial players that allowed for Grannies, but re-emphasised the importance of territory as the predication of eligibility. As a footnote of sorts it seems that extra revenues that would flow from an all Ireland league is popular with the clubs, but not with the two associations. 

Strictly for the record, but worth noting that the decision of the SDLP not to vote with the budget must have forced a degree of unexpected pressure from Sinn Fein whips to have sufficient MLAs in the Chamber for the budget vote. Given it was a cross community vote, it needed a nationalist majority to pass. In the event the Aye vote was just 59.5% (and that’s with the Minister voting against the SDLP line).

Six out of the 28 Sinn Fein MLAs did not make it into the chamber for what was, arguably, the most important vote in the legislative year. I count them as: Alex Maskey; Martina Anderson; Raymond McCartney; Paul Butler; Francie Molloy (Deputy Speaker); and John O’Dowd (leader of the Sinn Fein group in the Assembly.

Hearts and Minds tonight have the first lengthy interview with the Deputy First Minister. He doesn’t take too kindly to the question of where is Gerry? Taking the Folks on the Hill too seriously perhaps? And why Dromore, County Down is making its mark in the political map.

Newshound had spotted the report in the South Texas Monitor and the BBC have followed up. If the details in both reports are true it would appear that the Maze escaper caught with out-of-date immigration documents at a US border checkpoint in Texas could only be one of a handful of people from the list of those still on-the-run. From the Monitor report

The man, whose name Border Patrol refused to release late Wednesday night, is expected to soon be transferred to British custody. Reportedly a member of the Irish Republican Army, the man is accused of making a violent escape from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland in September 1983 along with 38 other IRA members.

He was arrested at the Sarita checkpoint outside of Brownsville on Monday after he was unable to provide valid immigration documents. Agents did a background check through an international fingerprint system, which identified the man as having escaped from the prison.

Adds The RTÉ report notes

Sinn Féin said it is aware of the incident but is not yet in a position to comment.

Update The BBC report now names the man awaiting deportation as Paul Brennan and notes

A Sinn Fein spokesman said: “Pol (Paul Brennan) is not undocumented, after his extradition case was dropped in October 2000, he was granted the right to remain in the US where he has been living and working ever since.  Pol and his family remain hopeful that this anomaly will be successfully resolved in the near future.”

And from the [earlier] BBC report

The US Border Patrol have refused to identify him, but said he was awaiting deportation.

It said he had been serving a 23-year prison sentence in Northern Ireland on charges of possessing a bomb and a firearm.

The man produced an out-of-date immigration document at the Sarita checkpoint near Brownsville.

The man was identified through fingerprinting after a search of his background through the Joint Terrorism Task Force and Interpol.

“The subject was arrested and is pending deportation proceedings back to his country of origin,” said the US Border Patrol.

One anyway. Steve Sailer (via John Derbyshire) --

Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House?

This is also good.

When will the media stop with the "Maverick" shite?

We all know that, whether you’re paying rent or a mortgage, housing costs are higher in Dublin than in the rest of the country. But what about other day-to-day expenditure? Well, according to the latest CSO figures for November 2007, Dubs can expect to pay more than our country cousins for a range of goods and services – 4.4% more, to be precise. Of 79 items examined by the CSO, Dublin prices were higher for 52 items. That’s 66%, or around two-thirds. All ten fruit and vegetable items were more expensive in Dublin than elsewhere.

So what kind of items are Dubs paying over the odds for? Well, your morning rashers will cost you over 21% more in Crumlin than in Cobh. A pint of draught lager will set you back over 12% more in Drimnagh than in Dundalk. A healthy litre of orange juice is over 11% more expensive in Inchicore than in Inchidoney, and a trip to the barber is the cruellest cut of all: over 40% dearer in Kilmainham than in Killinick.

One could have fun with these figures all day, but there is a serious point to all this: workers – and particularly the low-paid, for whom food accounts for a disproportionate high percentage of their budget – pay a high price for living in Dublin. And that’s quite apart from the high housing costs.

The current minimum wage is just €8.65 per hour. A pittance, whichever way you look at it – and regardless of where you live in Ireland. In the short term, I believe the Government should introduce a Dublin minimum wage supplement, bringing the minimum wage up to a €9 per hour for those living in the capital. In the long term, of course, we need to introduce and expand the concept of a Living Wage: click here and here to find out more about my Living Wage motion to Dublin City Council – an initiative which I would like to see replicated in Local Authorities throughout the country.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue trying to puzzle out why grapes should be over 17% dearer in Dublin than elsewhere …

The retired Generals were out in formation at the Telegraph yesterday, harrumphing with the best of them from Tunbridge Wells in the comments to Peter Mullen’s article. This is Rev Dr Peter Mullen on the modern church: This is, of course, only political correctness tacked on to the failed collectivist social agenda that our rulers in the General Synod have foisted on us for a generation. They have abolished the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Even in this desecration there was the pretence to literacy as they replaced the old books with new ones. Now there is not even the persistence of anything you could properly call a book. There is something called Common Worship, which only really exists in cyberspace as a hailstorm of downloads. If they ever collected Common Worship in one place, you would need a wheelbarrow to carry it to church. It’s a pantomime: a dumbed-down, clapped-out imitation of the entertainment industry combined with the newspeak of bureaucratic control. Once there was the Church of England. Now there is only the new Babel. Read the comments: Yes the CoE is bonkers - but look at the last 3 Archbishops and despair ! I cannot make up my mind whether Rowan Williams is Rory Bremner or vice versa. and Our poor Padre seems to work 24/7,and appears to be constantly worried about fund raising to meet various targets. and Wow, it seems that Revd Mullen is the kind of cannon that the Church of England needs, blowing a hole in the nonsense that it has come to espouse. Let’s hope there are enough who have the courage to stand behind him to stop the slide into political correct extinction and to reassert the Church’s real calling. Hmmm. I’d love to hear Fr Mullen in debate with George Galloway. Never mind “Hot Ginger and Dynamite” (one of the best political blog names in my view *), it would be Diesel Oil and Nitric Acid (for anoraks: that was a self-igniting rocket fuel used for a missile at Peenemnde). (*) I can’t bring myself to do the “Hot, Ginger and Dynamite” punctuation as applied by some - too much like a Chris Evans fetish. Tags: peter mullen, church of england

Alan McBride asks a question that has also intrigued me recently. Has Gerry Adams gone away do you know? Certainly there are members of his kitchen cabinet in critical positions of power at Stormont. But, for the moment, Mr Adams appears to have taken leave of the public scene.

There’s no figures to support this, but Orla Milligan an Associate Director at PRG, is pretty up beat about the future of the legal profession in Northern Ireland in The Lawyer. So all of you who thought that the end of the peace process meant an end to the ‘wartime’ bonanza for lawyers, can think again…

The Archbishop of Canterbury on Freedom of Speech and Blasphemy This is an introduction to a short series of articles sparked by a note on Dave Walker’s cartoon blog about a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury: I was distracted this morning by the Archbishop of Canterburys recent speech about Religious Offence and who should be allowed to cause it. I havent decided what I think yet. He says some good things, but Im not sure I agree with all his conclusions. All I can say is that it needs more thought than has been given by some prominent bloggers, who dont bother to look up the original speech and just hurl abuse. This seems to be a more well thought out critique. Id be interested to read comments by those who agree with the Archbishop. There are two aspects to this: the debate that the Archbishop has entered and how that debate is being conducted. Cowboys shooting from the Hip? Some bloggers and commentators have been throwing buckets of bile in the ABC’s (ABC: Archbishop of Canterbury) general direction, without apparently having the foggiest understanding of the subject he was addressing - or the British context to which he was speaking. To quote a few comments: “Pointless man offers stupid opinion” (Link). These are comments on this post: “Britons already have allowed their right of self-defense to be taken from them; freedom of speech is always the next to go. If –Rowan had showed the slightest bit of common sense or intelligence in the past, I might surmise that he was angling for the position of High Chancellor.” “This is good news for America - they will see the scary effects of creeping fascism/Sharia in Britain, and thus the 40% of Americans who still have common sense will react to prevent this for going to far in the US. Sane Brits will move to the US or Australia. The rest will become Dhimmis.” “Swampy has turned out to be the most foolish Archbishop in living memory.Try as I might, I can find nothing Christian in his vicious idea.” “REPLACING BRITISH BLASPHEMY LAWS with a ban on being thoughtless and cruel. How about a law against being laughable and pathetic?” (Link) (This one is a law professor). There’s been a more informed debate going on over at Stand Firm in the comments, and at Dave’s own blog. (more…)

View Larger Map

RTE -- US Border Patrol officials say they have arrested a man who escaped from the Maze prison in 1983. He was arrested at a border checkpoint in southern Texas on Monday night. The US Border Patrol have refused to name him but said he is awaiting deportation.

Border Patrol official Oscar Soldana said the man produced an out-of-date immigration document at the Sarita checkpoint near Brownsville. He said the man was identified through fingerprinting.

Question for straight-talking maverick John McCain: since this shows that the US Border Patrol is doing a good job of catching terrorist suspects at the Mexican border, doesn't that mean that the rest of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill can now go ahead, in which he case he should answer Anderson Cooper's question* last night about whether he would vote for his own bill if it came up again?

UPDATE: Here's Wikipedia's listing of the 1983 Jailbreak participants. While only two remain unaccounted for, the Border Control might conceivably have stopped any of them given their records.

*It began as Janet Hook's question

FINAL UPDATE: The detained escapee is Paul Brennan, who while technically on-the-run was not one of the never-accounted-for persons, and the British government had stopped pursuing his extradition in 2003.

The Assembly website notification of today’s meeting of the Education Committee warns that “Please note these timings are indicative”.  However the Education minister, Sinn Féin’s Caitríona Ruane, took the 10.00am-11.00am scheduling literally and, when the alloted hour was up, abruptly left the meeting announcing that she had “another engagement to attend” - that hour included an opening statement by the minister which lasted more than 20mins.  The Committee members might have wanted to ask more questions about some of those contentious proposals.. or, indeed, those “cost-neutral” ones, but the minister had left the building..  As the BBC report states

In December, Ms Ruane was criticised for a lack of detail in how the new transfer process would operate, but she said at the time her statement was merely an “early briefing”.

The minister promised to bring more detailed proposals to the assembly in the new year, but education correspondent Maggie Taggart said “there was little light shed on the future for post-primary pupils” during Thursday’s meeting.

And as Mark Devenport notes in his blog

Safe to say, after this somewhat confrontational performance, relations between the Minister and the Committee cannot be said to have improved.

Adds Additional quotes here

The Daily Roundup is a “First Edition” roundup of news from the British and International press, media and the occasional blog:

• It is produced as a roundup article and short - roughly 4-5 minutes - podcast.
• We aim that the cast and article are published in the early hours to ensure that we are the first source checked by bloggers and opinion formers.
• The written roundup appears at the Wardman Wire, and on the dedicated Politics Daily website.
• The podcast feed is here.

Daily Roundup Players

There are also widgets available to put a “Daily Roundup” player in the sidebar of your blog or website. There are two advantages:

• The short audio programme gives your visitors new content every day - which is especially useful if you do not post daily (or if you are taking a break) as it keeps them coming back.
• Your blog becomes more “sticky”. Visitors will tend to stay for the 4 minutes or so length of the programme, even if they are reading other blogs in different windows, as leaving your site will cut the roundup short. The length is long enough to give time for visitors to read down your site, but short enough to prevent them becoming bored.

The two versions are below:

Single Edition

 

Read Roundup

 

Multi-Edition Player

 

Read Roundup

 

Wrapping Up

If you would like to place one of these on your website, then please email me at mattwardman AT gmail DOT com.

Far be it for me to get in the middle of an argument between supernaturalists.. But, with continuing calls for Wallace Thompson to “be sacked” by DUP minister Nigel Dodds, there is an interesting intervention in the Irish Times today from Brian Kennaway [subs req] on the row following the comments by Thompson on Joe Duffy’s RTÉ radio show - when he referred to Pope Benedict XVI as the Antichrist. Adds Mick has some additonal links and coments here.

While Duffy’s professionalism shone through and Thompson expressed his personal views, which he is entitled to hold, it was the reaction from listeners which proved the most enlightening. 

Many failed to understand what their own churches actually believed, others clearly had no understanding of Christian faith, while some, including Thompson, misrepresented what other churches believed. Thompson, whose published letter to the editor of The Irish Times sparked the debate, told his radio audience, in reference to the pope being called the antichrist, “that is the position of the Church of Ireland and all the main [ Protestant] denominations”. 

This is not true.  Neither the Church of Ireland nor the Methodist Church has any such reference in their doctrinal standards. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, has subordinate standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states (at Chapter 25, paragraph 6): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

And he provides some fascinating historical references in an attempt to create a better understanding of the language and history.

The historical use of this term antichrist is worth noting. The first use of the term outside its use in the Bible (John’s letters) and in reference to the pope, was not by fundamentalist Protestants but by the popes themselves. This was a term in common use by Catholic writers long before the Protestant Reformation.

For example Pope Gregory I (590-604) stated: “Moreover, I say confidently that anyone calling himself universal bishop, or desires to be so called, shows himself, by this self-exaltation, to be the forerunner of the antichrist because by this display of pride he sets himself superior to others.” This was the same Gregory who, apparently, refused the title pope given to him in 604 by the Roman emperor Phocas. This was of course before the time of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, over the whole church.

Later in 991, Arnulf, Bishop of Orleans, mourned the state of the church declaring: “Reverend Fathers, who do you regard this man to be who sits on such a lofty throne? For there is no doubt that if he is destitute of charity, and if he is proud by virtue of his own intellect, then he is the antichrist sitting in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Eberhard, Bishop of Salzburg in 1242 made reference to Pope Gregory IX as: “That morally depraved man whom they are accustomed to call the antichrist, upon whose forehead is written the name of contempt. . . .” It was, therefore, natural that the writers of the Westminster Confession of 1643-1647 followed the language of their Roman theological predecessors. They did not intend any offence by the use of this term Antichrist. Nor did they regard it, in the words of the Dean of St Patrick’s, as “unhelpful name-calling”.

Those who adhere to reformed theology today and use this term, I am sure, equally intend no offence. Though I can understand how many Catholics find it offensive, when they are unaware of the general use of the term within their own church in the past. The term antichrista did not have its origins among the fundamentalist Protestants of the “black North”, or even the so-called heretics of the Protestant Reformation. Blame the popes - they started it.

Indeed.

Brian Kennway is not the first to note that, in general, Irish people have a rather distant relationship (and consequently understanding) with the theological intricacies of their own religions. Last week’s exchange on RTE’s Liveline between Wallace Thompson and Joe Duffy (not to mention the Plain People of Ireland) was a prompt for his piece in the Irish Times today. Paul at Never Trust a Hippie has his own more agnostic take on the same event. Both appear to have thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

By Brian Kennaway

How did a complaint to the Dean of St Patrick’s over rosaries lead to a debate on RTÉ? wonders Brian Kennaway .(Irish Times 31/1/08)

The hour-long radio exchange last week between Wallace Thompson, secretary of the Evangelical Protestant Society, and Joe Duffy was the stuff which makes live broadcasts compulsive listening.

While Duffy’s professionalism shone through and Thompson expressed his personal views, which he is entitled to hold, it was the reaction from listeners which proved the most enlightening.

Many failed to understand what their own churches actually believed, others clearly had no understanding of Christian faith, while some, including Thompson, misrepresented what other churches believed. Thompson, whose published letter to the editor of The Irish Times
sparked the debate, told his radio audience, in reference to the pope being called the antichrist, “that is the position of the Church of Ireland and all the main [Protestant] denominations”.

This is not true. Neither the Church of Ireland nor the Methodist Church has any such reference in their doctrinal standards. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, has subordinate standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states (at Chapter 25, paragraph 6): “There is no other
head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

This statement has to be understood in terms of language and history. It is obvious from this extract that the reference to the antichrist is by way of parenthesis and not the substance of the chapter. Chapter 25 devotes itself to the reformed understanding of the church. Paragraph six simply states that only Christ is the head of the church.

The Westminster Confession is a human compilation. This one reference to an antichrist is based on the Biblical references in John’s Letters. In 1988 the Presbyterian Church in Ireland revised its understanding of the confession by declaring: “the historical interpretation of the pope of
Rome as the personal and literal fulfilment of the Biblical figure of ‘the antichrist’ and ‘the man of sin’ is not manifestly evident from scripture”. Other churches have also clarified their understanding of the antichrist, in the confession. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, of which Thompson is an elder, are two such churches.

The historical use of this term antichrist is worth noting. The first use of the term outside its use in the Bible (John’s letters) and in reference to the pope, was not by fundamentalist Protestants but by the popes themselves. This was a term in common use by Catholic writers long before the Protestant Reformation.

For example Pope Gregory I (590-604) stated: “Moreover, I say confidently that anyone calling himself universal bishop, or desires to be so called, shows himself, by this self-exaltation, to be the forerunner of the antichrist because by this display of pride he sets himself superior to others.” This was the same Gregory who, apparently, refused the title pope given to him in 604 by the Roman emperor Phocas.

This was of course before the time of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, over the whole church.
Later in 991, Arnulf, Bishop of Orleans, mourned the state of the church declaring: “Reverend Fathers, who do you regard this man to be who sits on such a lofty throne? For there is no doubt that if he is destitute of charity, and if he is proud by virtue of his own intellect, then he is the antichrist sitting in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Eberhard, Bishop of Salzburg in 1242 made reference to Pope Gregory IX as: “That morally depraved man whom they are accustomed to call the antichrist, upon whose forehead is written the name of contempt. . . .” It was, therefore, natural that the writers of the Westminster
Confession of 1643-1647 followed the language of their Roman theological predecessors. They did not intend any offence by the use of this term Antichrist. Nor did they regard it, in the words of the Dean of St Patrick’s, as “unhelpful name-calling”.

Those who adhere to reformed theology today and use this term, I am sure, equally intend no offence. Though I can understand how many Catholics find it offensive, when they are unaware of the general use of the term within their own church in the past. The term antichrist did
not have its origins among the fundamentalist Protestants of the “black North”, or even the so-called heretics of the Protestant Reformation. Blame the popes - they started it.

Brian Kennaway is Presbyterian minister at Crumlin in Belfast and former education convenor of the Orange Order. He is author of The Orange Order: A Tradition Betrayed

© 2008 The Irish Times

The Mahon Tribunal has already conclusively established that there were mysterious dollar donations sloshing around the upper reaches of the Fianna Fail party in 1994 and in close proximity to then Minister of Finance Bertie Ahern at the same time that the American firm Ogden was backing a proposal by businessman Norman Turner to build a large casino in the Phoenix Park.

Isn't that enough for the US Department of Justice to start looking at whether there was a breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Leabhar mór atá in The Legacy of History: Lectures and Commemorative Addresses (Mercier Press) le Martin Mansergh, Teachta Dála de chuid Fhianna Fáil agus comhairleoir rialtais ar feadh i bhfad. Tá beagnach 500 leathanach ann má chuirtear na nótaí agus tagairtí san áireamh. Bíodh sin mar atá, níor cheart go gcuirfeadh toirt an imleabhair eagla ar dhuine ar bith nó, mar a thugann an fotheideal le fios, is cnuasach léachtaí agus óráidí comórtha atá anseo, rud a chiallaíonn gur scríobhadh na píosaí agus lucht éisteachta i gceist.

Féadaim a rá go raibh mé féin i láthair nuair a thug Mansergh ceann de na léachtaí seo ar an Mhullach Bán, Co Ard Mhacha, tá cúpla bliain ó shin. Bhí teacht i láthair deas aige agus ba léir go raibh an-eolas aige agus an-oiliúint air ach níor lig sé don eolas nó don oiliúint an lámh in uachtar a fháil air – labhair sé leis an lucht éisteachta go measúil. Ní raibh sé ag maíomh as a chuid eolais ach á roinnt agus á roinnt ar bhealach umhal agus tá na dea-thréithe sin le sonrú sna haistí ar fad.

Tá an leabhar líon lán le léachtaí den chineál poiblí seo; tá roinnt léirmheasanna leabhair ann agus roinnt óráidí – sa traidisiún poblachtánach – a tugadh cois uaighe. Níl an saothar báite le fonótaí agus is dócha go mbeidh staraithe ann nach dtaitneoidh sin leo ach don neach aisteach sin, an gnáthléitheoir (agus tá mé féin ar dhuine acu), éascaíonn sé an léitheoireacht.

Is é an cineál leabhair é a n-aimsíonn tú ábhar fiúntach ann gach aon uile uair a n-osclaíonn tú é. Mar shampla, tá caibidil amháin ag Mansergh ar fhealsúnacht na staire agus trí aiste thar a bheith spéisiúil ar ról an staraí agus na staire; tá aistí eile aige ar Wolfe Tone, Éirí Amach 1798, ar an Ord Buí, Thomas Davis, Charles Stuart Parnell, Pádraig Mac Piarais, Erskine Childers, Liam Lynch gan ach dornán a lua. Déanann sé cur síos íogair ar chuid de na daoine a mhúnlaigh cúrsaí polaitíochta agus cultúir sa Stát seo, cuirim i gcás, Todd Andrews, Elizabeth Bowen, Lemass, agus tá rannóg ar leith aige a bhaineann leis an Tuaisceart, na Stailceanna Ocrais agus leis na dúshláin atá roimh lucht leanúna Gerry Adams sa lá atá inniu ann.

Ceann de na buanna is mó atá ag an údar a chumas daoine móra le rá a mhair a chur i láthair an léitheora le go dtuigeann sé gur dhaoine iad a raibh orthu roghanna deacra a dhéanamh agus brú bocht orthu. Tógaimis, mar shampla, an aiste ar Parnell. Éiríonn le Mansergh an duine, a lucht tacaíochta agus a naimhde a chur os comhair do shúl go han-éifeachtach. Is scéal thar a bheith casta é saol Parnell ach thuigfeá as saothar Mansergh na príomhcheistanna agus na príomhchonspóidí a bhain lena ré pholaitiúil; tuigeann tú cur agus cúiteamh imeachtaí a linne.

Tá bua sin na hachoimre le sonrú i mórán eile aistí. Tá na haistí ar ról an phoblachtánais i dtír Chríostaí thar a bheith sonraíoch – agus nuair a labhrann Mansergh ar an phoblachtánas, ní hiad na Sealadaigh atá i gceist aige ach traidisiún a pháirtí féin, Fianna Fáil. Tugann sé léargas ar an ról a shamhlaíonn sé bheith ag Eaglais na hÉireann in “Ag cruthú ré nua tuigse agus muiníne”. Is ball de chuid na heaglaise sin é agus creideann sé gur ní deimhneach é an Chríostaíocht in Éirinn, dearcadh nach bhfuil faiseanta ar chor ar bith ar na saolta seo, ach tuilleann téis Mansergh éisteacht. Amharcann sé ar an Chríostaíocht mar thraidisiún saibhir grámhar léannta, traidisiún a chuireann le maith phobal na hÉireann. Chun glóire Dé agus onóra na hÉireann, más mian leat.

Ba spéis liomsa mar Ultach Caitliceach na haistí ar an Ord Buí agus ar stair Chath na Bóinne. Duine de na daoine a luann sé sa tréimhse sin nach raibh eolas ar bith agam air Liam an Tosta, prionsa san Ísiltír a feallmharaíodh ar orduithe Philib a Dó na Spáinne – an rí céanna a loic ar Aodh Mór Ó Néill ar deireadh. Fear a bhí i Liam an Tosta a bhí leathanaigeanta, a chreid gur cheart go mbeadh cead ag gach aon duine san Ísiltír – idir Chaitlicigh agus Phrotastúnaigh – a gcreideamh féin a chleachtadh saor ó bhagairt. B’amhlaidh a bhí an scéal le linn dó bheith ag troid in éadan Philib ach níor fhág a dhearcadh lorg, faraor, ar an fhear a tháinig ina dhiaidh, fear na Bóinne agus múrphictiúir Bhéal Feirste. Fiafraíonn Mansergh cén cor a chuirfí i stair na hÉireann dá maireadh Liam an Tosta agus dá ndéanfaí rí na hÍsiltíre agus na Breataine de.

Ar ndóigh, fear de chuid Fhianna Fáil é Mansergh. Fear páirtí go smior atá ann agus is cinnte nach mbeidh gach aon duine ar aon fhocal leis faoi na buanna a fheiceann sé ag a pháirtí féin nó a gcuid ceannairí. Ní bheidh gach náisiúntóir sa Tuaisceart chomh tugtha sin leis an chur síos báúil a thugann sé ar rialtas Jack Lynch agus iad ag déileáil leis na Trioblóidí ag tús na 70í. Ní bheidh poblachtánaigh de shliocht Ruairí Uí Bhrádaigh ar a gcompord lena dhearcadh ar a gcuid polaitíochta in “Tom Maguire and the Stretching of Republican Legitimacy” agus ní bheidh an DUP sásta leis an dóigh a lonnaíonn sé an creideamh Protastúnach i gcomhthéacs Éireannach uile-oileánda. Ní bheidh lucht cáinte Cathail Uí Eochaidh sásta lena chur síos cineálta ar an iar-thaoiseach. Dálta iar-uachtarán na Fraince, Francois Mitterand, tá smál ar chlú Uí Eochaidh ach maireann a chuid éachtaí ar fad, a scríobhann Mansergh.

Ach mholfainn do gach duine ar spéis leis polaitíocht na hÉireann na haistí ar stair agus ar cheannairí Fhianna Fáil a léamh nó tá siad ar chur síos chomh maith ar thuigse thraidisiúnta an pháirtí orthu féin agus a gheobhaidh tú. (Tugann Mansergh moladh ar leith d’Éamon de Valera as an fhís a bhí aige mar pholaiteoir ar feadh a shaoil.)

Stair na bhfear uasal atá anseo don mhórchuid, rud a léiríonn nádúr fearúil na gcumann staire agus scoileanna samhraidh, is dócha. Luaitear mná, Anna Parnell, deirfiúr Charles Stuart agus Matilda Tone, bean Wolfe Tone, ach is ar éigean a thuilleann mná tagairt thairis sin. Tá eisceacht amháin ann – Elizabeth Bowen, an scríbhneoir, agus, arís eile, tugann Mansergh an-léargas uirthi agus ar an aicme agus ar an ré lenar bhain sí.

Níl a iúl ar chúrsaí Gaeilge nó Gaeltachta (cé go bhfuil corrthagairt di thall is abhus) agus níl mé ag iarraidh an léirmheas seo a imphléascadh go cúrsaí teanga.. Ach rith rud amháin liom – tugadh bunús na gcainteanna seo ar chuireadh ó chumainn staire agus eagrais éagsúla cultúir. Nár mhaith dá n-iarrfaí eagras Gaeilge air caint a thabhairt ar oidhreacht na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta, fiú más i mBéarla féin a dhéanfadh sé í? Bhí Cathal Ó hEochaidh ina Aire Gaeltachta a fhad agus a bhí Mansergh ag plé leis agus ní bheadh sé aineolach ar an ábhar. B’fhiú a leithéid a chluinstin; thabharfadh sé ábhar machnaimh.

Foilsíodh an léirmheas seo ar Foinse roimhe

A couple of interesting points arise from today’s Irish News report on the comments by Northern Ireland Regional Development minister, Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy, on Radio Ulster yesterday - as noted here. The first comes via a footnote to the report

n An article in yesterday’s Irish News incorrectly suggested that Sinn Fein councillor Colman Burns had spoken to Mr Quinn’s family.

Well if it was incorrect to suggest that, then we should go to the apparent source of the suggestion confusion, Sinn Féin councillor Colman Burns

“The information supplied to the family by the PSNI identified no specific organisation as to the source of the threat. The family told me that no purpose would be served by publicity of any kind in relation to this threat. We agreed to abide by their wishes.”

More below the fold. Adds As Rapunsel has pointed out in the comment zone, Cllr Burns is actually referring to the family of the man who received this latest threat. Updated below

Another point is the comments of Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy on consistency

Speaking on Radio Ulster yesterday, Mr Murphy, pictured, said he stood over the allegation that Mr Quinn’s death had been linked to criminality.

“I can say that I made my analysis on what happened here honestly on the information which was available to me at the time - I have been consistent in that analysis,” he said.

“If others have not been consistent, that is a matter for them.

“I can stand over my analysis at the time and I still believe that to be the case.”

Mr Murphy said Mr Quinn had never been charged with any crime but added: “We made an assessment of what the young man was involved with.

“We made a very honest assessment at the time. We are consistent in that assessment.

“I have heard nothing to make me change my mind.”

Except that, at a time when Sinn Féin were asking the family “to re-consider their position and meet with [Sinn Féin] party leader Gerry Adams”, another Sinn Féin councillor, Terry Hearty, issued a statement in which he claimed that Gerry Adams had written to the family “almost two months ago” and that in the letter

He [Adams] also assured the Quinn family that he had at no time said anything that should be construed as labelling Paul Quinn a criminal.

That statement no longer appears to be available on the Sinn Féin website.. Adds But, in the comment zone, Ian points to the letter being quoted in this report

However, [in the letter] Adams continued: “I note from some press reports that Paul’s father is reported as accusing me of ‘blackening’ your son’s name with allegations of criminality. I wish to assure you that at no point have I said anything which should be misconstrued in this way.”

Although, as I noted at the time, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ statement from the 22 October, less than 48 hours after Paul Quinn was killed is, however, still there.

[Gerry Adams on 22 October] “I do not believe that there was any republican involvement in this murder.

“This murder is in our view linked to fuel smuggling involving criminals.”

Once again then, “It’s far better people tell the truth on the thing..”

Of course, that requires some clarity of vision..

And, as has been mentioned in connection to another recent event - “Justice is the glue that holds society together.”

A quick note. The Daily Roundup for today will be out at 3pm. I have been unavoidably delayed by a boiler crisis.  

Gorgeous. How to deal with “honkers” at a crossing. Via Sparklematrix. Tags: video, funny video, old man, pedestrian rights

Why every time I watch Alex Salmond make a speech, do I think of a …   …. space hopper?   Tags: Lookalike, Humour, Humourous, Double Trouble, Lookalike, Humour, Start the Day, alex salmon mp, scottish executive, snp, scottish government, scottish parliament

Karl Rove, who for some reason is being given space on the Wall Street Journal opinion page --

Both Democrats and Republicans are in spirited and, at times, heated contests. The difference is Democrats are running a nasty race that has as its subtext race and gender. The Republican race, on the other hand, is a serious debate about serious ideas. Over the last several months, we have been seeing men who represent different strands within the GOP battle each other.

The logic appears to be that since the Democrat race features a white woman and a black man, there's a "subtext" of race and gender, while since the Republican race is all white guys in suits, those issues by definition can't arise.

The