Irish Political News

John O’Neill of the Irish Socialist Network forwarded me this news story (available on the Marxmail site) which encapsulates the major themes that face the United States today.

As John says:

I believe it embodies all that’s wrong in the US; Greedy multinationals, the lack of Health Care, The legal system and so on. It also has another dimension, highlighting the American working class sacrifice for the “war on terror”. I wonder how the ‘moral majority’ feel about a man who has to divorce for his wife to get healthcare. Not to mention the pillars of society, the legal profession who took $583,000 in fees out of a $1 million settlement. It is tragic beyond belief.

It certainly is an imperfect storm that has led to unconscionable outcomes…

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) — Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000. Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son’s funeral — she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead — she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home. It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

The Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling — but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

“They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad,” Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank’s case “unbelievably sad,” replied in a statement: “Wal-Mart’s plan is bound by very specific rules. … We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank’s case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.”

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception. “My idea of a win-win is — you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife,” he said.

The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He’s afraid he won’t be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie’s care. “Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

The family’s attorney agrees. “The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering,” Graham said. “She’ll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses.”

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust — far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case. Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there’s nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he’s disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case — not for the sake of his family — but for those who might face similar circumstances. For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and “do the best we can for Debbie.”

“Luckily, she’s oblivious to everything,” he said. “We don’t tell her”

What is most difficult to understand is the way that Wal-Mart feels that it is correct to claw back money in the event that those in their scheme get other monies additional to that paid out by Wal-Mart. How this impacts on the “fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan” remains unexplained.

Pressure of work means I can only refer to this briefly, but there is a good interview at Indymedia about the Irish Left Review conducted by Chekov with the editor of the ILR, Donagh Brennan (also of Dublin Opinion). As you may know there is a contribution from the Cedar Lounge on the ILR which is only recently established.

I think the ILR is a great opportunity to build up a discussion in a perhaps more considered way than general blogging about what it means to be on the Irish Left. This latest iteration of it has an interesting essay by Michael Taft on strategies for the Left coming up to the Local Elections, previously there has been what I’d consider an important article by Alex Klemm on how the left must engage with immigrants during this period too (and interestingly I know for a fact that Fianna Fáil are already producing Polish language electoral leaflets). Stephanie discussed women and their representation and participation in the Irish political system. Conor McCabe wasn’t afraid to talk about class (something far too many people on the social democratic and democratic socialist left appear to be unwilling to do). You get a cinema column written by Seanachie (from France - somewhere cinema still means something) and I even had a piece… So it’s all good.

But Donagh (accompanied by a photograph from the Sunday Tribune - lucky man) made a number of points in the interview that really resonate.

He noted that he started blogging:

…mainly to stop fuming quietly while reading stuff online and to order my thoughts and give them some focus. I also started up a group blog and although it was only mainly me at the beginning, the aim was to have a place where me and some of my mates could sharpen our ideas, and do so in a more elegant and sartorial style than we were capable of down the pub. One friend I hoped to rope in is living in France and a blog seemed like the perfect way to get us all doing something together again.

This sense of powerlessness and the necessity to analyse in a critical fashion is central to these projects. If I recall correctly it was Neil Postman who in Amusing Ourselves to Death (still a good read today although it’s a tad dated being first printed in 1985) suggested that one of the reasons that the middle classes (and for that read a much broader spread than that definition suggests) are such voracious consumers of news media is because although they only rarely have direct links into the process of government or politics believe that by being aware of current events, political and otherwise, it gives them psychological comfort and a sense of control -which is, he points out, entirely illusory. Well, perhaps we’re all part of that shared delusion too, but I think that true or not, one of the defining aspects of this short period of blogging has been the way in which while allowing preposterous claims to be made it has also acted as a means of finessing opinions and beliefs. If nothing else that is of value.

And what is a useful process on the individual level is clearly essential on the level of political formations and structures, particularly those on the left in a context where consumerism, commercialism and individualism of one stripe or another dominate our public discourse.
This is even more true in a society where the left has never, not once, been the leading component in any government. And that means that the left has to work together… a tall order but one worth pursuing. Or as Donagh says:

 The consensual point of view was that Left wing parties (basically Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens, being the largest Left wing or ‘progressive’ parliamentary parties) should act together and work towards a situation where they are no longer the poor relations of Irish politics, expected only to be the support act in a right-wing lead coalition. The suggestion being that they can work together to become a significant political block in their own right.

That’s something that chimes not merely with the broad approach of the Cedar Lounge but other blogs as well. So the logic, a collective logic, is to work together.

Still, one point that I hadn’t considered was the idea that there are really very very few left wing blogs in Ireland (north and south). That, though, is something for another day’s consideration.

It being a holiday the Left Archive post which would usually be out today will be posted tomorrow with a guest contribution from Michael Taft of Notes on the Front discussing… well, you’ll see yourself… let’s just say it was a key document in the political life of our leading left formation…

It’s a small thing in the greater scheme, isn’t it? But I can’t help feeling that the reports about David Cameron evoke a sense of schadenfreude:

Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised after being photographed ignoring red lights and cycling the wrong way up a one-way street. Pictures in the Daily Mirror newspaper showed the politician breaching traffic rules as he cycled to work.

“I know it is important to obey traffic laws - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry,” Mr Cameron said in a statement.

Campaigners criticised him though some blamed poor regulation and signage.

Also got to love the idea of Map of Mr Cameron’s bicycle route from the piece. Helping us to avoid Cameron - eh? Thoughtful.

The piece continues with the following:

But the pictures merely highlighted the difficulties the average London cyclist faced, said cycling campaign group CTC.

“It shows what an ass cycling regulation [and] traffic management is in this country at the moment… we campaign in CTC for things like opening up one-way streets, which are allowed all over Europe,” said director Kevin Mayne.

“[Mr Cameron] is a yard in front of the white line in front of the Houses of Parliament - frankly, that’s where I’d go to get away from the cars, he was hardly jumping the light,” he said.

He added that the story had also highlighted how difficult signage was for cyclists in London.

On a serious level I have to disagree. I cycle every day, in and out of work and elsewhere, and the truth is that there is some terrible, and occasionally stupid, cycling out there. It’s rife and part of the problem is that cyclists seem to think that the moral authority of not utilising hydro-carbons is sufficient to inure them from all criticism. Indeed I agree entirely with the following…

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, criticised Mr Cameron.

“It is essential that all road users, including cyclists, obey traffic laws. The laws are there for everybody’s safety and, as always, it is disappointing when someone in the public eye sets a bad example,” he said.

Road safety charity Brake stressed that all road users, including cyclists, needed to observe traffic rules.

“People are dying on the roads every day and we can’t afford to become complacent,” a spokeswoman said.

“As a role model, Mr Cameron must be aware that if he does break [the rules], it is going to send out the wrong message to those he hopes to inspire.”

Not a great week for Obama to judge from the latest polling data. According to Gallup Clinton has moved into a ’significant’ lead over Obama.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

And on the national?

Gallup said polling data also showed McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters’ preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant.

Now all of this comes with major caveats. There is no election until much later in the year, and plenty of runway between now and then. Other polls show Clinton or Obama in the lead, as with the CBS and CNN polls from earlier in the week. So the major concern that the Republicans are in a stronger position than the Democrats is as yet unrealised. Still, is a tough campaign of the sort we’re experiencing good or bad for the nominees when they finally meet McCain. At least they’ll be tested one might suggest.

And yet, not an awful week either. Bill Richardson is said to have endorsed Obama according to reuters.com. Good for Obama because as noted by reuters:

Richardson’s endorsement has been fiercely sought by both Obama and his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in part because as a Hispanic he is seen as influential within the Latino community, which could be a key voting bloc in the November presidential election.

Hispanics, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate, largely backed Clinton in nominating contests on “Super Tuesday,” with exit polls showing her winning two-thirds of the Latino vote in several states.

Meanwhile there is the bizarre, but not entirely unexpected story about how contract workers (yeah, sure) at the State Department ‘improperly’ looked at Obama’s passport records three times.

The State Department said its initial assessment was that three workers in separate offices looked at the records out of “imprudent curiosity” rather than any political motivation but that it had requested an investigation into the matter.

The incidents, which occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14, were quickly reported to lower-level State Department officials but only came to the notice of its senior management when a reporter e-mailed spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday.

Two of the three contract workers were fired as soon as the unauthorized viewing of Obama’s files was discovered, while the third has been disciplined but still works for a contractor who has business with the State Department.

That they were in a position to do so is disquieting. That these are regarded as firing offences is not so much. Problem is it seems to me - from the Obama campaign point of view - it plays into a narrative that seems to be developing of Obama as ‘other’.

Forcing him back onto the terrain of ‘race’ where the more lofty rhetoric warps in the face of embedded prejudices and fears has left him a more defensive figure than previously. Still, I can’t help but feel that it was inevitable. At some point or another either with a rival Democratic candidate or with McCain this would have to be dealt with. His “A More Perfect Union” speech of the 18th of March may have gone some way to assisting in that endeavour.

For someone who is more than comfortable with rhetoric it was pretty direct. And it’s admirable to see a candidate who understand the difference between disagreeing with and disowning another.

I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe

The cynic in me wonders if we’re looking at a near Clintonesque example of triangulation. Still. Maybe not.

On the other hand the controversy over Reverend Wright and his comments has been enormously problematic. That some leading Republicans have had no great problem embracing and being embraced by pastors and religious figures with often scarifying socio-political programmes and pronouncements is of little comfort in the immediate hurly burly of a campaign. And for those of us who tot up such things consider this on Salon which makes some pertinent comparisons between others who have been intemperate or worse in their language and their relationship and acceptance by Republican candidates. Or indeed - and let me indulge in a carnival of whataboutery here - this? Certainly if this becomes the defining aspect of the Obama campaign it will be difficult not to regard it as a submerged racial attack of sorts.

How this debate is impacting on the polls for better or worse is an important, but so far unanswerable, question. The Gallup poll couldn’t register an - if any - effect. A Rasmussen poll held on 16-19th of March had Obama and Clinton on 42% and 41% respectively but with McCain on 49% and 51% to the other two. The trend is evident. Obama continues to slide. Clinton continues to consolidate and McCain is there or thereabouts. Do speeches staunch political wounds?
We’ll see.

Was any man more blessed in the music and images for his send-off? On Channel4 News they announced Arthur C. Clarke’s departure with the iconic clip, the swelling strings of Thus Spoke Zarathustra above the image of Sun Earth and Moon from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Well, if there’s an afterlife chances are he knows everything worth knowing now. He died at the age of 90. It’s a funny thing. He is one of those who achieved iconic status in a time when the international media was on the cusp of maturing, one of those people, one thinks of Carl Sagan, and Patrick Moore to a lesser extent, who were able to popularise science in a way which made them stars with near global reputations, and yet they were also clearly grounded in science and engineering. To some degree these were the tribunes of the space age, and their names are inextricably linked with it. And there are oddities too, because through the Kubrick connection there was a link not merely into popular culture but into some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of that culture (although one suspects that was as much a surprise to Kubrick as Clarke). It was their shared vision in 2001 that was to be the template for what many of us supposed the future would look like. That it hasn’t turned out quite like that has been… a … disappointment, but I don’t blame them.

Clarke, it is perhaps not widely known, was very much a political and social liberal and humanist, perhaps best expressed in his fiction in the sub-plot in 2010 about US/USSR confrontation. Indeed there’s a fascinating story in his biography about how a heated argument between him and a group including Robert Heinlein and Edward Teller in the 1980s saw him leaving the meeting, his internationalism as nothing against their boosterism of the Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars). He thought, rightly, that SDI was destabilising, and even his profound attachment to manned space flight was insufficient to convince him otherwise.

As to the writing? Well, I still think his early novels hold up extremely well, from a Fall of Moondust onwards… that said they are a trifle pedestrian. His mid period novels from the 1970s such as Rendezvous with Rama to the Fountains of Paradise are perhaps his best positing a reasonably plausible future development in space, but towards the end the novels became increasingly episodic with shorter and shorter chapters. That said he also collaborated on various novels, and while the successors to Rama with Gentry Lee always seemed bloated his more recent series with the excellent Stephen Baxter are strong - if flawed - works. In some ways his short stories are more interesting, ideas based and concise and with a surprising amount of humour.

A good and decent human being who always retained the burr of his original Somerset accent. He’ll be missed.

And as Starkadder of these parts noted on P.ie it’s not been a good time recently for Science Fiction or Fantasy, for Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with a premature form of Alzheimers’ disease. Pratchett is a remarkable writer whose work is much more complex and thoughtful than his chosen genre might seem to indicate. There is something utterly admirable about his determination to continue much as before.

The danger with investigations is that they tend to arrive at unexpected places. Take the Mahon Tribunal. For the last while now we have seen an enormously discomfited Bertie Ahern. But, perhaps that’s a little dull. Perhaps we’ve heard it all - or at least whatever version is now current - one time too many. And so, it’s time for a change. And what better to provide it than… well hold on.

Let me preface this by saying that local government was murky - almost beyond comprehension - in the 1970s through to the 1990s (and although demonstrably less bad today we are hardly living through a time of unalloyed perfection), that it appears that many individuals from a variety of backgrounds and parties were involved in negotiations, meetings and suchlike that at the very least appear disquieting at this remove. Broadly speaking the left and Green parties acted in a way which was laudable. Broadly speaking others acted… well.. consider this (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0312/1205104654051.html) from the Irish Times:

MAHON TRIBUNAL: FORMER TAOISEACH John Bruton was notified by councillors of a complaint that a Fine Gael member had sought a £250,000 payment for his support of the Quarryvale development just days before Mr Bruton’s counsel said to the planning tribunal that he had no knowledge of the matter, it was claimed yesterday.

Fine Gael councillor Therese Ridge told the tribunal that she and Olivia Mitchell TD had been “hauled in” to Mr Bruton’s office after a newspaper article appeared about the allegation against a Dublin County Council member, the late Tom Hand, on April 14th, 2000.

Which shouldn’t be a problem, should it? They continued…

Both women provided statements to Mr Bruton saying that the lobbyist Frank Dunlop had claimed he had been asked for the money in 1993.

At the time, Mr Dunlop was employed by Cork developer Owen O’Callaghan to promote Quarryvale, which later became the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre.

Mr Hand had also provided Mr Dunlop with the number of a bank account in Australia into which he could pay the money, which was subsequently found to exist.

Except… not everyone is on message…

Ms Ridge said she had advised Mr Dunlop to contact the Garda and Mr Bruton.

Counsel for the tribunal Patricia Dillon SC said that on April 19th, after the two women informed Mr Bruton of the allegation, his counsel gave his position to the tribunal in public session.

“Counsel on behalf of Fine Gael said to the tribunal . . . ‘Mr Bruton continues to deny very vehemently any suggestion that he was ever informed of an attempt of bribery by a named Fine Gael councillor’,” Ms Dillon said.

Ms Ridge agreed that she had the meeting with Mr Bruton about the allegation prior to him instructing his counsel to make that statement to the tribunal.

The story dips a toe into the bizarre…

The tribunal learned of the two councillors’ information to Mr Bruton after a copy of Ms Mitchell’s handwritten statement was found in the car park of Leinster House by a Fianna Fáil chauffeur on April 18th, 2000, and forwarded to them. Included on the statement were notes made by Ms Ridge about her recollections of talking to Mr Dunlop.

Found by a chauffeur in the car park of Leinster House? A Fianna Fáil chauffeur… It’s sort of like something falling off the back of a political lorry, isn’t it?

Ms Ridge said Ms Mitchell may have asked her to check that “she had the same” in her own statement.

A good question from the Tribunal…

Tribunal member Judge Gerald Keyes asked Ms Ridge why she did not inform the Garda about the allegation against Mr Hand when they were investigating corruption in Dublin County Council in 1993.

He pointed out that the chairman of the council at the time, former Labour leader Pat Rabbitte, had written to councillors to ask them to co-operate with the investigation. “Did it ever cross your mind that you should have said to the inspector ‘I think you may be assisted if you go and speak to Frank Dunlop’?” he asked. Ms Ridge said it did not.

Her reason?

She said she was not a “conduit for scandal”, adding: “Why should I be a messenger to make an eejit and a fool of myself, and a liar of myself perhaps?”

Ms Ridge said when Mr Dunlop first mentioned the allegation she thought it was “amazing, unbelievable and even quite hilarious”. She was disturbed that she was now being penalised “for having the good sense not to take somebody’s character without proof”.

I think, being entirely serious for a moment, that her explanation actually makes some sense. It wasn’t quite omerta out there about such matters, but close enough. Why put yourself through the wringer when ‘everyone was’ allegedly ‘at it’? And then again how to tell who was or wasn’t. Again, not necessarily a culture of fear, but certainly the sort of thing to stay the hand before doing something precipitous… like going to the relevant authorities. Everyone knew, but as is the way with such things (and as we’ve seen in recent years) getting hard proof is much more difficult. Which points to the absolute necessity to have clearly defined ethical regulatory frameworks in all parts of our government, representation bodies and public service (not to mention the private sector, but that’s another days work).

Fascinating to note that…

Ms Ridge accepted that she received £1,000 from Mr Dunlop in November 1992, but said this was a political donation and not for her support of the Quarryvale development. She denied that she received a further £500 in January 1993.

No doubt, Fianna Fáil are happy that their leader is out of the spotlight. Not for long though I’ll bet. And let’s consider for a moment that when we talk about certain sorts of political culture, we’re talking about something that involves many more than individuals and requires systemic root and branch efforts to deal with it…

Still, it’s quite a tale I think you’ll agree. I look forward to hearing more like it…

I was a bit surprised to discover yesterday that Politics.ie is still offline.

But a moments thought makes it clear why it might be. The issue points to a reality about the internet which is sometimes forgotten. P.ie isn’t a commercial concern in the usual sense of the word. It may indeed be one of the great Irish political resources, but despite the resources it has it’s not the Irish Times or the Guardian. A volunteerist ethos informs much of its activities, making it difficult to respond on a technical level to serious issues immediately. It’s a salutary reminder of how ‘thin’ this whole edifice is. And because it is - essentially - volunteerist there are limits to the human and other capital available when something serious happens. Running an operation like that is a near full time task, the idea that it might have a back up ready to roll into operation is close to an absurdity. In fact this points to the limitations of volunteerism. So much internet activity depends upon the participation - freely given - of many people. Remove that participation and the enterprise folds, at least in the short term.

And one of the great illusions that the internet fosters is the sense that everything is easy. In part that is because the front end, the actual web pages, are to all intents and purposes near identical. Sure, you can spend a lot of money and have bells and whistles in the form of animations and suchlike, but at the end of the day the award winning Guardian website is not substantially different to something that cost considerably less. Indeed, one could argue that the simpler the better (and the Guardian website for all its virtues is no picnic to navigate around). But this similarity masks a greater complexity. The Guardian is updated continually. Slate and Salon likewise. Politics.ie is also updated around the clock, but the material is generated by users rather than by providers. The framework within which it operates is much more complex than is commonly thought. And this fits into a broad range of activities that typify the unpleasantly termed Web 2.0.

So much of what we use the web for, information, discussion, news, is framed within much more fragile constructs than we tend to realise. And even the larger constructs, those Guardians and Irish Times are not beyond attack or subversion. I’m struck by how much has gone even in the decade or so that I’ve been involved. Blogs that pulled me onto the net have often changed completely or vanished. They’ll not be back.

And yet while fragile and ephemeral none of these are marginal to our lives. We are living through the first time in history where information is available in a truly dispersed and near immediate fashion. I’m struck by how relatively easily it is to find information on topics which even ten years ago were broadly speaking difficult to find. The Spanish election at the weekend is a case in point. Now, with a little help from ejh and others, it is possible to discover information on the minor parties of the left which at one point would have been given at best a sentence or two in the Guardian. For those of us for whom such parties are our spiritual if not actual political home this is crucial to the development of our politics.

That is perhaps why, even when P.ie is infuriating, it remains essential. Noise to signal may often tend to the former, but the signal is still in there and it remains a part of a meta-debate that we all engage in. Meanwhile according to a slightly less than even tempered discussion on Indymedia http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86559 ‘hackers’ are blamed as potentially why the site went down. I find that a bit unlikely, but then, who knows?

Incidentally, cheers Starkadder for the mention. Much appreciated and I’d completely agree about the Phoenix article…

Garda Review is something I dip into every once in while. And arguably, so should you. Because it does provide an insight into at least some of the strands of thought that make up our police force, and whatever ones view on said force - and I’m probably more supportive than most - no harm to keep up to speed with them. It’s undergone something of a reformatting in recent years and is actually quite a glossy publication some 64 pages long and oddly reminiscent of nothing so much as History Ireland. No lack, incidentally, of advertising.

Anyhow, the contents are fairly varied. There is a piece on the new Garda Memorial to be constructed on a site in Dublin Castle, which frankly is a good idea, not least because it will actually be in a publicly accessible area, close to the Chester Beatty Museum. There is another on concealed weapons which is sort of scarifying, did you know about the uses to which credit cards and razor blades can be put to when combined? I’ll bet you did - at least on an intuitive level, but seeing it in print… (although some proof-reading wouldn’t go amiss, the heading ‘Consealed weapons’ on the pages was unnecessarily jarring).

Some analysis of legal matters relating to Garda duties in the form of an article about the necessity or otherwise of seeking consent of a detained person to the taking of fingerprints as against invoking a statutory procedure. My reading of the article was that the former was acceptable under law. Interesting.

And then a scatter of articles including one on traffic congestion and the concept of ’shared space’ where vehicles and pedestrians are allowed to use a space together, which apparently cuts down on accident rates because it forces road users to be more careful, and speeds are naturally much lower. I’m not entirely convinced, one only has to see errant cyclists on pedestrianised streets to see the dangers implicit in such approaches. But the case is strongly made and some support is given by the DTO who argue that there are already shared spaces in Dublin. Mind you, this being Garda review I was entertained to see the phrase that this was ‘not radical hippy thinking’…and later a quote from a proponent of shared space who also stated that ‘this isn’t hippy thinking’. Perish the thought.

If anything the scope of the articles merely reinforces the sense of the Gardai as a pan-societal entity with many many different roles. But the sense of it as an historical entity as well with strong roots in the establishment of the state is quite remarkable. And here contemporary resonances chime. For there is a piece by Dr. Leonard Durac (who has lectured in law in University Limerick) on the issue of an armed police force. He points to the fact that since the first Garda Commissioner, Michael Staines, underlined the necessity for an unarmed force… a stance that was:

essentially a pragmatic one, and was based upon his conviction that ‘the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives’.

One might argue that in a time of conflict - a civil war in fact - such a statement and approach was more courageous than it needed to be… but to some extent it rested on tradition of the Dublin Metropolitan Police which was, unlike the Royal Irish Constabulary, unarmed (that said the DMP had a fairly inglorious role during the 1913 Lock-Out, including baton charges which caused the death of two). The DMP actually survived the transition to independence in the form of the Políní Átha Cliath which were not subsumed into An Garda Síochána until 1925.

Durac notes that although:

..periodically there have been calls for the abandonment of the principle of unarmed policing, but specialist units aside, all such arguments have been resisted. In fact, the opposition of the officers themselves has been instrumental in the decision not to fully arm rank-and-file members. The reluctance of officers to carry firearms was traditionally thought to form part of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the criminal fraternity and successive generations of police..’

One wonders how accurate that last statement is, but even so, it does point to a societal narrative where an unarmed force is central to both the reality and image of policing. Even today with the armed Emergency Response Unit only has about 50 or so members - quite a tiny fraction of overall Garda strength. Nor does Durac ignore other realities… as with the ‘fallout from the Abbeylara incident, [which] caused significant damage to the image of the force. It also emphasized the dangers implicit in the deliberate Garda policy of minimising the armed capability of its members’.

He concludes by arguing that the introduction of a Garda Ombudsman Commission (to replace, as Durac notes the ‘discredited Garda Complaints Board’):

…also creates a framework within which the Garda authorities can potentially expand or augment the armed capacity of the force, without necessarily sacrificing the ‘golden inheritance’ of public trust and confidence that was borne of a routinely armed force.

There are, as most should be aware, questions over the role, function and capability of the Ombudsman Commission and one might wonder if the path to a proper implementation of same will be as smooth as Durac appears to posit. But broadly speaking from what contact I have with Garda members my own sense is that there is little enthusiasm for an armed force.

Still, the editorial is particularly telling on a rather different issue.

Under the heading “The Challenge Ahead” the editorial (which may in fact have been a speech by Garda Representative Association General Secretary P.J. Stone since he quoted verbatim from it at length subsequently argues that:

We were conned. For all the time, effort and money that we spent in creating a first class submission to the benchmarking body it came to nothing. A big round zero. To say that were gravely disappointed at this charade is putting it mildly.

It is abundantly clear that benchmarking was merely an illusionary exercise to retain a semblance of industrial harmony at a time when politicians, senior civil servants and heads of state commercial bodies awarded themselves exorbitant pay increases while they remained outside the process.

That this analysis accords with broader sentiment amongst public workers is hardly surprising. That the Gardai regard their situation in specific terms is no greater surprise:

We held the reasonable expectation [industrial relations mavens alert… such ‘reasonable expectations’ have floated more than one dispute to a reasonably happy conclusion in the past] that our members would be remunerated for their flexibility and resilience while undergoing significant changes to their working structures and conditions. They have not been rewarded for the efficiency with which they have adapted to these changes and for the extra workload they have been exposed to..The benchmarking charade failed to take into account the increasing dangers our members have to face daily. There is a real increase in the risk of major injury and even death. One of our members was shot on the streets four months ago; others have been stabbed since then.

And they make some reasonable points as regards: ‘it is now an accepted view that our vocation was compared directly with private sector workers significantly more skilled than we were benchmarked against in 2002…Every member of the Force passing through the Garda College is now required to possess a degree qualification; yet this has gone unrewarded.’

And the anomalous situation as regards their ability to pursue industrial action is addressed, as is their dependence upon the wider industrial relations struggle…

We must now wait to see how the wider trade union movement reacts to the 0% increases and whether we should pursue the option of opting out of the next national wage agreement. The same old demands haven’t gone away. We are excluded from the discussions leading into a national pay agreement, because we are not a de factor trade union covered by Congress. We are closed out…
A third benchmarking exercise is a possibility in the future. After this one, we would need serious convincing that it would be anything other than a shameless farce emanating from the government.

It is a curious situation, isn’t it? The language here is absolutely typical of any other sector of working people. Indeed, here we have a body of people who have a ‘representative association’ which is essentially powerless to implement its industrial muscle. That they use the language of industrial action, of unionism is, I guess, a victory of sorts for our hegemonic project… As it happens the situation in the UK over the past number of months where a newly unionised prison officers sought to flex its muscles and in doing so was pushed back by government is instructive. States appear instinctively cautious about allowing self-organisation of armies or police… even, as in the Irish case, where such groups are effectively unarmed. It’s hardly a surprise, because even beyond the issue of social control, police forces are asked (or put in the position) of acting as a de facto social service.

This of course is of no great help to An Garda Síochána in their current dispute. They face identical problems to other workers, and yet have no clear leverage. Ironically they must, like all other workers, hope that Congress will do the business for them. One hopes they won’t be disappointed.

Depressing news today:

Threatening letters containing shotgun cartridges have been sent to two Government ministers and a number of fertility clinics around the country.

Minister for Health Mary Harney and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Micheál Martin, both received letters claiming to be from a previously unknown group, the Irish Citizens Defence Force.

It didn’t stop there…

A letter containing a live shotgun cartridge was also received by a number of fertility clinics, including the Clane Clinic in Kildare on the same day.

Management at the clinic told RTÉ News that it contained threats to staff and was deeply upsetting.

The clinic says it has taken precautions as a result of the letter.

The SIMS Fertility Clinic in Dundrum said it also received a device and letter.

And perhaps the most pertinent comment was:

Dr Tony Walsh of the SIMS fertility clinic said the event had been very upsetting for staff and pregnant women in the clinic at the time.

He described the sending of threatening letters and devices to fertility clinics around the country as an act of social terrorism.

He’s not far wrong.

As someone asked me, is it because we have no abortion clinics in the country so to get their thrills they go after the fertility clinics? While I don’t believe this represents anything more in itself than a pathetic act by some individual (Irish Citizens Defence Force, yeah, sure, most likely we can knock the ’s’ off the Citizen’s), it’s hard not to think that it fits into a discourse where extreme social conservatives are happy to take a lash at IVF and other areas because they are seen to be representative of social liberalism. Better still, because fertility issues seemingly undermine a purported ‘traditional’ nuclear family and that, therefore is bad. And no better example of this can be seen than the piece here and the enormously mean-spirited piece brought to you by those lovely people at the Iona institute to which it links (a group which it is probably worth taking a look at more closely).

Apart from making entirely inaccurate and unsupported statements, for example the underlying assumption that all IVF involves ‘donor’ eggs or sperm (they can do, and it’s something that on the sperm side has certainly been a facet of human experience for millennia, but the majority don’t) or that “Cases are already emerging of adopted children marrying only to discover they are siblings. With the rise of IVF, together with the more popular sperm donors fathering dozens of children, there is scope for such accidentally incestuous unions to increase exponentially”. Unfortunately in the case cited no proof was offered, no evidence brought forward and experts in the field argued that it was vanishingly impossible that any such case had happened (and incidentally, considering the worthies who align with the IONA institute, shouldn’t they be making a better case than that).

In other words ‘information’ culled from newspaper reports with no credible referencing which betrays a sort of fear of anything that moves away from some supposed norm. Furthermore it asserts without reference the idea that ‘alternative family forms’ necessarily lead to negative outcomes for children. Even were that entirely contestable notion correct how precisely in an enormously complex contemporary society are we to somehow role the clock back to this supposed golden age? But of course no such golden age existed. Whatever the complications and paradoxes of the present they are as nothing compared to the deceptions and hypocrisies of the past, particularly, but not exclusively in this country and on this island. So permit me a degree of cynicism when I hear the great and the good, and indeed the not so good in case of the ICDF, making their case. The thing about the present is it isn’t the past and there’s no going there again.

Although, as we see, some people think the threat of force and coercion is one route back.