The house of Salim and Arabiya Shawamreh has been demolished three times by the Israeli army over the past 14 years.
The Palestinian couple, with the help of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), have rebuilt the house three times. The last occasion was in 2001, when the house was designated as a peace centre.
Salim takes up the story of the struggle, he, his wife Arabiya and their six children have had to establish a home in Anata, East Jerusalem. “ I went by the book, applying three times for a building permit between 1990 and 1994. First, I was told I was outside the zone and planning area for the village,” said Salim, who revealed how the Israeli authorities continually push to keep Palestinians in the designated village areas so that the rest of the land is open for Israeli settlers.
The second time he applied, he was denied the permit because the authorities said the land sloped. “I could have flattened the area out very quickly with one of the bulldozers that they use to knock down our houses,” said Salim.
The third denial was because the authorities said there were two signatures missing on the application for a permit. A solicitor tried over several months to get details of the names but without success.
Every time Salim applied for the permit, it cost US$5,000. In the end Salim just got on and built his house. Things were ok for a while but then on 9 July 1998, there was a big commotion outside. “They had brought 300 soldiers to demolish our house. We were given 15 minutes to get out before the bulldozers moved in,” recalled Salim. “I protested and got kicked to the ground. My wife and children stayed inside the house and were attacked with teargas.”
The house was flattened. “We had planted 52 trees around the home. We had chickens and ducks,” said Salim. “The trees were cut down, the animals killed. We were left with nothing.”
The Red Cross gave the family a tent and the ICAHD came along. The family decided with the ICAHD to rebuild the house. The shell was up inside a month but then the army arrived again. “The soldiers came at 4 am in the morning with machine guns and bulldozers. The house was demolished for a second time and the tent taken. We were told we had to have permission for the tent from the Israeli authorities,” said Salim.
Israelis and Palestinians came together again to rebuild the house. It was completed on 9 July 1999. Two months passed and no demolition. The Shawamreh family moved in to the house. Then on 4 April 2001, they woke to find it once again surrounded by soldiers with two bulldozers. “The area was surrounded, the furniture thrown into the street and the house demolished,” said Salim.
The house was then rebuilt again. It was agreed with the ICAHD that it would be used as a peace centre. It was completed in July 2003 and has remained standing since that time, though a demolition order was placed on the propery in June 2009.
Arabiya recalled the problems that the children endured as a result of the demolition. “The children regressed at school. They had psychological problems, waking up in the night crying and screaming,” said Arabiya. The children who were young at the time of the demolitons were most severely effected, with her younger children doing better later at school. “I wish there could be peace and we could live normally,” said Arabiya.
The Israeli authorities have overseen the demolition of 24,000 homes, making 160,000 people homeless, since 1967. “Only 8 per cent of the demolitions are anything to do with security,” said Linda Ramsden, the director of ICAHD UK. “It is about dispossessing the Palestinian people, putting them into Bantustans.”
Linda explained how the ICAHD formed in 1997 from the peace movement in Israel. It was made up of those Israelis appalled at the way its government was treating the Palestinians. They went to the Palestinians and asked how they could help. The rebuilding of houses was agreed upon as the best thing they could do.
Linda explained how in the early days, the ICAHD would get notice of a house demolition and people would go to chain onto the building. “Now though the Israeli forces cordon off the street so we can’t get near to the houses, though we try to block the way,” said Linda, who revealed how this slowed the demolitons down and helped bring the actions to the attention of the international community.
The ICAHD has managed to rebuild 162 houses in the West Bank and east Jerusalem area over the past 13 years. Just 12 of these houses have been demolished by the Israeli authorities.
There have been casualties on the way with US citizen Rachel Corrie among those killed while undertaking the work.
The houses are rebuilt all of the time but the ICAHD has a focus on a summer camp that takes place over two weeks in July each year. At this time people come in from across the world to help with the work. Last year, some 43 Spanish people took part with the Spanish government paying for the whole project. This year there are people coming from the UK, US, Ireland, Spain and Switzerland for the camp. “The summer camps offer the opportunity to join with Israelis and Palestinians in rebuilding a house over two weeks. Then the house is handed over to the family,” said Linda.
Salim explains the house rebuilding programme very much in terms of political resistance. “We tell the families that maybe they will get their home, maybe not. They and us maybe arrested. The promise is that we will not leave them. If we have to rebuild the house ten times we will,” said Salim, who says the Israeli authorities think twice before attacking the area if they know there are people from other countries there supporting and doing the work. Salim recalled how the Israeli criticised the Spanish government over the housebuilding last year. “They have also tried to close down ICAHD and stop people sending money,” said Salim, who wants people in the UK to help the Palestinians to get justice. “We need to get this occupation off our backs. We would ask people to boycott Israeli goods because they are coming from the settlements. They are coming from stolen land, from the blood of the people,” said Salim.
* For more information see ICAHD UK, PO BOX 371 Leatherhead KT22 2EUTel: 05602 409976 info@icahduk.org www.icahduk.org
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Transition town initiatives need encouragement
There is much going on at a local level to address climate change and reduce oil dependency.This is important because as the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico proves, it is getting more dangerous and difficult to obtain oil from the earth. Where once oil was regarded as an infinite resource, it is now clear that this is not the case.The point when oil supplies are set to peak is now predicted for 2015. Things may even be worse as there seems to be some doubt as to the validity of figures concerning oil reserves. Many do not realise just how dependent the world is on oil, it is not just a matter of running cars or heating. Some 97 per cent of all our food is oil dependent. Plastic is an oil derivative product. Clothes and shelter are linked up with oil.So the lack of oil is a serious problem in terms of development and survival. Add in the devastating effect that using oil has in terms of climate change and a vicious circle is complete.
Fortunately, there are things happening to address oil dependency. The transition town initiative has built a model that people can use to reduce oil dependency.
There are now more than 180 such intitiatives across the country, including places as diverse as Totnes, Lewes and Exeter. The idea involves a small group of people coming together to discuss ways in which the local area can become more self sufficient and less dependent on oil. It is about building resilience, ready for the day when oil really does become scarce.
For the transition initiative to work, more people must become involved. This can be done initially by showing films, raising awareness about issues like climate crisis and peak oil. Then there must be a move to action.In Exeter, there have been a number of initiatives taken including buying four acres of land for a community farm. Anyone is welcome to come and take part. A couple of farms outside Exeter have also got involved, agreeing to solely supply organic products for the local community. The next move is to raise £190,000 that will enable the purchase of a property that will become a not-for profit co-operative store providng local organically produced food for the people. There are other initiatives to teach people how to produce their own crops and cook. Many of what were once the basic skills of life have been lost in a supermarket led fast food world, where sticking ready prepared meals in the oven has become the norm. Among the farming community there is increasing sympathy for transition style initiatives. One Cornish farmer, Victor Barry, has been farming organically for years. This has meant using horses to plough his fields, thereby cutting the carbon footprint to nil.The transition initiatives also take in other elements of local life like transport and energy systems. Some towns have gone as far as bringing in their own energy generating means like wind turbines, others have sort co-operation with energy companies to work more sustainably.So there is much going on but more needs to happen if the country is to ween itself off oil and save the planet - why delay?
Fortunately, there are things happening to address oil dependency. The transition town initiative has built a model that people can use to reduce oil dependency.
There are now more than 180 such intitiatives across the country, including places as diverse as Totnes, Lewes and Exeter. The idea involves a small group of people coming together to discuss ways in which the local area can become more self sufficient and less dependent on oil. It is about building resilience, ready for the day when oil really does become scarce.
For the transition initiative to work, more people must become involved. This can be done initially by showing films, raising awareness about issues like climate crisis and peak oil. Then there must be a move to action.In Exeter, there have been a number of initiatives taken including buying four acres of land for a community farm. Anyone is welcome to come and take part. A couple of farms outside Exeter have also got involved, agreeing to solely supply organic products for the local community. The next move is to raise £190,000 that will enable the purchase of a property that will become a not-for profit co-operative store providng local organically produced food for the people. There are other initiatives to teach people how to produce their own crops and cook. Many of what were once the basic skills of life have been lost in a supermarket led fast food world, where sticking ready prepared meals in the oven has become the norm. Among the farming community there is increasing sympathy for transition style initiatives. One Cornish farmer, Victor Barry, has been farming organically for years. This has meant using horses to plough his fields, thereby cutting the carbon footprint to nil.The transition initiatives also take in other elements of local life like transport and energy systems. Some towns have gone as far as bringing in their own energy generating means like wind turbines, others have sort co-operation with energy companies to work more sustainably.So there is much going on but more needs to happen if the country is to ween itself off oil and save the planet - why delay?
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Justice & Peace activism in need of formation
The recent annual National Justice and Peace Network conference drew more than 350 people to spend a weekend debating food security. It was a great opportunity to network with others working for social justice across the Church and beyond.
A question that sprang to mind was just how is the work of social justice in the Church being conducted at present? Attending the NJPN conferences it is difficult not to see it as an ageing movement, still made up of the children of the 1960s and 70s. This generation has faithfully struggled to live out the teachings of Vatican II but where are the new people, where’s the renewal?How many parishes actually operate justice and peace groups now? The commitment at diocesan level is certainly pretty sketchy with few diocese having workers and some lacking commissions. There is a definite belief amongst the hierarchy that while doing social justice is a constituent part of practicing the faith, but in terms of resourcing it is an added extra that can be done without. CAFOD has been a big backer of justice and peace over the years, providing funding for workers and the NJPN. Recently though CAFOD has seemed less enthusiastic in its support, whilst continuing to utilise the very valuable network that NJPN offers. A more recent player to emerge on the scene has been the Citizens Organising Foundation (COF) with its community organising via groups like London Citizens. This has proved a good way of getting whole parishes and schools signed up to the work of social justice. The living wage, regularisation of undocumented workers and debt reduction have all been valuable campaigns. Many J&P activists are active members of this organisation which is planning to expand out across the UK.What is lacking though is any real formation of people engaged in the work of social justice. The days when CAFOD actively pushed the pastoral cycle with its experience, analysis reflection, action and celebration aspects seem long gone.
The pastoral cycle was widely used by Christian communities pursuing justice based on liberation theology in Latin America. There was real formation in terms of social justice and the political sphere in which it operates, centred on a firm foundation of Church teaching.
Now unfortunately such formation work has given way to rather superficial campaigns that often involve deluging government ministers with postcards imploring them to act. Whilst this has a place, it should be an end in itself. It needs underpinning with justice theology and should be seen as a starting point to go on to something else.Community organising is no better at providing a process for the formation of people. It targets people in parishes with control of the purse strings. Once signed up, a few people are selected for leadership sessions but the organisation as a whole operates in a very disciplined hierarchial way. Member schools and parishes are summoned to fill out big halls for assemblies that are incredibly stage managed affairs, with no questions from the floor allowed. Community organising is more of a method than a process.
It was process and formation of people in the work of social justice that used to be so prevalent in justice and peace. This seems to have been lost. It is almost like running around like headless chickens wanting "to do" all of the time without any reflection or analysis. There is a feeling if we do enough - whether that is buying fair trade products, marching, protesting or acting ethically - then the world will become a better place. Whilst at one level this is no doubt true, at another the question of why the world is not a better place arises, and what motivates people to wish that it would.
The challenge for J&P is to get that process of formation back, that ability to analyse what is going on in the world and work out a process as to how to inculcate transformative kingdom values into that world.
There is an urgent need for these formation processes to begin again at a number of levels. There is the challenge of getting more people involved. Then there is the challenge of how people are moved on once they become engaged. Many want quick fixes, rather than putting in the time, looking at the structural causes of the problems and acting. Work for social justice is a lifelong commitment not a quick fix.
It is high time that the Church recognised this commitment and devoted some proper resources to the formation of communities steeped in social justice. At present this vital work is being too easily sidelined
A question that sprang to mind was just how is the work of social justice in the Church being conducted at present? Attending the NJPN conferences it is difficult not to see it as an ageing movement, still made up of the children of the 1960s and 70s. This generation has faithfully struggled to live out the teachings of Vatican II but where are the new people, where’s the renewal?How many parishes actually operate justice and peace groups now? The commitment at diocesan level is certainly pretty sketchy with few diocese having workers and some lacking commissions. There is a definite belief amongst the hierarchy that while doing social justice is a constituent part of practicing the faith, but in terms of resourcing it is an added extra that can be done without. CAFOD has been a big backer of justice and peace over the years, providing funding for workers and the NJPN. Recently though CAFOD has seemed less enthusiastic in its support, whilst continuing to utilise the very valuable network that NJPN offers. A more recent player to emerge on the scene has been the Citizens Organising Foundation (COF) with its community organising via groups like London Citizens. This has proved a good way of getting whole parishes and schools signed up to the work of social justice. The living wage, regularisation of undocumented workers and debt reduction have all been valuable campaigns. Many J&P activists are active members of this organisation which is planning to expand out across the UK.What is lacking though is any real formation of people engaged in the work of social justice. The days when CAFOD actively pushed the pastoral cycle with its experience, analysis reflection, action and celebration aspects seem long gone.
The pastoral cycle was widely used by Christian communities pursuing justice based on liberation theology in Latin America. There was real formation in terms of social justice and the political sphere in which it operates, centred on a firm foundation of Church teaching.
Now unfortunately such formation work has given way to rather superficial campaigns that often involve deluging government ministers with postcards imploring them to act. Whilst this has a place, it should be an end in itself. It needs underpinning with justice theology and should be seen as a starting point to go on to something else.Community organising is no better at providing a process for the formation of people. It targets people in parishes with control of the purse strings. Once signed up, a few people are selected for leadership sessions but the organisation as a whole operates in a very disciplined hierarchial way. Member schools and parishes are summoned to fill out big halls for assemblies that are incredibly stage managed affairs, with no questions from the floor allowed. Community organising is more of a method than a process.
It was process and formation of people in the work of social justice that used to be so prevalent in justice and peace. This seems to have been lost. It is almost like running around like headless chickens wanting "to do" all of the time without any reflection or analysis. There is a feeling if we do enough - whether that is buying fair trade products, marching, protesting or acting ethically - then the world will become a better place. Whilst at one level this is no doubt true, at another the question of why the world is not a better place arises, and what motivates people to wish that it would.
The challenge for J&P is to get that process of formation back, that ability to analyse what is going on in the world and work out a process as to how to inculcate transformative kingdom values into that world.
There is an urgent need for these formation processes to begin again at a number of levels. There is the challenge of getting more people involved. Then there is the challenge of how people are moved on once they become engaged. Many want quick fixes, rather than putting in the time, looking at the structural causes of the problems and acting. Work for social justice is a lifelong commitment not a quick fix.
It is high time that the Church recognised this commitment and devoted some proper resources to the formation of communities steeped in social justice. At present this vital work is being too easily sidelined
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Inaction sends the wrong message
The big danger of the failure to bring any action against police officers involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson is the message it conveys to other officers. There has been case after case over recent years of deaths in police custody and never do charges or disciplinary action materialise. Not surprisingly the deaths keep occurring, because the message to the police is that they are above the law. This is a dangerous situation for the public as it makes the streets less safe - due to the police
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Terror review offers hope for restoration of liberty
The news that the coalition government has announced a review of anti-terror legislation including 28 day pre-charge detention offers hope for a return of some basic human rights.
The announcement was made to coincide with a decision to extend 28 day pre-charge detention for the six month period. A debate on renewal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act had to be undertaken by 25 July 2010.
The review will also include control orders and reform of Section 44 stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. The outcome of the review will be a real test of the coalition government’s colours regarding human rights. It follows on a Labour Government which was one of the most authoritarian in recent history.
To find the antecedents of 28 day pre-charge detention requires going back to the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings of 1974. The first Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced following the Birmingham pub bombings. Described by then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins as "draconian" this piece of legislation brought in seven day pre-charge detention. One of the first people detained under its provision was Paul Hill of the Guildford Four, so it had a good record for entrapping the innocent from the off.
It was subsequently used over the years to detain hundreds of thousands of people at the ports, airports and beyond. The detention period could be anything from an hour to seven days. Some 86 per cent of people were released without charge. The way in which the PTA was used effectively made a suspect community of the Irish. It also had the effect of stopping people getting overtly involved in the politics of the North.
The PTA came up for renewal each year. In the early 1980s the Labour Party changed to opposing the renewal, only to later abstain when Tony Blair took over as shadow home secretary in the early 1990s.
The next major change for pre-charge detention came in 2000 with the passing into law of the Terrorism Act. At a time of unprecedented peace, pre-charge detention was extended to 14 days. The timing of this move coming as it just as the peace process was underway in the North and 9/11 had yet to happen, proved to many that anti-terror law had little to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with cutting back on human rights.
After 9/11, the government made an even more audacious grab for liberties bringing in the Anti-terror crime and security act which allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals if they were felt to pose a threat to national security and could not be deported.
In 2004, the law lords ruled this legislation to be unlawful, resulting in proposals to bring in control orders and 90 day pre-charge detention.
A mighty battle raged over the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act resulting in the creation of the control order regime and agreement to 28 day pre-charge detention. The Blair government was defeated over 90 day pre-charge detention. There was a further attempt to up pre-charge detention in October 2008 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed due to a combination of opposition and the overwhelming effect of the financial crisis.
Human rights organisation Liberty point out that no one has been held for longer than 14 days since October 2008.
Liberty also point out that Britain has the highest level of pre-charge detention in the western world, with the US and Spain having two days, Italy four days and Spain five days. "Six months in Whitehall passes a lot quicker than 28 days in a police cell without knowing why. The Coalition has bound itself together with the language of civil liberties. Now it must reduce the longest pre-charge detention period of any western democracy," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.
How the Coalition government deals with the issue of control orders will be another test of its mettle on civil liberties. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both opposed them in opposition. Then Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman described control orders as “pure kafka” and “an affront to British justice.”
Liberty describe control orders as allowing “suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial.
“The effect of this legislation is that some people have been subject to detention and community punishment for over seven years on the basis of the Home Secretary’s suspicions and secret evidence which the suspect will never see.”
Concerns over backtracking by the new administration have surfaced with the revelation that two new control orders have been imposed on the Pakistani students Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan. These two men won their appeal against being deported to Pakistan after no charges were brought against them relating to an alleged terror plot. Though the appeal was won the adjudicating body the Special Immigration Appeals Commission effectively branded them terrorists.
Three other control orders have been renewed bringing the total in force to 12. It will be interesting once the review is complete to see if control orders are banned and the paraphanalia of secret evidence the surrounds their imposition outlawed. Liberty are also submitting to the review that phone tap evidence should be admissible in court so making it easier to bring cases to court. The Coalition Government’s review offers hope of a rolling back of the anti-terror legislation and a restoration of liberty. However, a more cynical individual might suggest many of the most pernicious elements of these laws like control orders and 28 day pre-charge detention will simply be repackaged under new names or made “more accountable.” It would certainly be a rare thing to see a government giving back real liberty, after so many others having chipped away at this edifice for so long.
The announcement was made to coincide with a decision to extend 28 day pre-charge detention for the six month period. A debate on renewal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act had to be undertaken by 25 July 2010.
The review will also include control orders and reform of Section 44 stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. The outcome of the review will be a real test of the coalition government’s colours regarding human rights. It follows on a Labour Government which was one of the most authoritarian in recent history.
To find the antecedents of 28 day pre-charge detention requires going back to the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings of 1974. The first Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced following the Birmingham pub bombings. Described by then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins as "draconian" this piece of legislation brought in seven day pre-charge detention. One of the first people detained under its provision was Paul Hill of the Guildford Four, so it had a good record for entrapping the innocent from the off.
It was subsequently used over the years to detain hundreds of thousands of people at the ports, airports and beyond. The detention period could be anything from an hour to seven days. Some 86 per cent of people were released without charge. The way in which the PTA was used effectively made a suspect community of the Irish. It also had the effect of stopping people getting overtly involved in the politics of the North.
The PTA came up for renewal each year. In the early 1980s the Labour Party changed to opposing the renewal, only to later abstain when Tony Blair took over as shadow home secretary in the early 1990s.
The next major change for pre-charge detention came in 2000 with the passing into law of the Terrorism Act. At a time of unprecedented peace, pre-charge detention was extended to 14 days. The timing of this move coming as it just as the peace process was underway in the North and 9/11 had yet to happen, proved to many that anti-terror law had little to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with cutting back on human rights.
After 9/11, the government made an even more audacious grab for liberties bringing in the Anti-terror crime and security act which allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals if they were felt to pose a threat to national security and could not be deported.
In 2004, the law lords ruled this legislation to be unlawful, resulting in proposals to bring in control orders and 90 day pre-charge detention.
A mighty battle raged over the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act resulting in the creation of the control order regime and agreement to 28 day pre-charge detention. The Blair government was defeated over 90 day pre-charge detention. There was a further attempt to up pre-charge detention in October 2008 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed due to a combination of opposition and the overwhelming effect of the financial crisis.
Human rights organisation Liberty point out that no one has been held for longer than 14 days since October 2008.
Liberty also point out that Britain has the highest level of pre-charge detention in the western world, with the US and Spain having two days, Italy four days and Spain five days. "Six months in Whitehall passes a lot quicker than 28 days in a police cell without knowing why. The Coalition has bound itself together with the language of civil liberties. Now it must reduce the longest pre-charge detention period of any western democracy," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.
How the Coalition government deals with the issue of control orders will be another test of its mettle on civil liberties. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both opposed them in opposition. Then Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman described control orders as “pure kafka” and “an affront to British justice.”
Liberty describe control orders as allowing “suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial.
“The effect of this legislation is that some people have been subject to detention and community punishment for over seven years on the basis of the Home Secretary’s suspicions and secret evidence which the suspect will never see.”
Concerns over backtracking by the new administration have surfaced with the revelation that two new control orders have been imposed on the Pakistani students Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan. These two men won their appeal against being deported to Pakistan after no charges were brought against them relating to an alleged terror plot. Though the appeal was won the adjudicating body the Special Immigration Appeals Commission effectively branded them terrorists.
Three other control orders have been renewed bringing the total in force to 12. It will be interesting once the review is complete to see if control orders are banned and the paraphanalia of secret evidence the surrounds their imposition outlawed. Liberty are also submitting to the review that phone tap evidence should be admissible in court so making it easier to bring cases to court. The Coalition Government’s review offers hope of a rolling back of the anti-terror legislation and a restoration of liberty. However, a more cynical individual might suggest many of the most pernicious elements of these laws like control orders and 28 day pre-charge detention will simply be repackaged under new names or made “more accountable.” It would certainly be a rare thing to see a government giving back real liberty, after so many others having chipped away at this edifice for so long.
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Need for journalists to question official truths
There is no need of of direct censorship in Britain, mainstream journalists have become so self censoring that they reproduce the official truth as a matter of course.
The best example of this phenonoma at work is what have become known as the dominant narratives of the moment. Over recent times, the first of these was the war on terror. This followed the attacks on America of 11 September 2001. There was an unprecedented reaction from the American administration, strongly supported by Britain.
The rhetoric of war was quickly deployed as the terrorist threat was hyped up. A “war” followed against Afghanistan, later to be followed by another on Iraq. Both assaults were justified by the need to defeat this evil known as terrorism but nicely coinciding with US and British strategic economic interests in the regions concerned.
The hyping of this unprecedented threat led at home and abroad to the shredding of human rights. Detention without trial, whether by the US military in Guantanamo Bay or British police and intelligence services in Belmarsh Prison, became commonplace. The practice of extraordinary rendition was deployed – effectively kidknapping people and taking them to countries where torture could be used to get the information required.
There was the routine abuse of prisoners in holding centres like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Other liberties like the right to protest were also curtailed. A variety of authoritarian paraphanalia was developed, from control orders to ID cards, all legitimised on the back of the need to defeat terrorism.
During all of these post 9/11 developments, most in the media simply accepted the official version of events. The consensus that the threat posed by a group known as Al Qaeda – little of which was known prior to 9/11 – was as great as that of Nazi Germany under Hitler was taken without question.
The whole war on terror narrative was so easily sold. There should have been more questions about Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks and the destruction of human rights. The only winners have been the arms and oil companies.
The war on terror had a long duration as the dominant narrative, that only came to an end with the banking crisis. This crisis rocked the world and became the new narrative. This time there were references to the 1930s and the worst crisis ever. Again few questions that needed to be were asked. The media world accepted the disaster narrative and it fanned out. All economic news was bad news. It became an easy story to take some negative statistics, stand in front of a few shops that had closed down and predict gloom and doom. When there was good news, like more jobs being created by a supermarket chain, this became an add on to the main bad news story.
The narrative on this occasion was tinged by a need on the part of those who largely own and control the media for a change of government. The continually preached armageddon scenario was bad news for the Labour government which had adopted a Keynsian approach, pumping money in to stimulate demand and trying to get people spending again. Yet the news was all bad, suggesting things would get worse.
The economic crisis has now morphed into the present narrative which concerns the need for cuts in order to reduce the national debt, incurred mainly by the banking bail out. This has been sold again in apocalyptic terms. The war images have been run out yet again. The Dunkirk spirit called upon, as everyone must tighten their belts. The caveat here ofcourse is that some like the pensioners and public sector are being asked to tighten their belts that bit tighter that the bankers who created the crisis in the first place.
The media has been operating as an echo chamber for the narrative of national austerity. Few are again questioning the line. The present debt is nothing like that incurred during the post World War II period when the country was literally bankrupt. Yet at that time the NHS and the welfare state were created. Few ask why the very same institutions in the City of London who created the crisis in the first place are now effectively setting the terms as to who should be picking up the bill.
As can be seen from these examples there is no one cause that can be singled out for the basis of a narrative. It is a combination of factors including governments, business interests - particularly arms, oil and banking - and concentration of media into fewer and fewer hands. All of these factors contribute to creating narratives that are favourably generally to a rich elite and against the interests of the mass of people. The development is bad for democracy.
The question for journalists is why do we accept these narratives so easily without asking even the most basic of questions. The ease with which each of these narratives has been sold to journalists amounts to a type of self-censorship. The faculties of a questioning mind, inquisitiveness and a desire for truth seem to have been suspended indefinitely. It is not all bad news ofcourse, there are honourable exceptions to these dominant narratives. Brave work such as that conducted by journalists Stephen Grey to expose extraordinary rendition and the advocacy and writing of lawyer Clive Stafford Smith on Guantanamo Bay. But these are few and far between. The majority have gone along with the official truths, put out to keep the people down by engendering fear and to the benefit of vested interests. It is sad day for journalism and democracy when so many media operations have become not much more than covert wings of the propaganda world of public relations. Somehow journalists need to win back their independence and inquisitiveness. A healthy democracy demands more than the parroting of official truths
The best example of this phenonoma at work is what have become known as the dominant narratives of the moment. Over recent times, the first of these was the war on terror. This followed the attacks on America of 11 September 2001. There was an unprecedented reaction from the American administration, strongly supported by Britain.
The rhetoric of war was quickly deployed as the terrorist threat was hyped up. A “war” followed against Afghanistan, later to be followed by another on Iraq. Both assaults were justified by the need to defeat this evil known as terrorism but nicely coinciding with US and British strategic economic interests in the regions concerned.
The hyping of this unprecedented threat led at home and abroad to the shredding of human rights. Detention without trial, whether by the US military in Guantanamo Bay or British police and intelligence services in Belmarsh Prison, became commonplace. The practice of extraordinary rendition was deployed – effectively kidknapping people and taking them to countries where torture could be used to get the information required.
There was the routine abuse of prisoners in holding centres like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Other liberties like the right to protest were also curtailed. A variety of authoritarian paraphanalia was developed, from control orders to ID cards, all legitimised on the back of the need to defeat terrorism.
During all of these post 9/11 developments, most in the media simply accepted the official version of events. The consensus that the threat posed by a group known as Al Qaeda – little of which was known prior to 9/11 – was as great as that of Nazi Germany under Hitler was taken without question.
The whole war on terror narrative was so easily sold. There should have been more questions about Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks and the destruction of human rights. The only winners have been the arms and oil companies.
The war on terror had a long duration as the dominant narrative, that only came to an end with the banking crisis. This crisis rocked the world and became the new narrative. This time there were references to the 1930s and the worst crisis ever. Again few questions that needed to be were asked. The media world accepted the disaster narrative and it fanned out. All economic news was bad news. It became an easy story to take some negative statistics, stand in front of a few shops that had closed down and predict gloom and doom. When there was good news, like more jobs being created by a supermarket chain, this became an add on to the main bad news story.
The narrative on this occasion was tinged by a need on the part of those who largely own and control the media for a change of government. The continually preached armageddon scenario was bad news for the Labour government which had adopted a Keynsian approach, pumping money in to stimulate demand and trying to get people spending again. Yet the news was all bad, suggesting things would get worse.
The economic crisis has now morphed into the present narrative which concerns the need for cuts in order to reduce the national debt, incurred mainly by the banking bail out. This has been sold again in apocalyptic terms. The war images have been run out yet again. The Dunkirk spirit called upon, as everyone must tighten their belts. The caveat here ofcourse is that some like the pensioners and public sector are being asked to tighten their belts that bit tighter that the bankers who created the crisis in the first place.
The media has been operating as an echo chamber for the narrative of national austerity. Few are again questioning the line. The present debt is nothing like that incurred during the post World War II period when the country was literally bankrupt. Yet at that time the NHS and the welfare state were created. Few ask why the very same institutions in the City of London who created the crisis in the first place are now effectively setting the terms as to who should be picking up the bill.
As can be seen from these examples there is no one cause that can be singled out for the basis of a narrative. It is a combination of factors including governments, business interests - particularly arms, oil and banking - and concentration of media into fewer and fewer hands. All of these factors contribute to creating narratives that are favourably generally to a rich elite and against the interests of the mass of people. The development is bad for democracy.
The question for journalists is why do we accept these narratives so easily without asking even the most basic of questions. The ease with which each of these narratives has been sold to journalists amounts to a type of self-censorship. The faculties of a questioning mind, inquisitiveness and a desire for truth seem to have been suspended indefinitely. It is not all bad news ofcourse, there are honourable exceptions to these dominant narratives. Brave work such as that conducted by journalists Stephen Grey to expose extraordinary rendition and the advocacy and writing of lawyer Clive Stafford Smith on Guantanamo Bay. But these are few and far between. The majority have gone along with the official truths, put out to keep the people down by engendering fear and to the benefit of vested interests. It is sad day for journalism and democracy when so many media operations have become not much more than covert wings of the propaganda world of public relations. Somehow journalists need to win back their independence and inquisitiveness. A healthy democracy demands more than the parroting of official truths
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Long journey for Bloody Sunday relatives
The final judgement of the Saville inquiry into the deaths of 14 people on Bloody Sunday took me back to a day in the summer of 1994.
I was sitting in the front room of John Kelly, the brother of Michael, 17 when gunned down by the paratroopers on 30 January 1972.
John and the whole Kelly family wanted justice for Michael. It was 22 years since that horrific day but the family remained almost in a time warp unable to grieve or move on because justice had been denied them. Michael’s picture hung on the wall, a memory of a life destroyed.
Later I met with other relatives of the Bloody Sunday victims at the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry. They all had similar stories to tell of loved ones lost and the need to attain truth and justice before they could move on.
The declared aims of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign at the time were that the British government admit that all those killed were innocent, that the Widgery Inquiry report be repudiated and that those responsible for the murders be brought to justice.
The relatives though were a long way from attaining those aims. Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the officers commanding 1 Para on Bloody Sunday, had recently bragged that “quite honestly I owned the Bogside in military terms. I occupied it.” The one admission that the campaign had attained came in a letter from then Prime Minister John Major to SDLP leader John Hume that the victims “should be regarded as innocent of allegations that they were shot whilst handling firearms or explosives.”
The marches continued through the London streets every January to mark the atrocity of Bloody Sunday with similar events taking place in Derry every year. The relatives continued to represent their case to ministers in the North and London. Media interest ebbed and flowed. Channel 4 News did some good revelatory investigations. Derry based journalist Eamonn McCann produced his excellent book Bloody Sunday in Derry. Then came Don Mullan’s Eyewitness Bloody Sunday and the films followed. The pressure was building at the same time as the peace process was gaining momentum. It was made clear to Tony Blair by the Irish government that Bloody Sunday remained a road block on the path to peace process.
For many in the North, Bloody Sunday had become symbolic of the whole Troubles period. The protest had been organised by the civil rights movement against internment. It drew on the peaceful protest of other similar movements in America and beyond. The brutal actions of the army on that day in murdering 14 civilians effectively marked the end of peaceful protest. As has been well documented, in the days that followed Bloody Sunday young men were queuing up to join the IRA. The conflict was to last another 25 years, claiming 3,500 lives.
The big breakthrough for the relatives came when in 1998 as part of the choreography for the Good Friday Agreement, Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Bloody Sunday inquiry to be led by Lord Mark Saville.
The inquiry initially took evidence in Derry, then moved to London because the soldiers were concerned for their safety in the North. John Kelly and the other relatives attended Westminster Central Hall over the period of a year, when the inquiry took the soldier’s evidence and that of a number of politicians, including Edward Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of Bloody Sunday.
The relatives at this time struggled, juggling jobs and home life as they shuttled between London and Belfast to hear the testimonies of those who killed their loved ones. The Irish community in London did much to support the relatives at this time.
I met John Kelly again at Westminster Central Hall when he heard testimony from Solider F who shot dead Michael. It was a difficult day but John felt better for at last having heard and seen the man who killed his brother.
That was all some years ago. The relatives have been kept waiting a long time to learn the findings of Lord Saville and his fellow judges. At last on 15 June the report was published. The blame was laid fully at the door of the British army. Soldiers were judged to have shot down innocent civilians. Some were said to have lied to the inquiry. The Widgery Inquiry, set up after Bloody Sunday, and widely regarded as a whitewash was totally repudiated. The British government accepted responsibility for the killing of its own citizens by its employees. Prime Minister David Cameron apologised, expressing his deep sorrow and declaring the killings to be “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Effectively, the demands of the Bloody Sunday Justice campaign had been achieved. The one question remaining was whether those responsible for the killings had been brought to justice. Some relatives want to see the soldiers concerned in the dock, prosecuted for the crime of murder. For others the findings of Lord Saville have so comprehensively put the blame on the army and repudiated the victims that they feel enough is enough.It has been a long hard struggle for the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday but at last they have achieved justice and truth. The question is where next? It has been suggested that some sort of truth and reconciliation process maybe needed on a wider scale. This no doubt would help the healing process but needs to be handled very carefully, with different groups all too willing to adopt their own hierarchies of suffering. Only time will tell, but for the meantime all credit has to go to the relatives who campaigned so long for justice – their success is something that people in struggle everywhere should share.
I was sitting in the front room of John Kelly, the brother of Michael, 17 when gunned down by the paratroopers on 30 January 1972.
John and the whole Kelly family wanted justice for Michael. It was 22 years since that horrific day but the family remained almost in a time warp unable to grieve or move on because justice had been denied them. Michael’s picture hung on the wall, a memory of a life destroyed.
Later I met with other relatives of the Bloody Sunday victims at the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry. They all had similar stories to tell of loved ones lost and the need to attain truth and justice before they could move on.
The declared aims of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign at the time were that the British government admit that all those killed were innocent, that the Widgery Inquiry report be repudiated and that those responsible for the murders be brought to justice.
The relatives though were a long way from attaining those aims. Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the officers commanding 1 Para on Bloody Sunday, had recently bragged that “quite honestly I owned the Bogside in military terms. I occupied it.” The one admission that the campaign had attained came in a letter from then Prime Minister John Major to SDLP leader John Hume that the victims “should be regarded as innocent of allegations that they were shot whilst handling firearms or explosives.”
The marches continued through the London streets every January to mark the atrocity of Bloody Sunday with similar events taking place in Derry every year. The relatives continued to represent their case to ministers in the North and London. Media interest ebbed and flowed. Channel 4 News did some good revelatory investigations. Derry based journalist Eamonn McCann produced his excellent book Bloody Sunday in Derry. Then came Don Mullan’s Eyewitness Bloody Sunday and the films followed. The pressure was building at the same time as the peace process was gaining momentum. It was made clear to Tony Blair by the Irish government that Bloody Sunday remained a road block on the path to peace process.
For many in the North, Bloody Sunday had become symbolic of the whole Troubles period. The protest had been organised by the civil rights movement against internment. It drew on the peaceful protest of other similar movements in America and beyond. The brutal actions of the army on that day in murdering 14 civilians effectively marked the end of peaceful protest. As has been well documented, in the days that followed Bloody Sunday young men were queuing up to join the IRA. The conflict was to last another 25 years, claiming 3,500 lives.
The big breakthrough for the relatives came when in 1998 as part of the choreography for the Good Friday Agreement, Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Bloody Sunday inquiry to be led by Lord Mark Saville.
The inquiry initially took evidence in Derry, then moved to London because the soldiers were concerned for their safety in the North. John Kelly and the other relatives attended Westminster Central Hall over the period of a year, when the inquiry took the soldier’s evidence and that of a number of politicians, including Edward Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of Bloody Sunday.
The relatives at this time struggled, juggling jobs and home life as they shuttled between London and Belfast to hear the testimonies of those who killed their loved ones. The Irish community in London did much to support the relatives at this time.
I met John Kelly again at Westminster Central Hall when he heard testimony from Solider F who shot dead Michael. It was a difficult day but John felt better for at last having heard and seen the man who killed his brother.
That was all some years ago. The relatives have been kept waiting a long time to learn the findings of Lord Saville and his fellow judges. At last on 15 June the report was published. The blame was laid fully at the door of the British army. Soldiers were judged to have shot down innocent civilians. Some were said to have lied to the inquiry. The Widgery Inquiry, set up after Bloody Sunday, and widely regarded as a whitewash was totally repudiated. The British government accepted responsibility for the killing of its own citizens by its employees. Prime Minister David Cameron apologised, expressing his deep sorrow and declaring the killings to be “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Effectively, the demands of the Bloody Sunday Justice campaign had been achieved. The one question remaining was whether those responsible for the killings had been brought to justice. Some relatives want to see the soldiers concerned in the dock, prosecuted for the crime of murder. For others the findings of Lord Saville have so comprehensively put the blame on the army and repudiated the victims that they feel enough is enough.It has been a long hard struggle for the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday but at last they have achieved justice and truth. The question is where next? It has been suggested that some sort of truth and reconciliation process maybe needed on a wider scale. This no doubt would help the healing process but needs to be handled very carefully, with different groups all too willing to adopt their own hierarchies of suffering. Only time will tell, but for the meantime all credit has to go to the relatives who campaigned so long for justice – their success is something that people in struggle everywhere should share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
