The dangers of the
automatic spell cheek
Well, the arrival of the Catholic Church’s Irish Commission
for Justice and Social Affairs (ICJSA) is very welcome, and
there are some very fine people on its advisory board. But
the perils of the automatic spell check/correction facility
was nowhere better illustrated that in a press release concerning
its launch on 13th June. In this press release, Diarmuid Martin,
Archbishop of Dublin, became Dairymaid Martin (not so much
a handmaid of the Lord as a dairymaid, you might say, though
perhaps the gender is still wrong) [you’re obviously
trying to milk the mistake for all it’s worth –
Ed]. And immediately following him, Most Rev Colm O’Reilly,
Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnois, became Most Rev Calm O’Reilly
(maybe that is one of his qualities). And his bishopric became
that of Adage and Clonmacnois. I suppose you could do worse
than being the Bishop of Adage, maybe you would always have
the right word, the mot juste, for every occasion. And it
just goes to show it can happen to a bishop, and an archbishop
too. Isn’t technology a wonderful thong.
A glutton for pun-ishment
I must say I’m a glutton for humour, anecdotes, collections
of pithy sayings and the like [You don’t really need
to tell us, we already know only too well – Ed]. One
little collection, generally serious rather than humorous
but with some great turns of phrase, which I’m delving
into and out of at the moment is Shelley Anderson’s
“Just
Words: Quotations on gender, nonviolence and peace”
(IFOR, 72 pages, 2005, €5, and INNATE will also have
some copies for sale). Re-encountering the familiar bon mot
and the new is something I much enjoy. Take the challenging
“Women’s peacefulness is at least as mythical
as men’s violence”, a quotation from Sara Ruddick
(Do you agree or disagree? Discuss in not more than 3 hours).
Similarly, Barbara Deming’s “the challenge of
those who believe in nonviolent struggle is to learn to be
aggressive enough.”
Then there is the beautifully succinct
as in Sappho’s words to an army wife in the 7th century:
Some say a cavalry corps,
Some infantry, some, again
Will maintain that the swift oars
Of our fleet are the finest
Sight on dark earth; but I say
That whatever one loves, is.
In the more familiar or half remembered
category would be Joan Baez’ words that “The only
thing that’s been a worse flop than the organization
of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.”
and Martin Luther King Jnr’s words “Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught
in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment
of destiny.” or Frederick the Great of Prussia proclaiming
“If my soldiers began to think, not one would remain
in the ranks.”
Almost the last quote in the booklet is
one from Bertha von Suttner, pacifist, author, first female
Nobel Peace Prize laureate (and also the subject of a recent
IFOR booklet, see web reference above); “Universal sisterhood
is necessary before the universal brotherhood is possible.”
Prince Charles
of Ireland
I refer of course to CJH, or Charles J Haughey, baptised Cathal,
he of the current RTE series. He engendered fierce loyalty
and fierce opposition, both within Fianna Fail and outside.
From early days he lived a lifestyle beyond his means (and
was making generous donations to causes he almost certainly
didn’t support in the late 1960s, presumably with a
view to currying favour). And there can’t be many western
European prime ministers who have been booed in the streets
when they came to the funeral of another prime minister of
their country from the same party (as Charlie Haughey was
when he came to Cork for Jack Lynch’s funeral).
A question on RTE’s Questions and
Answers as to whether Charlie Haughey was an old codger who
should be left in peace got quite an affirmative response
from the panel. He is elderly and seriously ill. But his arrogance,
conceit and basic wrong-doing (e.g. tax dodging, shady dealing
in taking donations from all sorts of interested parties,
and possibly arms commissioning – as opposed to decommissioning
– in 1969) should not let him off the hook. He does
have his defenders (e.g. Vincent Brown) and he was at times
an innovative minister. But you may remember the old joke
about the difference between CJH and CJD. Answer; you can
catch CJD.
Haughey’s wrong-doing is of another
– lesser - magnitude to someone like dictator Augusto
Pinochet of Chile, who has also been let off the hook by old
age and ‘ill health’. Haughey was not dishing
out death and fear by the lorryload. But while vindictiveness
should not be part of a humanitarian approach to people’s
misdoings, nevertheless letting someone off with things simply
because they are prominent, elderly and ill is not a great
idea if it gives the impression that if you’re rich
and powerful enough you can do what you want and the day of
reckoning will not come. Things may have tightened up a lot
in the Republic since Haughey’s hey-day (he made hey
while the sun shone and when it didn’t) but I personally
want an example to go to the rich and powerful of today who
might appear at the tribunals of tomorrow. And that means
holding anyone and everyone to account. Including Charles
J Haughey.
Dianetic conflict
That’s me. I read these things so you don’t have
to [I wouldn’t be bothered – Ed]. In this case
it is a slim pamphlet of the thoughts of L Ron Hubbard, founder
of the Church of Scientology, on conflict, the collection
of three articles entitled “How to resolve conflicts”
As someone involved in the field of conflict [and that’s
just between us! – Ed] [Very funny – Billy] I
wondered what gems of wisdom could I glean from the thoughts
of this science-fiction writer and church founder who died
in 1986 [and I saw you looking up your biographical dictionary
for that fact – Ed].
Firstly, the introduction states that he
discovered “a fundamental and natural law of human relations
which explains why conflicts between people are so often difficult
to remedy. And he provided an immensely valuable tool that
enables one to resolve any conflict, be it between neighbours,
co-workers or even countries.” So that is pretty much
a claim to universality and sure success.
The first article is about “The race
against man’s savage instincts” and can be seen
as a prelude to Hubbard’s Dianetics philosophy. It portrays
well-intentioned ‘man’ (sic) being waylaid by
“a savage and twisted past. He inherited from centuries
of being, centuries of savageness, and the instincts he had
to wear as a primitive and as a savage.” To begin with,
this seems out of kilter with modern learning about the past;
‘savages’, so called, were not necessarily savage,
and e.g. Neolithic humanity may have cared gently for its
sick and old, as best it could. But Hubbard hints at the way
to take away “the force and power of a brutal self”
so that the individual’s nature is changed – this
is done by accessing the instincts and subconscious mind.
Cue Dianetic auditing and processing (and a lucrative and
addictive method for Scientology, but sín scéal
eile).
The second article is “The Third
Party Law” and it states that “A third party must
be present and unknown in every quarrel for a conflict to
exist” or “For a quarrel to occur, an unknown
third party must be active in producing it between two potential
opponents” or “While it is commonly believed to
take two to make a fight, a third party must exist and must
develop it for actual conflict to occur.” (this is all
written in CAPITALS which I have spared you). This is just
complete and utter rubbish. I never heard so much drivel about
conflict in my life. Of course there are third (or fourth,
fifth, sixth) parties who egg on or encourage some parties
in conflict, or are involved in some other way, but the idea
that it takes more than two to conflict tango is just nonsense.
The simplest form of conflict is just that, between two people.
There are many more complex patterns but the idea there is
always, invariably, this third party is just blatant nonsense,
and potentially confusing nonsense as well
Hubbard goes on to advise looking for the
third person in marital quarrels who is the source of conflict.
Again, promoting the possibility that there may be a third
party involved from being just that, a possibility, to the
law that there always is such a third party is arrant nonsense
(‘cherchez la troisième partie’ instead
of ‘cherchez la femme’!). And presumably in this
context very poor marital counselling. Apart from anything
else it avoids parties in a conflict taking responsibility
for their own actions – and that applies at the international
level as much as the inter-personal.
He goes on that “Quarrels between
an individual and an organisation are nearly always caused
by an individual third party or a third group.” More
rubbish. If I am in dispute with an organisation that has
dealt badly with me, or with which I have a strong disagreement,
as I have been, these are very normal, everyday conflicts
which disprove his “nearly always” caveat. He
ends with his ‘law’ that “There are no conflicts
which cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them
remain hidden” (which is, unusually for him, poorly
phrased with a tortuous double negative), i.e. every conflict
can be resolved if the ‘true promoters’ (third
party) are known. But what does ‘cannot be resolved’
or ‘can be resolved’ mean here? That it will be?
That it might be? That he doesn’t know? As a so-called
‘law’ of conflict it is pathetic. And also rubbish
from someone who clearly knows very little about the origins
of conflict, and the little he does know is destroyed by being
associated with fanciful notions or ‘laws’ he
has dreamt up. The third article in the collection is mainly
about love with lots of truisms and no new learning about
conflict.
So there is only one conclusion when it
comes to L Ron Hubbard and his thoughts on conflict. Father
Hubbard’s cupboard is bare. ‘How to resolve conflicts’?
More like ‘How to extend and make conflicts even more
difficult to solve’! If his theories of the universe
are as badly grounded, unscientific/scientological as his
theories on conflict, it is clearly all one big conflict without
the ‘flict’.
Ireland’s green and unpleasant
land
I suppose because it is verdant due to the rainfall, and relatively
unpopulated by the standard of some western European countries,
Ireland is still thought of as ‘green’. But statistics
published recently prove otherwise (Eurostat review of environmental
issues, it has an impossibly long web address so search for
‘statistical environmental eurostat’). The Republic
has the highest rate of waste generation per capita of the
25-member EU in 2003, with some 732 kg per person (up 42%
in just 8 years!). It has a very high usage of oil products,
rapidly increasing number of cars, and decreasing amount of
freight carried on the railways (the latter’s proportion
of interior freight was down from 9.9% in 1995 to 2.5% in
2003). Only 2% of gross inland energy consumption came from
renewables in 2003. And yet Ireland had the fourth highest
annual average income in 2002 at €30,800. Private wealth
and public squalor, that’s the name of the game.
The clash of the
sash
The hurley stick is not so much in favour as a battlefield
weapon (except on the hurling field of course) in the North
since punishment beatings by those from the republican/Catholic
side using them gave hurling a bad name. So in a brilliant
piece of lateral thinking, baseball bats were taken up instead
(blame the Yanquis!). But there is a reference to one being
used as a weapon recently below.
Anyway, I’m writing about the clash
of the sash more than the clash of the ash and it concerns
the start of the ‘marching season’. The first
big outing of the ‘season’ is the ‘Tour
of the North’ (of Belfast that is) and it took place
on Friday 17th June, this year the route being primarily the
Crumlin and Shankill Roads in Belfast but with a homeward
bound ‘feeder’ going past Ardoyne. Which is where
the trouble happened. There was some quite violent rioting
including a number of petrol bombs thrown.
‘Who threw the first stone?’
is a question which seldom has a simple answer in a situation
like Northern Ireland even when it is clear who threw the
first stone. In other words, it is much more than simply about
who actually threw the first stone, though in this case it
looks like it probably came from nationalists (I wasn’t
there at Ardoyne so I cannot say for definite, and even if
I had been the situation in a riot like that is mass confusion
and things happen very fast). For Orangemen, marching is regarded
as an inalienable right to demonstrate and celebrate their
culture (Protestant and British, the proportion of which depending
on the individual); for Catholics and nationalists it is regarded
more as the demand to rub their noses in the dirt and celebrate
anti-nationalist and anti-Catholic feeling. Who is right?
Both and neither is different ways. Most Orange and Protestant
parades (there are also ‘Black’ and Apprentice
Boys parades among the ‘Loyal Orders’) pass off
without incident in mainly Protestant areas. But some have
been contentious for years, and even centuries (all parades
were banned by the British government for a period in the
mid-nineteenth century, such was the threat of civil disorder
accompanying them).
It is interesting periodically to do a
reality check and see how the different media treat the same
event. So here, for your elucidation, is a short extract from
the four Belfast daily papers the day after the north Belfast
march and riot (Saturday 19th June). Interestingly, though
I am not trying to cover it, all three Belfast morning papers
had parade issues as their lead the following Monday, 20th
June.
‘The News Letter’ (the oldest
still-published daily paper in Britain or Ireland, and looking
much more news-worthy than it used to), read primarily by
Protestants in Northern Ireland, was quite clear in its front
page headline: “MARCHERS ATTACKED”. “Marchers,
supporters and police came under a hail of stones, bottles
and other missiles last night after nationalists attacked
the traditional Orange Order Tour of the North parade in Belfast.”
“Earlier, the two sides had been
taunting each other as the parade passed the Ardoyne flashpoint
where serious riots erupted at last year’s July 12 parade…..Two
water cannon had to be brought in….Several people were
injured, including children….North Belfast Ulster Unionist
MLA Fred Cobain, who was at last night’s parade, was
injured when he was hit on the arm with a hurley…..”
‘The Irish News’, read primarily
by Catholics, had as its headline “Serious violence
after Belfast Orange parade”; “Serious violence
erupted last night in north Belfast as a controversial loyalist
parade passed Ardoyne last night. Nationalist politicians
and clergy critici8sed the PSNI’s handling of the parade
along the Crumlin Road…..As three Orange lodges passed
Ardoyne shortly before 9pm there was sporadic stone throwing
and jeering on both sides. However around 20 minutes later
hand-to-hand fighting and stone throwing developed after loyalist
supporters were allowed to walk along the left hand side of
the Crumlin Road past nationalist homes….In one of the
most serious incidents, a nationalist woman was treated for
a suspected broken arm after being attacked by loyalists outside
her home. A number of loyalists were also reported to be injured……”
“Daily Ireland”, again read
mainly by Catholics but generally taking a more republican
stance than the Irish News, had “Violence erupts at
disputed parade”: “North Belfast remained on tenterhooks
overnight faced with continued violence after rioting broke
out in the wake of a contentious Orange march….the trouble
started after the disputed return leg of the Tour of the North
parade passed up the Crumlin Road through a flashpoint nationalist
area at Ardoyne…..Missiles were thrown as bandsmen from
three Orange lodges passed the junction….but the worst
violence followed when the PSNI allowed loyalist supporters
of the parade to ass through the nationalist area. There were
also reports of loyalist attacks on nationalist homes in the
Carrick hill area which is close to the Shankill Road…”
The evening edition of the “The Belfast
Telegraph”, which takes a broadly unionist editorial
line but is read by both Catholics and Protestants, had as
its headline “Parades bust-up”; “There were
fresh recriminations over loyalist parades today, in the wake
of disturbances in north Belfast. Eighteen police officers
and eleven members of the public were injured in the trouble
at the Ardoyne shopfronts. Police said at least 10 petrol
bombs, stones and bottles were thrown by nationalist protesters
as dozens of marchers from the Tour of the North Parade passed
the Ardoyne shop fronts last night. Officers used water cannon
after police and marchers were attacked. A 14-year-old girl
suffered a broken arm at the flashpoint. Sinn Fein said that
the responsibility for the trouble lay with the loyalists
and with the Parades Commission decision to allow the parade
to pass the shops.”
So there you go, you pays your money (50p
each except the News Letter which is 65p) and takes your choice.
For comparison, it only made page 7 of The Irish Times where
the story was headed “Stonethrowing mars first parade
of the marching season”. Each of the first 3 papers
as listed above indicated, sometimes tangentially or indirectly,
that their own ‘side’ may have had something to
do with the violence but they gave subtly different overall
messages. Incidentally, it was a Parades Commission ruling
to allow parade supporters pass by on the footpath but a policing/PSNI
decision how and when that was done.
At this stage in the game of the peace
process, parade disputes come and go but can still become
a surrogate for the overall Northern Ireland conflict, and
are usually a definite lose-lose game. The level of violence
is generally much lower than it was, and the violence associated
with the Drumcree protests in the mid-90s sickened many Prods.
But an agreement, brokered by the business community in Derry,
between Orangemen and the Bogside Residents Association looks
like it will permit the first 12th July march for years within
Derry’s walls. Having local agreement is certainly the
way to go but fear, distrust and the symbolism involved in
even negotiating can keep one side or the other from the proverbial
table. That, and the fear of the table being turned on them.
“And you wouldn’t want to risk that, would you?”
- - - - -
Well, ”January, February, March,
No, April, May, June, No, July, Aye”, and if you take
that not as an Orange chant (though you can if you wish) but
a welcome to the summer holliers. I wish you a pleasant break,
whether you climb a mountain or jump in a lake (cf Christy
Moore, Lisdoonvarna) and that you get the batteries recharged.
I take a break from my meanderings too [the summer has its
blessings – Ed], and will see you again at the start
of September. The Editor is really getting carried away with
his ecological-and-justice ‘tiocfadh ar lá’
in this issue, but I hope your day or fortnight in the sun
(literally and/or figuratively!) comes for you this summer.
Until the autumn (that dreaded word), Billy.
Who
is Billy King? A long, long time ago, in a more
innocent age (just talking about myself you understand),
there were magazines called 'Dawn' and 'Dawn Train'
and I had a back page column in these. Now the Headitor
has asked me to come out from under the carpet to write
a Cyberspace Column 'something people won't be able
to put down' (I hope you're not carrying your monitor
around with you).
Watch this. Cast a cold eye on life, on death, horseman
pass by (because there'll almost certainly be very little
about horses even if someone with a similar name is
found astride them on gable ends around certain parts
of Norn Iron).
