Below is a brilliant video produced by the 20th anniversary committee which looks at the lives of each of the volunteers and includes interviews with their friends, comrades and families.

This interview first appeared on the Bobby Sands Trust website.

“Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity…They realize at last that change does not mean reform, thatchange does not mean improvement.”

-Frantz Fanon

Ten years ago today Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez was returned to power following a short, failed coup d’etat. On April11th 2002 Chavez was taken into custody by the Army as Venezuelan oligarchs, supported by the United States, attempted to seize power and depose the democratically elected President and Government. After two days in custody and having refused to resign Chavez was returned to power after a huge popular uprising in Caracas culminating in thousands of people making there way to the Miraflores Presidential Palace demanding his return. These dramatic events were captured on film by documentary makers from Ireland in Venezuela to make a film about the country and it’s President. Below is the whole documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Fifth Republic Movement logo

I visited Venezuela a year after the coup attempt to meet members of Chavez’s Fifth Republic Movement (as the ruling party was then called). While in Caracas I took part in their Independence Day rally which attracted tens of thousands of people. On the morning of the rally an opposition bomb exploded outside a barracks and although no one was injured it meant security for the event, at which Chavez would speak, was increased and everyone had to be searched as we made our way to the rally which included a military parade and various other spectacular displays. Due to security concerns the arrival of Chavez was delayed for several hours and the crowds were so closely packed in that you could barely move and several people passed out. Despite all this not one person left.

Several people noticed I was a visitor (which wasn’t difficult as sun burn meant I was as red as a tomato) they were all very friendly (once they knew I wasn’t from the US) and were intrigued as to what people outside Venezuela thought of Hugo Chavez. They were also interested in how we celebrated Independence Day in Scotland and were in part amused and horrified when I pointed out we didn’t celebrate Independence Day because we were not independent. Hopefully that situation will have changed before my next visit.

When Chavez finally arrived by helicopter the atmosphere in the crowd was electric, like nothing I’ve experienced before or since. As people cheered and cried at the sight of their president taking the stage even more people began passing out and amazingly, to me at any rate, the police and army seemed genuinely concerned and were rushing to help and being instructed to do so by members of the public. Chavez spoke for hours and after his speech, which my comrades kindly translated for me as he spoke, I expected everyone to leave but no one did. Chavez then took to an open top car and passed the entire route of the earlier parade and only at that point did people begin to slowly make their way home.

As they left the crowds were singing ‘Ooh Ah Chavez no se va’ and once I realised what they were singing I couldn’t help laughing as I was used to another Ooh Ah song altogether. I asked people what it meant and they explained it meant Chavez won’t go and was a response to a chant from the opposition during the coup that ‘Chavez is gone’. The chant was later adapted as a folk song and became a big hit in Venezuela.

In an American journal I read a prominent English writer was described as ‘very British’. What can it mean to be ‘very British’? Could I be described in this way? Can my work be described as ‘very British’? No, not by people in Britain, or by those with a thorough knowledge of the situation. The controlling interest in ‘Britishness’ is ‘Englishness’. This ‘Englishness’ is perceived as Anglo-Saxon. It is more clearly an assertion of the values of upper class England, and their validity despite all and in defiance of all.

Power is a function of its privileged ruling elite. To be properly ‘British’ is to submit to English hierarchy and to recognize, affirm and assert the glory of its value system. This is achieved domestically on a daily basis within ‘British’ education and cultural institutions. Those who oppose this supremacist ideology are criticized for not being properly British, condemned as unpatriotic. Those Scottish, Welsh or Irish people who oppose this supremacist ideology are condemned as anti-English. The ‘British way’ is sold at home and abroad as a thing of beauty, a self-sufficient entity that comes complete with its own ethical system, sturdy and robust, guaranteed to outlast all others.

British people are led to believe that the Royal Family are admired, loved and glorified across the globe. Should another Solar System contain life upon any of its myriad planets its inhabitants will not only accede to the Christian church but also acknowledge the Head of the English Royal Family as Defender of the Faith, in competition with the Pope, standing next in line to God.

Writers like myself are guilty of being ‘too Scottish’; our ‘Scottishness’ is as an attack on ‘Britishness’ and acts as a disqualification. It is assumed that Scottish experience is homogenous whereas English experience offers a wide-ranging and worldly heterogeneity. Our work is attacked in pseudo literary tones for its perceived insularity. This also happens within Scotland; anglocentric Scottish critics condemn Scottish writers for their ‘lack of diversity’.

Being ‘too indigenous’ is the same as being ‘too working class’ and, predictably, the closer we move to the realm of class the clearer we find concerns of race and ethnicity. No one remembers that ‘Briton’ has something to do with Celticness. Being ‘too Scottish’ is seen as an assertion of a Celtic rather than Anglo–Saxon heritage. The marketability of certain individuals derives from the arousal of this racial stereotype. The proof of the English footballer David Beckham’s marketability is in his Anglo-Saxon ‘provenance’.

A colonial or imperial context helps clarify the argument. The key is class. ‘Scottishness’ equates to class and class equals conflict. Even within Scotland we can be criticized for this. The work of writers deemed ‘too Scottish’ shares a class background. Occasionally we are condemned for confining our fiction to the world of the urban working class. This suggests that for working class people cultural boundaries are fixed in place. Their world is an entirety of experience, culturally as well as economic. None can step beyond the limits of that world. It is a world barren of the finer things in life which are not only material but spiritual. Working class people cannot engage with art and philosophy. In their world there is no art and philosophy.

This elitism is straightforward and at the heart of the hostility but, as with racism, is seldom remarked upon within the establishment and mainstream media. It rarely occurs to critics that working class people might read ‘proper’ books or look at paintings as opposed to ‘pictures on the wall’. When it does occur to them it is treated as a phenomenon. They do not progress to the discovery that the life of one human being is as valid as another, that the life experience of one section of society is as diverse as another.

The bourgeoisie tend to go with the colonizers and the imperialists as a means of personal and group survival, and advancement. They quickly buy into the culture of the ruling elite. Indigenous languages and cultures are kept alive by those at the lower end of society. In India and much of Africa, as well as Australasia and North America, the voice of authority continues to be English. The lower order groups keep alive the local, the richness of the indigenous languages, the indigenous aesthetic, the culture – as best they can, not necessarily by choice or intention. Typically education is denied them, their languages and cultural markers proscribed, regarded as weapons. To use these language or cultural markers is seen as cultural vandalism or acts of terrorism, something the Kurdish people must contend with in order to survive.

Since the 18th century the cultural and linguistic movement of the Scottish bourgeoisie and ruling elite is total assimilation to Britishness where Englishness is the controlling interest. Scotland has its own languages too, and these are ‘living languages’, kept alive by people using them who, generally, are working class. Scottish literary artists have worked in these languages for centuries. Even where the writers are not themselves working class in origin the subject matter of the work is, as we see in some of the writings of Walter Scott or R.L. Stevenson.

Scotland also has its own philosophical, legal, religious, literary and educational traditions, and most of this too is marginalized. Scottish educators have to fight Scottish  institutions to find a place for Scottish philosophy, literature and education  itself. Many English people sympathize with their struggle but see the context to include the marginalized cultures and traditions of English counties like Yorkshire, Cornwall,  Northumbria, Cumbria, Somerset and Lancashire. The difference is that Scotland is not an English county, it is a full British country. Many English people fail to grasp this point. Scotland will continue to be a British country whether or not we are governed from London, England. Great Britain is a geographical entity.

People are right to treat nationalism with caution. None more than Scottish people who favor self-determination. Any form of nationalism is dangerous, and should be treated with caution. I cannot accept nationalism and I am not a Scottish Nationalist. But once that is said, I favor a ‘yes or no’ decision on independence and I shall vote ‘yes’ to independence.

Countries should determine their own existence and Scotland is a country. The decision is not managerial. It belongs to the people of Scotland. We are the country. There are no countries on Mars. This is because there are no people on Mars. How we move ahead here in Scotland is a process that can happen only when the present chains are disassembled, and discarded, when the majority people seize the right, and burden, of self-determination.

The Scottish Nationalists have exposed its weakness here. Under their leadership once ‘independence’ is achieved they intend “to share Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State.” This is like the 17th Century when a tiny bunch of aristocrats ruled Scotland but shared kingship with England and Wales. The truth is the majority of Scottish people have never experienced self determination at any time in history. Injecting this anachronistic hierarchy into the proceedings is an absurd and backward step.

I am not a patriot. A ‘patriot’ is one who accepts national identity as grounds for a primary solidarity. It is patently absurd that the majority people should expect solidarity from the ruling elite and upper classes. In Scotland there is no justification for such a hope let alone expectation.

The British establishment left, right and centre are as one in their opposition to Scottish self-determination. This applies to the many Scottish politicians of the Tory Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal-Democrat Party who ‘cross the political divide’ to stand together in defense of the Union. It is useful to see this priority expressed so clearly. This type of united front is common in situations of war.

The Scottish Nationalists’ push to subject the majority people to a Royal Family pays homage to another tradition associated with ‘Scottish identity’: submission and servitude to the ruling elite. Manna for Empire builders and Colonialists. Dependency is at the root of this aspect of ‘Scottish identity’. There may be a ‘right’ of self-determination; on the other hand there may not. Even if there is such a right it need not be exercised. Siding with the imperialist is a better option: dogs brought to heel can be robbed of their bones.

Scottish people are encouraged by the establishment to take pride in their service to the Monarch, the Royal Family and all of its subjects. Scottish children are taught to glorify submission and servitude, embodied in the myth of “the Scottish soldier who wandered faraway and soldiered faraway” in the retention of British authority and the denial to the majority people both foreign and domestic, of the right of self-determination.

There are centuries of imperialist myth-making, misinformation and propaganda to disentangle. Clan allegiance has been strong in the highlands and islands of Scotland, as has religious difference throughout the country. This continued throughout the 17th and on through the 18th century until the Battle of Culloden in 1746 when the clan system and Jacobitism were effectively destroyed.

The British State has sought to deny the right to self-determination consistently over the past few hundred years in Africa, the Americas, Ireland, the Indian Sub-continent, South East Asia or Australasia. The State has used every argument it can to cling onto power and when necessary applied the requisite dirty tricks, and finally moved in the army to achieve their objective, at whatever cost, including the slaughter of innocents.

Unfortunately religious difference remains significant into the 21st Century. The Scottish Nationalists support for such an intrinsically British institution will appears as a sop not only to Unionist sympathizers but to ‘the Protestant vote’. This opens a nasty sore on the Scottish political and cultural scene. Traditionally, Protestants are anti-Republican Unionists who regard the King or Queen of England as Defender of the Faith. Roman Catholics are believed to favor Republicanism. In Scotland many people confuse ‘Republicanism’ ‘Roman Catholicism’ and ‘Irishness’. Some believe them to be one and the same thing. The subtext to their ‘pro-Unionist, anti-Republican’ stance is sectarian racism: anti-Catholic, anti-Irish. Others in Scotland will view the Nationalist retention of the British Monarchy in these terms.

The continuing debate in Britain is led by the establishment and mainstream media and focuses on whether or not independence is ‘good for Scotland’. This is a red herring. It is an argument from self-interest and therefore secondary. The economic consequences of self-determination are important but are not and cannot be the central issue. Experts and specialists debate on the deployment of capital resources; defense and foreign policy, business & industry; health and welfare issues, religions and secularism. Shall Scotland seek to enter NATO, the UN, the British Commonwealth, and the European Union? What will happen to ‘our’ soldiers and ‘our’ army-towns, ‘our’ battleships, warplanes, tanks and submarines. What effects will independence have upon our relationships with the USA, with England, Wales and Ireland, not to mention Spain, Italy, Israel, Turkey and all those other countries keeping the lid on their own governance issues.
How we progress as a people will depend on how we contend with those and other matters. A people cannot be asked to settle in advance of independence how they shall act in hypothetical situations. We are being asked to provide a priori evidence of our fitness to determine our own existence before the freedom to do so is allowed.

Imperialists and colonizers lay down the judgment that there is no ‘right’ of self-determination. But that judgment has no place in the 21st Century. The right to self-determination inheres in every adult human being and distinguishes us from animals, mammals, birds, fowls or fish. No one grants us this right. It is not allowed to us by a benign authority. People exercise the right. It can only be denied to us, as it is denied to the vast majority of the world’s population.

Ultimately there is only one issue: the right to self-determination. Underlying the ‘good for Scotland’ debate is the denial of that right.

We are talking about freedom. We exercise freedom. If freedom be denied us we seize it as our right. Neo-fascism is illustrated where the burden of proof is placed upon human beings to provide evidence of their humanity. Some fall into the trap of accepting the burden of proof. They seek to provide evidence to establish their own humanity. They can only fail. Humanity cannot be ‘granted’ or ‘allowed’ them. They already are human. Their humanity is being denied. No one gives us our freedom. We take it. If it is denied us we continue to take it. We have no choice. If it is taken from us and we allow it to be taken from us then we are colluding in our own subjection.

The Scottish Nationalists pay allegiance to the concept of ‘hereditary subjection’ (and spiritual degradation), as embodied in the Queen of the British Kingdoms and I find this repugnant. The question is of historical as well as contemporary relevance. People have fought and died for a political freedom inclusive of Republicanism. They would turn in their grave. No one has the right to represent the voice of the Scottish people in a matter of such gravity. It is a massive setback but not insurmountable. It is my belief that the Nationalists’ brand of independence should still be grasped. We can learn from the past. Sooner or later the right to self-determination will be exercised by the majority of people in my country. When I vote ‘yes’ to independence I shall be voting towards that end.

This article first appeared in NY Arts and the original can be viewed here.

Below is a 1973 documentary by the brilliant film maker Kenneth Griffith about the 1916 Easter Rising. A fascinating piece of social history featuring interviews with veterans. Well worth watching to the end for some wise words from Tom Barry.

Following a lengthy investigation, and after briefing our activists, the James Connolly Society would like to put the following information into the public domain. We have made this decision in the interests of transparency and also to alert the wider community to this ongoing campaign against republicanism in Scotland.

Over the last 18 months two people in the Edinburgh area have been approached by Lothian and Borders police and encouraged to apply for a republican flute band march in the city. One of these is a vulnerable young man and his parents approached the JCS after becoming concerned about his welfare.  In another incident a young male was encouraged by police officers to reform the Rising Phoenix Republican flute band. None of these people were members of the James Connolly Society.

Our investigation has uncovered evidence this is part of an attempt by the state to increase tensions in Scotland over the summer and draw republicanism, and republican marches in particular, into the controversy over the forthcoming contentious marches by the Apprentice Boys and the Scottish Defence League in Edinburgh. They appear to want to set up a contentious republican march to allow the far right to mobilise against and then to claim ‘both sides are as bad as each other’.

The James Connolly Society is opposed to the sectarian marches of the Apprentice Boys and the Orange Order and attempts by the far right SDL to organise in Scotland. The focus for progressive forces should be on opposing these bigoted and racist organisations politically and if necessary on the streets.

Marching is an important and legitimate tactic for republicans in Scotland. It is important to point out there are no contentious republican marches in Scotland. Republicans understand the need to work with and respect the host community. Through decades of struggle to establish our community’s right to march we also understand the responsibilities that come with this right. This included a responsibility to our own community and the necessity to place marches within a broader social and political strategy.

Attempts to restart flute bands or import flute bands to Edinburgh is an old tactic by the state. Twenty years ago during the Labour controlled Edinburgh Council’s doomed ban on the James Connolly march the police deployed exactly the same tactics. They approached individuals encouraging them to apply for a republican flute band march and guaranteed permission would be granted on condition the James Connolly Society were excluded. They also approached one individual and encouraged him to apply for a St Patricks march in Edinburgh again guaranteeing permission if republicans were excluded.

For over twenty years the James Connolly Society has worked to ensure that the life and work of James Connolly is moved from the periphery to the centre of Scottish political life. Throughout this period we have deployed various tactics and faced many battles with Edinburgh Council and the police. Many inside these state institutions have not forgiven the JCS for the many defeats we inflicted upon them and are driven by a desire to turn the clock back to refight old battles.

The James Connolly Society has an almost unique insight into the dangers of the far right in Scotland. Our organisation has been a target for these groups for over two decades. We have been to the forefront of political struggles and physical confrontation with these groups in their various guises. The rise of the SDL and the recent recurrence of far right attacks on republican marches should act as a spur for all anti fascists to devise new strategies for the times ahead.

While Lothian and Borders police must take responsibility for the actions of their officers our investigation has uncovered evidence these actions are being directed by a unit based in the Scottish Government’s Policing Division. This unit is made up of seconded police officers and civil servants. The JCS condemns these attempts by the state to manipulate individuals in our community. Their behaviour is irresponsible and dangerous.

We would ask our members and the wider community to remain vigilante of attempts by the state to set the agenda. Over the last few years we have organised dozens of events including conferences, educational sessions, political talks, Connolly tours as well as fundraisers for The Connolly Foundation’s statue appeal. We remain committed to working with others to ensure James Connolly’s life is celebrated in the city of his birth.

Republicans remain committed to building a better future not revisiting the past. Irish republicans in Scotland are focussed on making a positive intervention during the independence referendum debate recognising the strategic importance of the break up of the British state. We will not allow our political opponents to deflect us from this task.

James Connolly Society

March 2012

Shortly after Girvan LJ convicted Brendan McConville and John Paul Wotton of the murder of PSNI Officer Stephen Carroll, ACC Drew Harris, head of Criminal Investigations and Special Branch in the PSNI, made a point of walking over to the Chief Prosecution Lawyer Ciaran Murphy QC and shook his hand and congratulated him. Furthermore, such cries of Justice which emanated from the PSNI in the aftermath of the judgement appear to be a premature exultation of righteousness that hide a somewhat Kafkaesque style justice.

The basis of such an assertion lies in the evidence adduced in the course of the trial, which appears deeply suspect and worrying from a human rights standpoint, and that does not appear to meet the required standard of proof necessary for a criminal conviction. Various aspects of the witness testimony, the forensic analysis and the fact that substantive weight was given to the inferences from the defendants failure to testify on their own behalf, whilst the remaining elements were made up of somewhat dubious circumstantial evidence.

While it is not even clear that either McConville or Wootton fired the fatal shot from the AK 47 assault rifle on the night of March 9th, 2009, that killed 48-year-old Constable Carroll Lord Justice Girvan, stated that while the evidence against the two men was circumstantial, the case was nonetheless “compelling” and they “were both intimately involved” in the murder.

This is contracdicted in much of the facts. Witness ‘M’ the main witness identifying one of the defendants only came forward 11 months after the incident. Thereafter he was seen to be evasive and confused about numerous aspects of his testimony. One issue the identification of one of the defendants raised numerous issues, he claimed his eyesight was perfect, however a defence lawyer asserted he was “as blind as a bat” and was on expert evidence seen to be defective. Moreover he staed he was only 50% sure under cross examination if this person he claims he saw in the time before the incident was one of the defendants, a point which varied from a substantially higher ratio. However, most notably his partner did not corroborate his evidence nor did a local man near the scene on the night, whilst CCTV evidence clearly contradicted some of his assertions. Furthermore it was asserted that witness M was alleged to have been prone to heavy drinking and was aleged to have rung the police drunk on a number of occassions whilst it was suggestedthat he was benefiting financially from the witness protection scheme.

This is outside of two substantial aspects that deserve further investigation in relation to this case. Firstly, the British army surveillance equipment that was removed from a vehicle, alleged to have been used on the night in question, by the SSR (Special Recconnassaince Regiment) and tampered with, removing vital data. Secondly, the naming of an Agent involved by a defence lawyer during the trial, as Officer Commanding the Continuity IRA, raises a number of very substantive issues, and begs the question to which agency was he alleged to have been working for and reporting to.

This case, like many in the 1980s and 90s points to security force involvement in the course of events and raises the possibility that an agent provecateur may have been at active in this instance, which raises worring substantive legal issues. Moreover, the entire proceedings in this case appear entirely prejudiced against the defendants so much so that considering the recent conviction of Brian Shivers in relation to the deaths at Masserene Barracks and this recent decision calls into serious question whether dissident republican suspects can get a fair trial in the North.

There was a massive demonstration of popular resistance to British injustice on Wednesday when thousands upon thousands of people took to the streets of Belfast for the funeral of IRA Volunteer Larry Marley.

Two previous attempts to bury Volunteer Marley, who had been murdered by loyalist assassins at his Ardoyne home almost a week earlier, were frustrated by the heavy-handed actions of the RUC who did everything in their power to prevent a dignified funeral taking place.

Far from intimidating the Marley family, the actions of the RUC merely strengthened their resolve to ensure that their husband and father was buried with proper respect. For two days and nights, the eyes of Belfast, the rest of Ireland and beyond turned towards Ardoyne and to the bravery of the Marley family in the midst of their grief. That bravery inspired others. The number of mourners outside the Marley home grew and, at short notice, major demonstrations against the activities of the RUC and in support of the family were held in Andersonstown and Ardoyne itself.

Yet it was not until the actual funeral that the full measure of popular feeling could be properly gauged. Ignoring the vast array of plastic-bullet guns, helmets, armoured cars and rifles which are part and parcel of the machinery of repression seen at every republican funeral in recent years, the people came out in a spontaneous and moving gesture of solidarity and defiance.

Efforts by the RUC to impose its sectarian control over the funeral were frustrated by the sheer number of people, young and old, who turned out to join the procession or to line the route.

Nobody who has seen the television images of funerals in Soweto or other black South African townships could fail to make the comparison with events in Belfast this week.

The only difference is that in South Africa the Catholic hierarchy usually stands firmly on the side of the oppressed and not on the side of the oppressors.

Below is the documentary covering those events.

Cairde na hÉireann would like to take this opportunity following the guilty verdicts, on reduced charges, at the trial of Trevor Muirhead and Neil McKenzie to express our disappointment at the way the case has been handled by the Procurator Fiscal and the police.

We, as victims, expected to be treated as equal to the other victims of this bomb plot. Cairde have been clear from day one that this loyalist conspiracy was driven by anti Irish racism. We made this clear to the Procurator Fiscal and the police from the outset and are angry that the hate crime element of this case has been ignored throughout. The evidence led against one of the accused clearly showed his links to pro British death squads.

We believe this has been done for political purposes. It may suit the state to portray this case as about football or two extremists when in fact this bomb plot shines a light on Scotland’s shame – Anti Irish Racism.

Strathclyde police’s handling of the case should also come into question;
Firstly, despite Cairde’s high profile they failed to provide warning to Cairde na hÉireann when they had warned other Irish comminty groups. Why not? And who made this decision?

Secondly, whilst taking statements from Cairde na hÉireann members officers were abrupt and aggressive to the point that the members felt it was more of an interrogation and left feeling more like the perpetrators than victims. They were denied the basic right to have a witness present. Again we ask who made this decision?

Thirdly, the Crown Prosecution Service, the media and Strathclyde police tried to centre this crime around football. Anti Irish Racism and sectarianism is rife in Scottish society and is not limited to ninety minutes. Racism and other forms of hate crimes are problems for all of Scottish society not just football

Cairde have long argued that the police in Scotland are not fit for purpose. What training they have in this area is inadequate. What is needed is transparency and accountability in policing. Following the decision to grant anonymity to police officers during this trial that demand must be repeated.

Sadly Cairde and the broader Irish community will not be surprised by either the mishandling of this case or the less than satisfactory outcome. We have, over the past eight years, consistently worked with councils, police and parliament on achieving better conditions for the Irish diaspora, especially around the issues of racism and sectarianism. Threats, real or otherwise, will not stop us from striving to accomplish our aims.

Cairde na hEireann

30 March 2012

Statement Ends