Tag: Irish Left

DEMONISATION BY THE FAMILIARS OF VAMPIRES

On By rebelbreezeIn Civil Rights, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, Mass Media CriticismLeave a comment

STATEMENT AGAINST DEMONISATION OF WATER METER RESISTERS ISSUED BY COMMUNITIES AGAINST WATER CHARGES NETWORK  — a very good statement apart from falling into the trap of agreeing to put “sinister, dissident republicans” in it and to separate themselves from political activists. “Standing together” includes “dissident republicans” and other political activists.  Diarmuid Breatnach.

“Resisting the Water Charges and Defending Our Right to Protest.

“We are residents of a number of communities in Dublin North East. Over the last number of months we have come together to resist the installation of water meters in our areas, and to oppose this unfair double taxation that the government calls water charges.

“For most of us, this is the first time in our lives that we have engaged in any sort of protest and have only done so because we simply cannot take any more of this government’s austerity agenda. At all times we have sought to resist the installation of these meters in a peaceful, dignified and resolute manner.

“We are therefore appalled at the recent developments in how An Garda Síochána have policed our protests, and with the blatant campaign to vilify and demonise us that the government and Gardai, supported by segments of the media, launched in recent days.

“They have claimed that Gardai are routinely assaulted at protests, and that our movement has been infiltrated by a “sinister fringe” or by “dissident republicans”. We categorically reject these claims. In recent weeks we have been subjected to heavy handed and abusive policing by the Gardai. Men and women, protesting peacefully, have been pushed, pulled and punched by Gardai. To our knowledge not one of our fellow protesters has been convicted of assaulting a member of An Garda Síochána, and violent protest is not something we would endorse or tolerate.

“With respect to the claim that our movement has been infiltrated by sinister elements, we reject this also. We are the people on the streets, day in, day out, peacefully resisting these meters; we are mothers, fathers, parents, pensioners, workers and unemployed – we are not sinister, dissident republicans.

“In light of these developments, we are genuinely fearful that the Gardai, at the behest of the government, are preparing to become even more aggressive towards our protests and to eviscerate our right to protest.
“We therefore call on all of the people of Ireland to come out and support us this coming Monday, 10 November 2014, in Dublin North East. We fear that GMC Sierra will attempt, with heavy Garda support, to enter our areas and install meters that we do not want. It is our intention to continue to resist this unjust tax in a peaceful and dignified manner, but we fear that the decision has been made to strip us of a meaningful right to protest.

“Each and every one of us has resolved to resist this tax and these meters, we will continue to do so in a peaceful way, but if we are to succeed we need the support of other communities. If we all stand together, we can resist these charges, retain water as a public good and human right, and vindicate our right to protest.

communitiesagainstwatercharges@gmail.com”

Video against water charges — excellent lip-synching dubbing of excerpt from The Fiield film:

Video of Garda Armed Response Unit attending in support of Irish Water at housing estate in Clonmel:

Analysis of manipulation by mass media, the Government, Gardaí of annual statistics (of Garda provenance) on assaults on Gardai in order to demonise and criminalise water meter protesters: http://oireachtasretort.tumblr.com/post/102073020165/are-irish-water-protesters-assaulting-three-gardai-a

DEAR MINISTER

On By rebelbreezeIn Fan Letters, Ireland, Irish Left, Satire, Workers' StrugglesLeave a comment

Dear Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton,

Joan Burton, Labour Party TD, Minister for Social Protection in Fine Gael/ Labour coalition Irish Government.
Joan Burton, Labour Party TD, Minister for Social Protection in Fine Gael/ Labour coalition Irish Government.

I thought I should write to you to express my appreciation of your standing up to that bully Joan Collins and that baying mob of reds and general hooligans that is always howling for the blood of those few, like yourself, who are willing to stand up and tell a few home truths.

You were quite right to point out that videos hostile to the Gardaí were being posted on the Internet by people who had access to expensive mobile phones and Ipads. Some of these are obviously professional red agitators (in the old days, we could be sure that they were receiving funding from Soviet Russia but it’s harder to say where they get their money from these days).

Other people filming and posting are bound to be ne’erdowells who’d rather spend their money on these Ipads and things rather than pay their water bills like good citizens. They probably have expensive television sets on which they’re watching the news too, not only RTÉ but “alternative” media, such as that muck-raking “Democracy Now!”. To be honest, I’ve wondered sometimes whether it was wise to educate the working classes but now, sure one doesn’t have to be able to read to watch videos and news reports, does one?

And attacking the poor Gardaí, who are only doing their job! Their critics say that they don’t deal effectively with crime in working class areas but turn out in big numbers to police protests.  That is clearly nonsense.  Why, I had a burglar alarm tripped in my Killiney Hill residence the other day and two squad cars were there within four minutes! It was a false alarm, but still ….. Some people say that if the Gardaí weren’t behaving badly, they wouldn’t be giving their critics anything to put on the Internet, but that’s not the point. Sure you can’t deal with the kind of people who live in places like Darndale or Clare Hall without being a little robust – it’s what they understand, what they practice among themselves. It’s only the Gardaí being culturally sensitive, if you like. But who likes doing his job while being videoed (well, film stars maybe … and celebrities … and politicians, maybe)?

Joan Collins TD
Joan Collins, TD (elected Member of Irish Parliament), many years a socialist community activist.

As for your one, that Joan Collins? A postal clerk, I ask you! What can a postal clerk know about what it takes to run a country? Not like yourself, now, having previously worked as a lecturer in accountancy. But getting back to that Collins …. sure looking at her history is like a career in far-left organisations – the Socialist Party, People Before Profit, the United Left Alliance, and now in the United Left, with that other red get, Clare Daly.

The Collins woman has no sense of propriety or occasion. Did she not give Bertie Ahern a tongue-lashing as he was being interviewed on TV on the day of his resignation outside the Dáil! “Shame on you!” she shouted at him; no, shame on her! I know you’ll agree with me here, although the Soldiers of Destiny party has never been one of our closest friends. Poor Bertie had put in years of service as a TD and Taoiseach and was entitled to his pension of €135,000 (and he hadn’t even been condemned by the Mahon Tribunal yet)! I hope he has opened a bank account since, as with rising crime, stuffing money under the mattress is no longer a safe option.

But forgive me, I’m drifting off the point. I just wanted to say “fair play” to you for speaking the truth and standing up to that red rabble-rouser Collins. And if you ever get around to banning the trouble-makers from carrying mobile phones or from putting such provocative videos up on the Internet, you’ll have my full support. Our democracy needs to be protected from people like them.

Respectfully,

Shleevy N. Fawning

Video of exchange between the two Joans in the Dáil in which the Minister makes comments about protesters with “expensive Ipads”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6RmC9a82P8

PAISLEY, BIGOT OF MANY PARTS, DIES

On By rebelbreezeIn Civil Rights, History, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, Mass Media Criticism, National Liberation, Peace Process, Political AnalysisLeave a comment

               Diarmuid Breatnach

Ian Paisley speaking outdoors
Ian Paisley addressing an outdoor meeting in typical style

 

Ian Paisley died on 12th September, five days ago. Much of the mass media portrayed him a man who participated in building peace in the Six Counties. Some of the media painted a different picture or, at least, permitted a different telling of his story. I have searched for but failed to find a photo I remember from decades ago, in the early days of the campaign for civil rights for Catholics in that sectarian colonial statelet, a photo of Ian Paisley and Ronald Bunting standing side by side. In Bunting’s right hand was a pick-axe handle. It was around the time of the Burntollet Ambush of Civil Rights campaigners (who were marched into it by the good old RUC, nowadays the Police Service of Northern Ireland). At Burntollet, the B-Specials and civilian Loyalists had pickaxe handles too, and rocks as well.

Burntollet Loyalists & RUC
Loyalists waiting to attack Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet Bridge mingle with RUC, January 1969.
Burntollet Loyalists, RUC, marchers
Civil Rights marchers duck from hail of missiles while RUC stand by. Note clubs also wielded by Loyalists, many of them also police reservists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an interview around that time, side by side with Ronald Bunting, Paisley made much of how law-abiding they and their crowd were. They could afford to be, since the statelet’s laws gave it enormous powers which nullified every civil right the large Catholic minority might try to use. But illegal violence was never far from the weapons of the State and its Loyalist supporters, to which the imperial master usually turned a blind eye (as it had to the landing of weapons in 1914, including 30.000 assorted rifles with ammunition at Larne and Donaghdee for the Ulster Volunteer Force).  Nevertheless, Ian spouted in public about law and order – an old trick of fascists who have their armed thugs already breaking the law … and arms and legs too.

Not long after, Paisley and Bunting went to jail for breaking the law, as the statelet’s rulers strove to control them and also to show the world how “fair” and “even-handed” they were. Unfortunately for them at that time, the world had already seen and was to see more of it – and it was not a pretty picture.

An ex-British Army Major, Bunting had his own paramilitary unit and though he was somewhat sidelined later for a decade, who knows where he might have ended were it not for the 1980 murder of his son, Ronnie, who had joined the Official IRA and later the Irish National Liberation Army. Ronnie was murdered by SAS or Loyalists  and after that, the grieving father dropped completely out of politics.

Paisley broke away from his Unionist Party because he could not rise high enough in it, could not control it and so he created his own party, the Democratic Unionist Party. He broke away from his Presbyterian Church for the same reason and created his own, making himself a vicar and Moderator of it. He never joined the Orange Order, perhaps because he did not wish to be answerable to it. When Bernadette (Devlin) McAlliskey warned people not to fear the DUP but rather the Official Unionist Party (so named to distinguish it from other unionist parties), because the former represented the real colonial power in the Six Counties, she could not have anticipated that Paisley would adapt, outflank the Official Unionists and gather the support of the old colonial class and their imperial masters. (As an aside, it’s a curious fact that in Ireland, calling one’s party the “Official” version, is to invite outflanking and eventual marginalisation).

Paisley was a skilfull demagogue and those who, in Britain or in the 26 Counties, laughed at him and his rabid roaring oratory, underestimated him. For he was not talking to them, even when giving an interview on TV, but to his own die-hard Loyalist audience. And most of them loved “Big Ian” or “Bigyan”, even if some of the paramilitary leaders thought at times that he was trying to manipulate them for his own ends (for example, during the Ulster Workers’ Strike of 1974) .

But when different times called for a different act, a different Ian emerged. A man of many smiles, a man who could go back on most of what he had said to his troops when he felt the time was right, a man who could play his part in the newest game of the British Empire in their colony, that of power-sharing with Provisional Sinn Féin, just as the latter’s leadership too adjusted to play the new game, now “the only game in town” for them.

Paisley was a fundamentalist Protestant from the ranks of the “Dissenter” churches, those who opposed the established Anglican church of the imperial state and many of whom had in 1798 taken arms against that state for Irish independence. But those dissenting churches had by now been purged and were loyal servants of the Empire, though still dissenters in religion. Echoing the old Loyalist slogan from the early years of the last century that “Home Rule is Rome rule”, Paisley fulminated against any involvement in Six County affairs by the 26 County “Free State” and also ranted against the Catholic Pope, “the Scarlet Harlot”.

Those who rightly condemn the Catholic Church’s control of the Irish state often forget that the Six County state was as fundamentalist and restrictive in most things. Divorce was already party of UK law when Ireland was partitioned and was incorporated into the new statelet. Contraception was later permitted under UK legislation and entered the Six Counties largely without problem. But they drew the line at gay rights, even after the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 decriminalised sexual acts between consenting males of 21 years of age or over in England and Wales (lowered to 18 years of age only in 1994 and to 16, equally with heterosexuals in 2000). Scotland, another stronghold of fundamentalist Presbyterianism, took another 13 years to pass the same legislation. It did not become law until 1982 in the Six Counties, with Paisley leading the “Save Ulster from Sodomy” campaign against it. Sadly, another eleven years had to pass before similar legislation was passed in the 26 Counties. Abortion, although legal in Britain is still not legal in either part of Ireland.

It was said by many that as a parliamentary representative, Paisley was effective and represented his Catholic constituents on an individual basis equally with his Protestant ones. He also represented a Protestant constituent against the British Army and RUC. The man in question had confronted men with long hair, dressed in combat jackets and jeans and stealing a neighbour’s car. Later in the police station, he saw the same men, some without their long-haired wigs and heard them speaking in English accents, apparently on good terms with the police. The witness made an issue to the RUC of what he assumed to be a British Army undercover squad stealing a car in order to carry out some nefarious act. Some time after that a door in the man’s street was shot at, the door number of which was the reverse of his own. Whether it was a warning or a confused murder attempt is not clear but Paisley came out with a public statement, presumably to make sure the man stayed alive.

Paisley was a sectarian, authoritarian, homophobic bigot, a bully, a fundamentalist Christian, a servant of the colonial statelet masters and in turn of their British imperialist masters. The fact that he proved more adroit than most of his opponents had given him credit for changes none of that. It is entirely appropriate that he should have received an emotional tribute from Martin McGuinness, senior figure in Sinn Féin and Deputy First Minister of the colonial administration he had shared with Paisley, when the latter was First Minister. Martin McGuinness is also a man who has been different things to different men at different times, a man who has lied and also contradicted himself in public without shame or apology. Both got on so well together, at least in public, that they soon came to be described in terms of a British comedy act, as “the Chuckle Brothers”.

End.

 

Links:

Video footage of interview with Paisley and Bunting about their opposition to a Civil Rights march in the early days of the campaign http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/1031-civil-rights-movement-1968-9/1039-peoples-democracy-march-belfast-to-derr/319661-paisley-and-bunting-talk-about-march-day-3/

Paisley and Bunting released from jail: http://victorpatterson.photoshelter.com/image/I00009HZSb.Th6_I

Ronal Bunting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bunting

“Never a man of peace” — article in The Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/news/dani-garavelli-ian-paisley-never-a-man-of-peace-1-3541033 (NB: I do not agree with all that is in this article but certainly do with the main thrust of it and the headline — DB)

GARDAÍ MAKING FAMOUS CEMETERY A BATTLEGROUND?

On By rebelbreezeIn Civil Rights, History, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, National Liberation, Peace Process2 Comments

Diarmuid Breatnach

Glasnevin Cemetery (Reilig Ghlas Naíon) is a famous Irish graveyard on Dublin’s northside, on the south bank of the Tolca river and not far from the Royal Canal and Mountjoy Jail. As well as those of other people of great fame and none, it contains the remains of the fallen in a number of battles. However, the cemetery itself has become something of a battleground of late.

Glasnevin Cemetery Tower Rainbow
Rainbow over the tower in Glasnevin Cemetery (photo by Lorcán Collins as mourners left the funeral of his colleague, Shane Mac Thomáis, resident historian of the Cemetery, who died 20th March 2014)

There was the Alan Ryan funeral around this time last year, early September 2013. Ryan had been a prominent member of the 32-County Sovereignty Movement and allegedly head of the Dublin Real IRA (also now known as “the New IRA”) and was shot dead, reportedly as a result of a conflict with drug dealers.

Ryan’s funeral was a massive affair attended by hundreds of mourners; the Irish state police, the Gardaí, policed it heavily. The hearse and cortege were temporarily stopped at the cemetery’s entrance by uniformed and plainclothed police while the grieving mother and family members were taken out of their car, which was searched. Scuffles with police broke out a number of times as the latter even penetrated to Ryan’s graveside.

More recently, on 31st March this year, a commemoration in Glasnevin of soldiers of the British Commonwealth who had been killed in the First World War attracted a smallish protest from Irish Republicans and socialists across the road from the cemetery’s gates. These commemorations are viewed by Irish Republicans and many socialists as events glorifying Britain’s part in WWI and also an attempt to build unity between Irish people and the British Armed Forces. The Commonwealth event, the unveiling of a “Cross of Sacrifice”, was attended by a member of the British Royal Family, which added metaphorical fuel to the fire. However, there were real flames as a British Union flag, brought by the protesters, was set alight and Gardaí Special Branch rushed to apprehend the burners. In the melee, a number of protesters were handled roughly by the police, some were pepper-sprayed and one was handcuffed and taken away by Gardaí, reportedly beaten on the way.  Another who objected to being jostled by Gardaí was also promptly arrested.

Most recent of all was the Hunger Strikers’ Commemoration in the Republican Plot inside the cemetery on 23 August.  The event was organised by the Sean Heuston 1916 Society to honour the 22 Irish Republicans who have died on hunger strike between 1917 and 1981. The 1916 Societies is a broad collection of  organisations of Irish Republicans in different localities who do not agree with the Good Friday Agreement and wish to see Ireland united and independent; one of their main objectives in the interim is to campaign for a referendum on the question of Irish unity. The commemoration was the second of its kind organised by the Sean Heuston 1916 Society and, as the previous year’s had passed without any untoward incident other than the usual Special Branch photographing and taking notes, they had no reason to believe that this year’s would be any different.

The event proceeded as planned with orations, song and laying of wreaths but the trouble came as people tried to leave the cemetery. They were waylaid inside the cemetery’s gates by plainclothes police of the Special Branch, i.e. the political police, and told to identify themselves and to give their addresses. Two who refused to do so unless they were shown reasonable cause were handcuffed and bundled into separate police vehicles. Others who had attended the event then blocked the police vehicles from leaving and many uniformed Gardaí arrived to assist the Special Branch. In the struggle, police were again quite rough and one punched a child in the face. Eventually the Gardaí were successful but both detained  men were released later that day without charge.

Many visitors and unconnected mourners attending the famous cemetery were visibly shocked by the incidents. The organisers made it clear to the staff of the cemetery who it was who had initiated the disturbance and had chosen to do so inside the cemetery grounds.

Apart from general harassment and attempted intimidation of Irish Republicans, it is difficult to see what the Gardaí hoped to gain from this provocation and why they had escalated their behaviour at a peaceful commemoration. `One possibility is that the intention was to discourage the management of the Cemetery from permitting such commemorations in future. The organisers moved quickly to call a meeting with the Cemetery management, which has already taken place and reportedly concluded positively. And so it should.

The Republican Plot, managed by the National Graves Association, a voluntary body which does great work, is within the Cemetery. The graves of many Irish Republican and Socialist martyrs and prominent activists are within this plot and also in other places within the grounds. Some, like the great hero Anne Devlin, go back as far as the United Irish of 1798 and of 1803. James Connolly gave the oration here in 1913 at the graveside of the ITGWU martyr Jame Byrne, a victim of the State during the Lockout that year.

Cathal Brugha funeral Glasnevin
Funeral at Glasnevin of Republican Cathal Brugha, shot dead by Free State Army in O’Connell Street, 1922.

In 1915, Patrick Pearse gave his famous oration to a huge crowd at the Glasnevin graveside of the Fenian Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa, whose body had been returned to Ireland by the IRB in the USA. O’Donovan Rossa had been jailed for planning an insurrection against the British in 1865 and, though released in 1870 as part of a general amnesty, had to agree to emigrate. In 1922, Cathal Brugha, having survived 14 bullet wounds during the 1916 Rising, was killed in O’Connell Street by Free State Army soldiers and his funeral cortege too, also to Glasnevin Cemetery, was a huge affair. In 1966, the remains of Roger Casement, hanged by the British for his role in the 1916 uprising (the last of the death sentences of the 1916 insurgents to be carried out), were brought home from England and reinterred in Glasnevin with an Irish state ceremony.

These historic moments and connections between Glasnevin Cemetery and the national and class struggles may be uncomfortable for some and the police harassment may be intended to deepen that discomfort. However, it is difficult to see how anyone, whether of State or of Cemetery management, could successfully impose a ban on commemorations within this famous graveyard where so many of the Republicans and Socialists of previous years lie and which has been the scene of commemorations for over a century.

End.

ANOTHER SHOCKING STATE ATTACK ON THE RIGHTS OF A WOMAN BRINGS DEMONSTRATORS ON TO THE STREETS

On By rebelbreezeIn Civil Rights, Gender Equality, Ireland, Irish Left, Political AnalysisLeave a comment

A suicidal woman refused an abortion, is then force-fed to preserve her embryo which is later delivered at 25 weeks by caesarian section.

Diarmuid Breatnach

A woman considered suicidal by a medical panel was recently refused an abortion in Ireland and was subsequently force-fed. Within days a call was made for a protest demonstration and was answered by a substantial number in Dublin on Wednesday night last. The protestors filled the central section of O’Connell Street from the Spire to the Larkin monument and also spilled out into the road. Numbers of protestors took up station on the pavement fronting the GPO. A weekend demonstration was also convened in Dublin and another in Cork.0

Protest Caesarian etc rally 20Aug2014
Protesters in Dublin on Wednesday evening denouncing the treatment of the woman refused an abortion and force-fed. They called for the repeal of the Eight Amendment to the Irish Constitution.  (photo D. Breatnach)

The pregnant young woman, apparently under 18 years of age, was a migrant, who sought an abortion in Ireland. Some media reports say that her pregnancy arose as a result of a rape in her native country prior to her travelling to Ireland. Not all the details are clear but it seems that an Irish advice centre gave her the necessary information to travel to Britain to receive an abortion but that she was unable to afford it (there is also some question about her immigration or asylum status should she wish to reenter Ireland). It seems she then became depressed, not surprisingly, and expressed suicidal ideation. Under the Right to Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, introduced following the “X” case, a woman is entitled to receive an abortion if carrying the foetus should result in a substantial risk to her life – suicidal ideation being one of of those risks.

In accordance with the 2013 Act the young woman’s case was reviewed by a panel, consisting of two psychologists and an obstetrician. According to reporting in the mass media, the psychologists agreed that she was suicidal and that she she should therefore have the termination. The obstetrician apparently agreed that she was suicidal but argued that in a short while (two weeks has been mentioned), a caesarian could be carried out and a baby delivered alive and viable. Since the Act requires the unanimous concurrence of all three members of the panel, the young woman was refused an abortion.

It seems the woman became further depressed and stopped eating, whereupon lawyers for the hospital went to the High Court to obtain a court order permitting the woman to be force-fed, which procedure was carried out (probably intravenously). The woman is said to have subsequently agreed to a caesarian section by which method a baby was delivered. The fate of the woman is not in the public domain at this time but the baby was reportedly delivered alive and well after 25 weeks in the womb.

A number of speakers at the rally made the point that “here we are again”, i.e. that the lack of the necessary legislation has led to another case of terrible mistreatment of a young woman, a reference to other cases of refusal of abortion that have become scandals and lead to demonstrations such as about the death of Sadita Halappanavar in 2012 and the “X” case in 1992.

At the rally, all the speakers, campaigners and providers of services and a male doctor from Doctors for Choice, called for a referendum to repeal Amendment Eight of the Bunreacht (Irish Constitution). This is the amendment passed in 1983 in order to prevent abortion becoming legal. Some very telling points were made, one speaker saying that no-one in Ireland but a pregnant woman would be force-fed or bullied into submitting to an invasive surgical operation. Perhaps we cannot say that none of those things would ever happen to anyone else but it is certainly true that only in the case of a pregnant woman would that combination of coercive and intrusive procedures, clearly in violation of the Hippocratic Oath, have been considered so readily and applied in conjunction. That the woman was a migrant probably made it easier for the authorities but it is the legal position on abortion in Ireland and its moral underpinning which reduces the pregnant woman to the status of some kind of living vessel, the status of the unborn foetus being higher than that of the mother.

Men’s place in the movement

Breaking from the general trend at the rally, one of the speakers addressed many of her remarks specifically at the males present there in support. She told them “they should know their place” and that they had no right to express any opinion on the issue except to support the women. Some women applauded her and some did not.

Drs for Choice 23Aug2014 AF
On the Dublin march for the repeal of the 8th Amendment on Saturday. This banner was also present at the Wednesday protest rally where one of their representatives spoke. (photo Andrew Flood)

Since variations of this view have emerged quite frequently, including the view that it’s a women’s issue or that men should just follow the opinion of women in the movement, it is worth examining this a little further. The current situation on abortion in Ireland of course impacts in the first place on women but it does not affect them only. An unwanted pregnancy, especially at an early age or stage in a relationship can force decisions that may later be regretted, including marriage or abandonment. Raising a child from what was an unwanted pregnancy has long-term social and economic implications, not just for the mother but for a much wider circle – as well as for the child growing up in society. The existence of legislation on abortion and its repeal is in the realm of criminal law — but above all it is a social issue, one affecting society. The provision of abortion is also a medical and social question: medical and social structures and services will need to be put in place, funded, monitored and its practitioners trained. Therefore all of adult society has a right to a voice on it. To call on a section of society to be mute supporters is to treat them as voting fodder and should not be supported by any genuinely democratic person.

Pro-Choice that W not incubators
Man on the Dublin march for repeal of the 8th Amendment (photo Andrew Flood)

Also, if men, because they are not after all going to be the ones being impregnated and bearing children, should not have a voice but should only support women, which women’s opinions should they support? Why not support the many women who are totally against abortion? And even if supporting women who are for greater access to abortion, which section of opinion about which degree of access should men support?

Clearly men have to think about these issues to come to decisions. Are they to think silently, expressing no opinion and discussing with no-one, and then be expected to develop rational opinions to inform their actions and, in the case of a referendum, their voting too? Clearly the expectations expressed in such calls or statements are not only undemocratic but unrealistic too. Men not only have the right to express opinions on these issues but need to be able to do so in order to have the discussions that make it possible for them to make rational choices.

The attitude of the state and a referendum

The Dublin pro-choice demonstration on Saturday, according to observers, matched the numbers at the anti-abortion demonstration in the city on the same day – about seven hundred. The pro-choice demonstration took an unusual route from O’Connell Street and became the third demonstration to cross the Rosie Hackett Bridge (opened in May this year). The Bridge is the only one in Dublin named after a woman and Rosie was a trade union militant active in the Dublin Lockout of 1913, as well as taking part in the 1916 Rising as a member of the Irish Citizen Army. The demonstration rallied just across the river at the Department of Health in Hawkins Street (the Department under which the young woman had been refused an abortion and force-fed) and then went on to demonstrate at the Dáil (the Irish parliament).

ProChoice DeptHealth 23Aug2014 AF
Speaker addresses the crowd in Hawkins Street, outside the Department of Justice — Rosie Hackett Bridge is to the far right of the photo. (photo Andrew Flood)

Some supporters of a change in the law have presented the issue as though it is essential to the State and to the Catholic Church, two institutions closely linked, to control women’s bodies through refusing access to abortion, free and on demand. I do not think it is so. Certainly those forces may want to control women’s bodies (and indeed, men and women’s minds) but such control is not essential for the continued existence of the State. Many capitalist countries have either easy access to abortion or much more liberal laws than has the 26-County state. This state can afford to give that right but that does not mean that it will. When a state is able to give something but does not want to, sufficient force must be mobilised in order to convince it that yielding will cost it less than denying. Substantial pressure will need to be brought to bear on the State so that it agrees to holding a referendum.

But having a referendum does not mean that the correct and necessary outcome will be the result. We have had referenda in which the side of progress and justice was successful but also those in which it was not. The present Amendment Eight to the Bunreacht (Constitution), which the movement seeks to repeal, was the result of a referendum.

Yes, true, that was 30 years ago and opinions have changed since. In recent years, opinion surveys have shown a majority in favour of some relaxation of the law. Also, two legislative attempts to tighten restrictions on access to abortion, in 1992 and 2002, failed. On the other hand, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments, both in 1992, were successful in loosening the ban, establishing the right of a pregnant woman to travel, even if to obtain an abortion, and to be given information about abortions services abroad. However, although the numbers in favour of unfettered access to abortion have grown substantially they do not yet constitute a majority.

According to analysts of the socio-economic background of respondents to the questionnaire, the indication is that the areas of greatest resistance are among a section of the middle class and a section of the working class. That particular section of the middle class is one of generally right-wing views and not amenable to change. Besides, they have the economic resources to lessen the chances of unwanted pregnancies including, despite their ideological position against it, to send their pregnant daughters quietly to Britain, having them return after a brief holiday without the neighbours being any the wiser. Or for a wife to go on a weekend visit to a friend in Britain even without her husband knowing the real reason for the trip.

The working class is in a different situation. High social and economic deprivation in Western countries tends to be accompanied by a higher degree of unplanned pregnancies and single parenthood than is the case with other socio-economic groups. Most working class families would also struggle to find the funds to send a family member to Britain (or to the Netherlands, apparently a new trend) to have an abortion, usually accompanied by at least one friend or family member, paying for travel, accommodation and the procedure itself. And the level of care is likely to be at the lower end of the scale. Of course many, many families and friend groups do manage it somehow.

The working class has a vested interest in this reform and this is recognised among some sections of the class but not in others. Traditional obedience to the Church has broken down in many areas, for example in ideas about sex before marriage and in using barriers to impregnation. However, the opposition to abortion remains, for many, a line not to be crossed. If a referendum is to be forced from the State and, in particular if the outcome is to be such as needed, a change in the outlook of at least a substantial section of this class needs to be achieved. Most working class people outside the immediate circles of the pro-choice movement tend not to see any campaigning on the issue except after such scandals hit the headlines – then a flare-up is briefly visible until things die down again.

The pro-choice movement will need to get out on to the streets and into communities on a regular basis if it is to win. I think it also needs to counter the work of the anti-choice propagandists, particularly those who put up their stalls in public areas or picket information centres. In discussion with some activists in the pro-choice movement, they say they do these things to some degree but don’t have the numbers of activists needed to do it more regularly. I confess that I find it hard to believe that in Dublin, for example, the movement is incapable through lack of activists to put a stall – indeed a number of stalls in different areas – on the street at least once a month. Some of those in the movement have been campaigning for decades and others for many years – and yet, as so many of their speakers said on Wednesday night in O’Connell Street, “here we are again”, responding to another fatal tragedy or shocking violation of human and civil rights.

Front Rally Repeal 8th 23Aug2014
Front of the march on Saturday in Dublin (photo Andrew Flood)

Facebook organising and networking by pro-choice campaigning groups can produce quick mobilisation of substantial numbers of people. These people are already convinced. Most of the working class remains untouched by these mobilisations and certainly their overall outlook remains unchanged. If the pro-choice movement is to have its desires become reality, it needs to get out into the working class communities and promote its cause, hopefully recruiting from among those communities to better carry the message among their own. The movement needs to engage in dialogue with movements with a high percentage of people of working class background, such as – dare one say it? — the Irish Republican movement. The latter is, despite one very deep idealogical divide and the existence of a number of factions, the political opposition movement with the largest active participation of people of working class background. At the moment, the overall position of the movement is anti-choice but that is nowhere near as monolithic or as unassailable as it was even a decade ago.

The hope is that the necessary mobilisation will be done and that very soon the State will be forced to concede a referendum on the abolition of Amendment Eight. The hope is also that the necessary educational work will be done to achieve an overwhelming victory in that referendum. The activists in the movement need our support, men as well as women, in all of that.

End.

SONGS FROM THE DOCKS

On By rebelbreezeIn History, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, National Liberation, Socialist Revolution, Song, Workers' StrugglesLeave a comment

A well-prepared Paul O’Brien and a much-less prepared Diarmuid Breatnach singing at the Seán O’Casey Centre as part of the Songs From the Docks events. 

Paul sings mostly his own compositions.

Diarmuid singing the Ballad of Pat O’Donnell and (most of) the Jim Larkin Ballad. I believe this is the first posting of “Pat O’Donnell” on Youtube.


Thanks to Bas Ó Curraoin for the videoing.

Pat O’Donnell was a man with an interesting life — the little we know of it — which was sadly cut short.  Born in Gaoth Dobhair (Gweedore) in Donegal, even still an Irish-speaking area, he had spent time mining in the USA and had also spent time with cousins who were in the Molly Maguires in the coal-mining area of Pensylvania there.  A further article on him and on the killing of Carey, along with other links and a clip of another version of the song is here: https://rebelbreeze.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/pat-odonnell-patriot-or-murderer/

 

Sorry, Your Majesty

On By rebelbreezeIn Fan Letters, History, Ireland, Irish Republicanism, National Liberation, Peace Process, SatireLeave a comment

Queen Elizabeth II Delivers Annual SpeechYour Most Exalted Majesty, Queen of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces, Head of the Church of England, Queen of the Commonwealth.

We trust this letter finds your Highness well, as we do also with regard to Your Highness’ large family and of course your trusted corgis.

 

I am tasked with writing to yourselves in order to make some embarrassing admissions and to ask your Royal forgiveness.

 

No doubt your family carries the memory of an uprising in Dublin in 1916? Yes, of course one’s family does, as your Highness says. Well …. the embarrassing thing is this ……. it’s so difficult to say but no amount of dressing up is going to make it better so I’d best just come out with it: that was us. Yes, it’s true.

 

Not just us, of course. There were a load of Reds in green uniforms too, Connolly and Markievicz’s lot. And of course our female auxiliaries, and the youth group. But most of that rebellious band was us, the Irish Volunteers. I can’t adequately express to your Highness how ashamed we are of it all now. Your government of the time was quite right to authorise the courts-martial of hundreds of us and to sentence so many to death. Your magnanimity is truly astounding that only fifteen were shot by firing squads and that Casement fellow hanged.

 

But were we grateful? Not a bit of it! Does your Highness know that some people still go on about that Red and trade union agitator, James Connolly, being shot in a chair? What would they have your Army do? Shoot him standing up? Sure he had a shattered ankle and gangrene in his leg! One can’t please some people – damned if one does something and damned if one doesn’t. If the Army hadn’t kindly lent him a chair, those same people would be saying that the British wouldn’t even give him a chair to sit on while they shot him.

And how did we repay your Highness’ kindness and magnanimity in only executing sixteen? And in releasing about a thousand after only a year on dieting rations? By campaigning for independence almost immediately afterwards and starting a guerrilla war just three years after that Rising! A guerrilla war that went on for no less than three years. Your Majesty, we burn with shame just thinking of it now!

Our boys chased your loyal police force out of the countryside, shot down your intelligence officers in the streets of Dublin, ambushed your soldiers from behind stone walls and bushes ….. but still your Highness did not give up on us. Some people still go on and on about the two groups of RIC Auxiliaries and the things they did, referring to them by the disrespectful nicknames of “Black and Tans” (after a pack of hunting dogs) and “Auxies”. They exaggerate the number of murders, tortures, arson and theft carried out by them. Of course, your Highness, we realise now, though it’s taken a century for us to come to that realisation, that sending us that group of police auxiliaries was a most moderate response by yourself. But we were too blind to see that then and shot at them as well!

And that fellow Barry and his Flying Column of West Cork hooligans, wiped out a whole column of them. Your Highness will no doubt find it hard to believe this, but some troublemaker even went so far as to compose a song in praise of that cowardly ambush! Oh yes, indeed! And some people still sing it today – in fact they sing songs about a lot of regrettable things we did, even going back as far as when we fought against your Royal ancestors Henry and Elizabeth 1st! Truly I don’t know how your Highness keeps her patience.

Then we went on and declared a kind of independence for most of the country but …. some of us weren’t even satisfied with that! It was good of you to have your Army lend Collins a few cannon and armoured cars to deal with those troublemakers.

And then some time later, even after those generous loans, some of us declared a Republic and pulled the country (four fifths of it, at any rate), out of the Commonwealth. Left the great family of nations that your Highness leads! Words fail me ….well almost, but I must carry on, painful though it is to do so. A full confession must be made – nothing less will do. And then, perhaps …. forgiveness.

Of course your government held on to six counties …. You were still caring for us, even after all our ingratitude! It was like hanging on to something left behind by someone who stormed off in an argument – giving them an excuse to come back for it, so there can be a reconciliation. How incredibly generous and far-sighted of your Majesty to leave that door open all that time!

Fifty years after that shameful Rising, it was celebrated here with great pomp and cheering, even going so far as to rename railway stations that had perfectly good British names, giving them the names of rebel leaders instead. Then just a few years later, some of our people up North started making a fuss about civil rights and rose up against your loyal police force, forcing your government to send in your own Army. And was that enough for the trouble-makers? Of course not – didn’t they start a war with your soldiers and police that lasted three decades!

 

No doubt your Majesty will have noted that some of those troublemakers have changed their ways completely and are in your Northern Ireland government now. They’ve been helping to pass on the necessary austerity measures in your government’s budgets, campaigning for the acceptance of the police force and for no protests against yourself. Indeed, their Martin McGuinness has shaken your hand and rest assured were it not considered highly inappropriate and lacking in decorum, he would have been glad to kiss your cheek, as he did with Hillary Clinton when she visited. Or both cheeks, in your Majesty’s case! Your Majesty can see, I hope, that we can be reformed.

 

Our crimes are so many, your Highness; and we have been so, so ungrateful. But we were hoping, after you’d heard our confession, our humble apologies, after your Highness had seen how desperately sorry we are, that you’d forgive us. And if it’s not too much to hope for, that you’d take us back into the United Kingdom. Reunite us with those six counties, and so into the Commonwealth. Is there even a tiniest chance? Please tell us what we have to do and we’ll do it, no matter how demeaning. Please?

 

Your most humble servant,

P. O’Neill Jnr.

“WE ONLY WANT THE EARTH”

On By rebelbreezeIn Capitalism, History, Ireland, Irish Left, Socialist Revolution, Song, Workers' StrugglesLeave a comment

(Grma to Irish Republican and Marxist History Project for the invitation to sing, the recording and the Youtube posting).

 

The song is Be Moderate (also known as”We Only the Want the Earth”) by James Connolly from the James Connolly Song Book, edited by Connolly and published in New York in 1907. No air or tune was indicated in that publication and it has been sung to a number of airs over the years. It’s a wonderful song in my opinion.

I sing it to the air of a “A Nation Once Again” composed by Thomas Davis in the 1840s, which I think suits it and supplies a chorus for others to join in. I first heard it sung to that air many years ago in London by a group of musicians and singers including Cornelius Cardew, of the CPE (m-l) (who was killed by a hit-and-run driver in an incident without any witnesses).  He is here singing it with a ska back-beat(!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTxVBsg4u30

 

In my rendition here there is an adaptation and an error. The adaptation is my singing “workers” instead of “Labour” so as to distance the revolutionary content from the social democratic collaboration with capitalism, as illustrated by the unfortunate evolution of the party of that name founded by Connolly. My error is in the verse beginning “The Labour fakir …” in which I say “….. teaches” in two different lines.

 

I should have sung the lines thus:
The Labour fakir full of guile false doctrine ever teaches
and whilst he bleeds the rank and file, tame moderation preaches;
Yet in his despite we’ll see the day, when with swords in their girths,
workers shall march in war array to claim their own, the Earth!

End

 

 

The Defendant — a short play

On By rebelbreezeIn History, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, National Liberation, Peace Process, Play, Socialist RevolutionLeave a comment

Diarmuid Breatnach

“We have had ‘stepping stones’ presented to us before in our history – they turned out to be stone walls.”

 (A revolutionary is on trial).

judge in full wig etc

Act 1.

Scene: A courtroom – Judge’s bench high, clerk at lower bench nearby, faced by dock, containing defendant and two guards, one at each side.  Long bench in front of dock containing Prosecution and Defence barristers or lawyers.

Judge:  Read the charges, clerk.

Clerk: The defendant is charged with treason, sedition, incitement to rebellion against the lawful government, conspiracy with persons unknown to incite discontent, unlawful assembly, obstruction of the highway and membership of an illegal organisation.

Judge:  Defendant, you have heard the charges?

Defendant:        I have.

Judge:  Address the Court properly.

Defendant:        I have heard the charges, Judge.

Judge:  The proper manner to address me is Your Honour.

Defendant:        I have heard the charges, Judge.

Judge:  I see.  Very well, let us proceed.  How do you plead to the charges?

Defendant:        Not guilty of any crime against the people.

Judge:  Clerk, enter a plea of “Not Guilty.”

Prosecuting Counsel stands up, approaches defendant in the dock.

Prosecuting Counsel:    You are against the Agreement?

Defendant:        I am.  It clearly does not deliver what we fought for, an independent united Republic.  In addition, I and some others fought for a socialist republic and it has not delivered that either.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You are aware that the electorate voted to accept the Agreement?

Defendant: Yes, but…

Prosecuting Counsel:    Just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Defendant:        Yes.

Prosecuting Counsel:     And do you believe in democracy?

Defendant:        Define ‘democracy’.

Prosecuting Counsel:     The will of the majority.

Defendant:        With suitable safeguards for certain minorities, certainly.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Yet you have admitted to undertaking actions against the Agreement, have you not?

Defendant:        I have.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You consider yourself above the will of the people, the majority, then?

Defendant:        No.  But I consider that I have a duty to act according to what is right and I can see clearly that the Agreement delivers nothing of what we fought for.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Yet the people voted for it.

Defendant:        The people were tired of war and repression and were lied to.  Many of our leaders betrayed us and brought many of our movement with them.

Prosecuting Counsel:     That is your interpretation.  Might it not be that your leaders and those of your movement who followed them were wiser than you?

Defendant:        No.

Prosecuting Counsel:     No?  You could not possibly be wrong?

Defendant:        I am not wrong on this.  The movement fought for a an independent, united republic.  We did not get it.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Your leaders and your movement – I beg your pardon, many in your movement – consider it a stepping stone.

Defendant:        We have had ‘stepping stones’ presented to us before in our history – they turned out to be stone walls.

Prosecuting Counsel:     So you would pursue a strategy of violence in the face of the clear will of the majority!

Defendant:        I do not choose violence.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You do not?  Have you not admitted earlier a statement attributed to you, that violence would be necessary to achieve a successful revolution?

Defendant:        Yes.

Prosecuting Counsel:     So you do choose violence.

Defendant:        I do not.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Pray explain.

Defendant:        I said that the history of classes and of imperialism shows us that no class has ever been permitted to overthrow the one above it by peaceful means; similarly that no nation has won independence from the state oppressing it without having to face violence.  It is the oppressors of the people who choose violence, not us.

But naturally, we should defend ourselves.  Anyway, it is hypocrisy for a state to accuse us of violence, when they have a long history of violence and are at this moment collaborating with others who are waging war and armed invasion of countries.

Prosecuting Counsel:     That is a different matter and not the concern of this court.

( Defendant mutters something)

Prosecuting Counsel:  What did you say?

Defendant:        I said ‘You would say that and anyway it should be the concern of any court of justice.’

Prosecuting Counsel:     This is a court of law and it is trying a case to decide whether you are guilty or innocent.  Let us proceed along another track.  Do you believe in dialogue?

Defendant:        Certainly.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Why then do you not use the Agreement as a basis for dialogue to achieve your aims?  Surely that is the democratic way?

Defendant:        I’d be happy to engage in dialogue as to the details of Britain’s withdrawal from Ireland.  I’d be happy to engage in dialogue as to the details of the capitalists handing over the wealth they have plundered from the people.

Prosecuting Counsel:  You would confiscate the property of businessmen?

Defendant:           That wealth was created by working people.  I would consider it one of the first tasks of a socialist government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, yes.

Prosecuting Counsel:     And ruin the country!

Defendant:        I consider that it is the imperialists and the capitalists that are ruining the country.  Our native industries are undeveloped or taken over by foreign monopolies.  There is wide-scale poverty, homelessness, ill-health, unemployment and emigration.

Prosecuting Counsel:     These are hard times internationally, yes.

Defendant:        Exactly.

Prosecuting Counsel:     What do you mean ‘exactly’?

Defendant:        The capitalists and imperialists internationally have caused these ‘hard times’ as you call them.  They grow richer while the people grow poorer.  The second is the direct result of the first or, if you like, the first is the cause of the second.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Let us take another track.  Do you admit that this present government was elected by a majority?

Defendant:        No.

Prosecuting Counsel:     No?  You do not?

Defendant:        No.  It gained an overall majority of parliamentary representatives.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Is that not the same thing?

Defendant:        No.  There are those who were eligible to vote but did not and those who voted for other parties but did not elect enough representatives.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You quibble.

Defendant:        I do not, those are facts and the figures will clearly demonstrate that this present government was elected by a minority of the electorate.  But even if it had been elected by the majority ….

Prosecuting Counsel:     Yes, please do continue.

Defendant:        Even then, it broke many important promises it had made prior to coming to power.  It has de-legitimised itself.

Prosecuting Counsel:     No party can carry out everything it promises ….. situations arise, measures have to be taken to respond ….

Defendant:        I agree that capitalist parties do not carry out their promises.  They need the votes of the people but represent the interests of a tiny minority.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Oh, please, spare us your socialist rhetoric!

Defendant:        I am attempting to respond to your questions.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You have encouraged sedition against the lawful government.

Defendant:        Sedition according to the laws of this state – capitalist laws.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Would you not agree that you are in a minority opinion?

Defendant:        On what?

Prosecuting Counsel:     In your political views.

Defendant:        I am in majority opinion that imperialist war is a bad thing.  I am in a majority opinion that poverty, homelessness, unemployment and emigration are bad things.  I am not in a minority opinion that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

But I do admit that I am in minority opinion as to the feasibility of the solutions I propose.  I admit that I am in a minority as to the confidence that revolutionary change is within our power.  In that I am in a minority – for the moment.

Prosecuting Counsel:     Ah, you believe that the people will see sense and support your ideas.

Defendant:        I wouldn’t put it quite like that but … yes.

Prosecuting Counsel:     A bit arrogant, would you not say?

Defendant:        Not at all.  In the history of this and many other lands, many thinkers and activists have been in a minority before their opinions became accepted by the majority.  Most accepted scientific opinion now was once that of a minority – indeed, often of a persecuted minority.

Prosecuting Counsel:     You consider yourself a persecuted minority?

Defendant:        My presence here and the charges are proof enough of that.  But one day we shall be a majority.

Prosecuting Counsel:     May the Court please, I have no more questions of this defendant.

(Prosecuting Counsel sits)

(All freeze)

Act 2.

 (All unfreeze)

  State Prosecution Counsel standing, summing up, addressing the Judge …………….

Prosecuting Counsel:        The Defendant has pleaded ‘not guilty’ but his own answers under cross-examination have belied that plea.  He has in effect admitted to treason, sedition, incitement to rebellion against the lawful government, conspiracy with persons unknown to incite discontent, unlawful assembly and obstruction of the highway.

The only charge to which he has not admitted is membership of an illegal organisation.  However, we have clearly shown from the evidence of the police and army witnesses that he is indeed a member of an illegal organisation.

The State submits that the case has been proven in all respects and asks for a verdict of  “Guilty as charged.”  In addition the State asks for the maximum sentence — the prisoner is a danger to society and totally without remorse.

 (Prosecution Counsel sits.)

(All freeze)

Act 3.

 (All unfreeze) ….

Judge addressing the Defendant ….

Judge:  Defendant, you have been found guilty as charged on all counts.  Do you wish to say anything before sentence is passed?

Defendant:        Yes.  I once again contend that I am not guilty of any crime against the people.  The actions I undertook were for the victory of my class, the working class, which entails the defeat of the local ruling class and foreign imperialism.  If I am guilty of anything, it is that I did not always work hard or competently enough for the cause.

Time and again, others like me have stood before your courts and of the British before yours and been sentenced to imprisonment or even death.  They faced it with courage and I will try to do the same.  I do not expect mercy and I will not ask for it.  I do not apologise for doing what I know was right.

But I tell you this: one day, it will be representatives of my class that will sit up there and it will be you down here to answer for your crimes.  I bid my farewell to comrades, family and friends and I ask them to forgive me for any way in which I have failed them.  And may my place in the ranks be filled by many more.

Judge:  Have you quite finished?

Defendant:        I have.

Judge:  You will be kept in custody while the court considers your sentence.  Guards, take the Defendant down.

Defendant is escorted out by guards.

Clerk (in muttered but audible aside to the Judge):  “Surely your honour is going to sentence him to death?”

Judge (whispering but audible):  “Possibly …. however, I need to consider what harm may be done by making a martyr of him.  Possibly some years in jail will have him forgotten more quickly …. and possibly break that arrogance of his too.”

(Loudly):  “Clerk, record the verdict and decision made here this day … 12th of January …. 1923, Irish Free State”.

(All freeze momentarily)

End.

DUBLIN VULTURE

On By rebelbreezeIn Capitalism, Graffiti Art, History, Ireland, Irish Left, Irish Republicanism, National Liberation, Workers' StrugglesLeave a comment
DUBLIN VULTURE
Street cartooning, hoarding Moore Street, Dublin inner-city historic and market quarter under threat from property speculator/ developer Chartered Land. 1st March 2014.

Street cartooning Moore Street hoarding, Dublin inner-city historic and street market area under threat from property speculator/ developer Chartered Land. 1st March 2014