Republican Sinn Fein Ard Fheis

[quirk]

Republican Sinn Féin Ard Fheis

Republican Sinn Féin will hold its 103ú Ard Fheis on November 10/11 in Dublin.

Ruairí Ó Brádaigh will deliver his Presidential Address at 12 noon on Sunday November 11.

Ends

http://indymedia.ie/article/84974

[quirk]

29. That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation and any member who attends these meetings either publicly or secretly be dismissed from Republican Sinn Féin.

Go n-iarrann an Ard-Fheis seo go bhfuil muid i gcoinne gach polaitíochta leathana nach seasann go h-iomlán le Forógra na Cásca, 1916 agus aon ball a dtéann go dtí na cruinnithe seo go poiblí nó faoi rún go mbeidh sé briste as a phost ag Sinn Féin Poblachtach.

Cumann Dáithí Ó Conaill, Muineacháin



30. That this Ard-Fheis, while not promoting broad fronts, removes the ban on taking part in political activities with other political groupings.

Cé nach bhfuil an Ard-Fheis seo ag cur leathana polaitíochta chun cinn, go gcuirimid ar ceal an cosc ar pháirt a ghlacadh i ngníomhaíochtaí polaitiúla le gasraí polaitiúla eile.

Cumann Ruairí Mac Asmaint/Proinsias Ó hAodha, Dún Laoghaire/Baile Breac, Co BhÁC



31. That this Ard-Fheis revokes the ban on members of RSF taking a platform/debate with other political/people/parties portraying as the Republican Movement.

Go gcuireann an Ard-Fheis seo ar ceal an cosc ar baill Sinn Féin Poblachtach a bheith páirteach ar aon ardán/díospóireacht in éindi le duine nó páirtí polaitíochta ar bith agus iad a chur ina luí ar an pobal gur Gluaiseacht na Poblachta iad.

Cumann Liam Ó Loinsigh/Máirtírí Ard Mhacha, Ard Mhacha/ An Céide, Co Ard Mhacha

Cumann Mac Cearnaigh/Mac Eochaidh, Dun Geannainn, Co Tír Eoghain

Comhairle Uladh


What was the outcome of the above motions?

[scarface]

What was the outcome of the above motions?

an amended version of motion 29 was passed and the other 2 were rejected there was a very good and lively debate on them

[quirk]

How does the amended version read? I always thought it would be better for RSF to put up the motions that were passed in their amended form as it gives outsiders a better opinion of what they stand for exactly. Was there a big crowd present?

[scarface]

How does the amended version read? I always thought it would be better for RSF to put up the motions that were passed in their amended form as it gives outsiders a better opinion of what they stand for exactly. Was there a big crowd present?

yes there was quite a big crowd there and the amended resolution read:"That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation."

[quirk]

That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation.

This seems open to interpretation however as you were there did those who spoke on this motion suggest that their is only a ban on political broad fronts which do serve to dilute the national objective or is the motion based on the assumption that all such fronts will indeed dilute that objective?

Also will the republican unity initiative (which isn't in fact a broad front) be covered in this motion?

I'm not looking to get into a big debate again on broad fronts and RSF policy towards them, just looking for clarity on their position since the Ard Fheis.

[scarface]

This seems open to interpretation however as you were there did those who spoke on this motion suggest that their is only a ban on political broad fronts which do serve to dilute the national objective or is the motion based on the assumption that all such fronts will indeed dilute that objective?

Also will the republican unity initiative (which isn't in fact a broad front) be covered in this motion?

I'm not looking to get into a big debate again on broad fronts and RSF policy towards them, just looking for clarity on their position since the Ard Fheis.

i believe it means that all broad fronts dilute the national objective and there is no chance of RSF being involved in the unity initiative

[Kat]

Thank you scarface, for sharing that.

[Liam Lynch]

i believe it means that all broad fronts dilute the national objective and there is no chance of RSF being involved in the unity initiative

But RSF members can attend meetings such as the Anti Policing Meetings. The Republican Unity Initiative can continue with an RSF input.

[Pádraig Mac Piarais]

....there is no chance of RSF being involved in the unity initiative


Shame.

[Kat]

But RSF members can attend meetings such as the Anti Policing Meetings. The Republican Unity Initiative can continue with an RSF input.


Is that what it means? how? I did not read the motion in that way at all. :baffled:

"That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation."

[Vox Populi]

What broad front? There were no pre-conditions to attend the meeting at Conway Mill, Toome or the Tower Hotel.

[Kat]

Well considering it is a broad front i dont think the unity initiative would qualify. I know you dont like to CALL it a broad front when rsf members or supporters are present, but the unity initiative is by its very definition a broad front. Even if I call my foot my arm, it is not my arm, it is still my foot. Certainly rsf might send delagates to functions as observers, but i certainly would not count on participation, the way I read the motion, participation in the unity initiative is not an option. And i am sure that most would agree. Though if you have any other reason than "but it is not a braod front" I might understand Liam Lynchs reasoning here.

If Liam Lynchs reasoning here was that they can attend because they wont get booted from the movement is the impetus for stating rsf will have input, that would be flawed reasoning, as rsf policy clearly does not recongnise these initiatives.

[Vox Populi]

The whole unity initiative is quite seperate from the policing debates but not entirely. Members of RSF were present at the three meetings and RSF said they would send a speaker to Conway Mill but decided not to. There were no preconditions, no one was asked to accept anything. People from across the political spectrum attended, including Loyalists, the SDLP and the SWP.

I don't know where the conspiracy comes from that I alter my language infront of RSF members, I have been very vocal in my opposition not only to the Bodenstown commemoration but also to some forms of co-operation with other organisations but at the very least, I attended the meetings, voiced my opinion and spoke to people. It's better to be fighting in the ring than outside. It should be said though, that the only meetings were co-operation of any sort was discussed at length was long after the policing debates had drawn to an end.

RSF Ard Comhairle members have spoken at meetings in Liberty Hall on Republicanism, sharing a platform with people who would have less in common with them than the IRSP, 32CSM and the Concerned POWs. They also attended a PSF organised event to harrang Gerry Adams. A sad spectacle that amounts to a waste of time. However, rightfully under the logic being proposed those RSF members present should have been expelled for participating in a broad front meeting but that is not so.

I don't loose sleep over RSF choosing to remain in splendid isolation only when it concerns other Republicans, it's their business but there is certainly no broad front being proposed by anyone, not least the IRSP. If you could tell me where this broad front was proposed and the exact conditions RSF was asked to accept I would be most grateful.

VP.

[RDX]

Shame.
the 32s split off in the 90s from a group that split off from the RM in the 80s. It's quite ironic for members/supporters of the 32s to now demand "unity" from (not with) the RM.

[quirk]

the 32s split off in the 90s from a group that split off from the RM in the 80s. It's quite ironic for members/supporters of the 32s to now demand "unity" from (not with) the RM.

Is that the case? Was it not RSF who split in the mid 80's? Also who is "demanding" unity?

[Liam Lynch]

Is that what it means? how? I did not read the motion in that way at all. :baffled:

"That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation."

But the original stated that the attending of meetings warranted dismissal. That no longer stands. That means that RSF people can attend meetings with other republican groupings on specific issues.

[quirk]

As individuals of course.

[Liam Lynch]

Well considering it is a broad front i dont think the unity initiative would qualify. I know you dont like to CALL it a broad front when rsf members or supporters are present, but the unity initiative is by its very definition a broad front. Even if I call my foot my arm, it is not my arm, it is still my foot. Certainly rsf might send delagates to functions as observers, but i certainly would not count on participation, the way I read the motion, participation in the unity initiative is not an option. And i am sure that most would agree. Though if you have any other reason than "but it is not a braod front" I might understand Liam Lynchs reasoning here.

If Liam Lynchs reasoning here was that they can attend because they wont get booted from the movement is the impetus for stating rsf will have input, that would be flawed reasoning, as rsf policy clearly does not recongnise these initiatives.

There's a difference between not recognising and not being allowed to recognise. The practical difference here now is that RSF personnel can now engage with those who say that the unity initiative is not a broadfront rather than invoking the broadfront claim to avoid any engagement.

[Liam Lynch]

As individuals of course.

Not necessarily. There's no constitutional ban on RSF sending official delegates to such meetings.

[quirk]

Not necessarily. There's no constitutional ban on RSF sending official delegates to such meetings.

I think there still is in that it didn't overturn the motion from last year which put a ban on broad fronts. Of course there is no broad front but RSF seem to not believe this. Also the motion on banning speakers from others platforms failed to pass.

[Liam Lynch]

I think there still is in that it didn't overturn the motion from last year which put a ban on broad fronts. Of course there is no broad front but RSF seem to not believe this. Also the motion on banning speakers from others platforms failed to pass.

That's my point.

[quirk]

That's my point.

Last year there was a ban on speakers using others platforms. This year there was a motion seeking to lift that ban which failed to pass thus the ban remains in place.

[Liam Lynch]

Sorry, I misread your sentence.

[quirk]

Actually think I just worded badly. As for the unity project I think we now must rule RSF out at least for another year and begin to build with what there is.

[Liam Lynch]

Actually think I just worded badly. As for the unity project I think we now must rule RSF out at least for another year and begin to build with what there is.

. That this Ard-Fheis revoke the ban on speakers who are not members of the Republican Movement speaking on Republican Sinn Féin platforms when the organisers feel it would be beneficial to the Movement. 2006

Is this the ban?

[Nijinsky]

the 32s split off in the 90s from a group that split off from the RM in the 80s. It's quite ironic for members/supporters of the 32s to now demand "unity" from (not with) the RM.


You are incorrect. RSF split from SF in 1986. The 32csm split from SF in the late nineties

[quirk]

No I don't think so. That motion speaks of revoking the ban so it must have existed previous to 2006.

[Liam Lynch]

Must be this one.

. That this Ard-Fheis instructs all our membership that we are opposed to all broad fronts, ie Congress, and any member who attends them either publicly or secretly will be instantly dismissed from the Republican Movement.2004

[quirk]

Yeah must be.

[RDX]

Is that the case? Was it not RSF who split in the mid 80's? Also who is "demanding" unity?
The Adamsite faction broke the SF Constitution and expelled themselves from the party. They did so with paper cumann and improper voting procedure, but most importantly, they abandoned fundamental republican principles. The members who walked out and reconstituted the Ard Fheis elsewhere are SF, and the movement of which they are a part is the Republican Movement.
You obviously reject this analysis, and that is a key part of why "unity" is not in the cards. An amicable relationship? Yes. Unity? I say no thank you, but good luck.

[quirk]

The Adamsite faction broke the SF Constitution and expelled themselves from the party. They did so with paper cumann and improper voting procedure, but most importantly, they abandoned fundamental republican principles. The members who walked out and reconstituted the Ard Fheis elsewhere are SF, and the movement of which they are a part is the Republican Movement.

They didn't break the Sinn Fein constitution but rather changed the constitution. Whether that made them less republican or not is up for debate but the fact is that the constitution allowed for itself to be changed by a 2/3 majority of those attending an Ard Fheis and that is what happened. As for paper cumanns why wasn't this pointed out before the debate and why didn't those who formed RSF withdraw then? If they did I could see your point in that the vote would have been illegal. But they stayed and participated in it thus legitimising it and only afterwards leaving.

Also as you say the movement who they are part of are the Republican movement what is your take on the CIRA? Was their paper units athe the GAC and if not how do you justify them being the legitimate IRA?

[belfast rep]

anyone know if this one passed
That this Ard-Fheis condemns Irish employers who give preference to foreign workers over Irish workers

[belfast rep]

or this one, because i noticed they are still at it
That we call on the Provisionals to drop the honourable name of Sinn Féin

[Kat]

or this one, because i noticed they are still at it
That we call on the Provisionals to drop the honourable name of Sinn Féin



I dont know about the first one, or this one, but I will take a wild guess and say yeah, that one passed. Dont you, belfast rep in some of your more introspective moments, wonder why it is your party has not given the name up yet?

[belfast rep]

I dont know about the first one, or this one, but I will take a wild guess and say yeah, that one passed. Dont you, belfast rep in some of your more introspective moments, wonder why it is your party has not given the name up yet?

:eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:
don't think will be happening for any time in the forseeable future, wonder what happened with the loon who copyrighted the name awhile back

[Hildy]

Sinn Féin was a political slogan used by Irish nationalists in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth century. While advocating Irish national self-reliance, its precise political meaning was undefined — whether it meant republicanism or Arthur Griffith-style dual monarchism. Its earliest use was to describe individual political radicals unconnected with any party. In the 1890s it was used by the Gaelic League[1], which advocates the revival of the Irish language.

Sinn Féin is an Irish-language phrase whose literal translation is "ourselves" or "we ourselves"[2]; however, at the time the most common rendering in English was "ourselves alone", which was also used as a political slogan; it is unclear whether the English or Irish version came first. The name itself may have been a construct of opponents to highlight the individuals' political isolation[3] or the perceived selfishness of abandoning Britain, as in this Punch parody[4] from World War I:

[..]For Truth and Right the fools may fight,
We fight but for "Ourselves Alone."[..]
The name was adopted by Arthur Griffith for the "Sinn Féin policy" he presented in 1905, and the Sinn Féin party formed over 1905-7. After this the term "Sinn Féin" gradually came to be associated specifically with the views espoused by that party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in_%2819th_century%29


In modern politics, the name almost always refers to the political party dedicated to Irish Republicanism that is often seen as the political front of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The party emerged from a 1970 fissure in the Irish republican movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in

Why would RSF have any more right to the name that we do?

[Hildy]

Sinn Féin was a political slogan used by Irish nationalists in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth century. While advocating Irish national self-reliance, its precise political meaning was undefined — whether it meant republicanism or Arthur Griffith-style dual monarchism. Its earliest use was to describe individual political radicals unconnected with any party. In the 1890s it was used by the Gaelic League[1], which advocates the revival of the Irish language.

Sinn Féin is an Irish-language phrase whose literal translation is "ourselves" or "we ourselves"[2]; however, at the time the most common rendering in English was "ourselves alone", which was also used as a political slogan; it is unclear whether the English or Irish version came first. The name itself may have been a construct of opponents to highlight the individuals' political isolation[3] or the perceived selfishness of abandoning Britain, as in this Punch parody[4] from World War I:

[..]For Truth and Right the fools may fight,
We fight but for "Ourselves Alone."[..]
The name was adopted by Arthur Griffith for the "Sinn Féin policy" he presented in 1905, and the Sinn Féin party formed over 1905-7. After this the term "Sinn Féin" gradually came to be associated specifically with the views espoused by that party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in_%2819th_century%29


In modern politics, the name almost always refers to the political party dedicated to Irish Republicanism that is often seen as the political front of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The party emerged from a 1970 fissure in the Irish republican movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in

Why would RSF have more of a right to the name that we do?

[Its Time]

Why would RSF have any more right to the name that we do?

Quite simply sinn fein is metamorphising into another sdlp for some time and on the other hand rsf is still a dedicated and true minded to the cause of irish liberty as republicans not mere nationalists

[quirk]

Quite simply sinn fein is metamorphising into another sdlp for some time and on the other hand rsf is still a dedicated and true minded to the cause of irish liberty as republicans not mere nationalists

But must those who are named Sinn Fein be republicans and why?

[KillinSnakes]

anyone know if this one passed
That this Ard-Fheis condemns Irish employers who give preference to foreign workers over Irish workers

Was that really a motion at the RSF A-F?

[KillinSnakes]

or this one, because i noticed they are still at it
That we call on the Provisionals to drop the honourable name of Sinn Féin

Honourable? is this a poor attempt at humour...

[Cael]

Honourable? is this a poor attempt at humour...

Yes, because Sinn Féin means "ourselves", not "ourselves, as hired English Crown lackys."

[Cael]

They didn't break the Sinn Fein constitution but rather changed the constitution. Whether that made them less republican or not is up for debate but the fact is that the constitution allowed for itself to be changed by a 2/3 majority of those attending an Ard Fheis and that is what happened. As for paper cumanns why wasn't this pointed out before the debate and why didn't those who formed RSF withdraw then? If they did I could see your point in that the vote would have been illegal. But they stayed and participated in it thus legitimising it and only afterwards leaving.

Also as you say the movement who they are part of are the Republican movement what is your take on the CIRA? Was their paper units athe the GAC and if not how do you justify them being the legitimate IRA?

I refer you to the last post on this page:

http://irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5479&page=2

[Bear]

Does the motion that passed regarding broadfront discussions include individuals from a different org discussing unity with individuals from rsf? May seem like a silly question but I am curious how ironclad this motion is?

[Clann]

I refer you to the last post on this page:

http://irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5479&page=2

Very well put but im interested in wht=y o bradiagh and co didnttry to bring up the obvious deceit that had occurred in relation to the fake paper cummainn before the actual vote and before the provos expelled themselves.

[Vox Populi]

I await your response Kat.

[Kat]

response to what vox? you have not asked me a question in pages and pages, and the ones form the beginning have been responded to.

[Vox Populi]

If you could tell me where this broad front was proposed and the exact conditions RSF was asked to accept I would be most grateful.

VP.
If you don't mind.

[Kat]

well here is my OPINION VP, the conway mill debates and subsequesnt (though very minimal) unity event(s) were broadfronts within themselves, there is no rule that broadfronts are officially conditional. For you to state that for a broadfront to be a broadfront it must contain strict agrred to officially sanctioned conditions is just completely silly.

However, offical or not, sharing platforms with others whom you are similar but not the same can only be successful if no differences are brought up. If the convo were to move to the difference the chances of a successful group effort would be nil, instead it would just be a debate, and probably only the birth of further and in the long term more harmful disunity. So though not written, conditions are inherent in the structure of unity itself.

For efforts to this end to succeed, watering down of principle must occur. It is unavoidable. The 32csm cannot exactly bring up its differences with you in a public way in these braod front events,, nor can you with it, ergo everybodys message gets fine tuned to appeal to or not offend everybody else... And substance gets lost, or more accurately postponed. Too much of that postponement of substance and you'll be sitting comfy in stormount ordering your neighbors ot tout too.

And that my friend is the problem with this and why though rsf was not asked to sign a paper bowing down to and accepting conditions in which they would be allowed to appear alongside your good self it still seems to me that they would have had to accept conditions.

Serious queston here, did anyone at all at the conway mill debates from the IRSP or RSYM sneeringly and officially condemn the 32s on its belief in armed struggle, something which i personally applaud them for? It is after all, a firm tenet in your parties philosophy. No? well you compromised your beliefs then. And altered your parties message, you unconsiously accepted conditions and terms to give your own party a good old fashioned populist watering down. Perhaps you find that honorable, i dont.

now those are just MY opinions on the matter, i dont speak for rsf.

[Vox Populi]

Members of RSF were present at the policing meetings, one from Fermanagh spoke on the platform in a personal capacity at the meeting in the Tower Hotel. There is no broad front because no one is being asked to accept any conditions, they're just being asked to come and to speak - the SDLP and SF were also invited to the policing debates and whilst the SDLP didn't speak, they had members there - we certainly wouldn't like to see co-operation with those people.

RSF had no bother sending people to speak in Derry and speak on other platforms but there is a clear and consistent policy from RSF that is that they will refuse to engage with others. IRSP members, who outweighed RSF members at a picket last year in Belfast were reduced to 'RSF supporters' in Saoirse's coverage. I have stood on picket lines in Dublin and have been ignored by RSF people along with all the other IRSP associated people.

It's that clear and concerted policy that comes from the upper echelons of Gardai Special Branch and MI5. But there's no use crying over spilled milk.

Members of the IRSM have always insisted throughout these debates, both in public and in private that there is no basis for armed struggle at present. Things got quite heated at the meeting in Derry as some on here may recall - when it was the INLA being accused of hypocrisy because of their tribute to former Adj. Gen. Johnny White.

I didn't particularly get upset and enjoyed the honest and open debate from members of the 32CSM, IRSP and others on this issue. There is no need to get upset because romantic conceptions of armed struggle are needless.

There's no use saying there's a war going on, because there clearly isn't. There isn't even a struggle against normalisation, and my personal belief is that all current armed action is being used to further discredit anti-GFA Republicans by British intelligence using Volunteers as pawns.

[Bear]

I dont think the volunteers would agree with you on that statement Vox but that is your opinion.

[Vox Populi]

Where's the substance? The track record of those groups currently not on ceasefire is very poor. Their statements hitherto have amounted to empty rhetoric.

[Kat]

I disagree with that statement too Bear

There isn't even a struggle against normalisation, and my personal belief is that all current armed action is being used to further discredit anti-GFA Republicans by British intelligence using Volunteers as pawns






I think the thing that is playing into the hands of the occupying forces is complacency. I dont understand how making thier occupation EASIER to continue will help remove it in the long run.

And as for your above statement, those groups currently not on cease fire deserve all of our thanks. What progress is your ceasefire group making? Sure there must be a lot of it, for you to make such a statement.

[Vox Populi]

Can you address the points I made above other than those on armed struggle.

The fact is that these groups may as well be on ceasefire, to say they're active in armed struggle against the British is a falsehood to be very honest. All we've had over the past few years from the CIRA is countless statements, words upon words upon words, but absolutely no substance. Firing over a police station, as the CIRA has done a handful of times is ridiculous when the PSNI are strolling the Falls Road in short sleeved shirts.

[Bear]

Any act of resistance is an act against normalization. The only complacency I see is the passiveness of those who sit and wait for sinn fein to deliver them a united Ireland. In the meantime many are happy to sit and support their heros who greedily take the british pound in exchange for selling out.
That is very confusing for todays youth who may not have witnessed the more active times of the war, lets say pre-1996. Many are only now coming of age to think and act independant of what their forefathers may have taught them. I think the next few years will bring about a resurgence of republicanism we have not seen in over a decade.
I dont think this state we find ourselves in right now is a permanent one.

[Kat]

I feel no need to even address your arguments, because i dont find them the least bit valid, the CIRA AND the RIRA have performed remarkably well and with tremendous courage in the face of being outresourced like no other time in the history of this centuries old struggle. For you to pretend you are better than these people who, by the fact that thier numbers are so few, and resources are so paltry, must act with more bravery than you ever have is a joke IMO.

So your opinion is we dont have the aircraft, nuclear technology, armoured vehicles and antipersonall equipment to mount a full scale war, we just should not? What should we do then? what are you doing? Mobilizing the proles for the future uprising? the more comfortable they are the less likely that will succeed.

I personally applaud this current strategy of no loss of live and only inconvenience. not only do i think ALL missions should be taken on with respect for life and the avoidance of killing as a goal, but i also realise that currently, anti ceasefire republicans dont have the capabilities to mount a full scale war, but ANYTHING that is done to thwart normalisation is important, needs to be done and most of all it is ABSOLUTELY necesarry to the longer term goals of the struggle.

[Vox Populi]

You can pull an emotional argument about "the army", but its purpose is to sidetrack from the actual debate, which is the fact there's no broad front - nor is any organisational unity being sought - just unity and co-operation on local issues.

It's easy for the long rifles in the USA to say people have done more than me. If you are intent on personal arguments, then fair enough, why aren't you over here fighting the Brits?

I know some of these "brave" men you're on about. I will refrain from mentioning their personalities though - which is hardly supportive of RSF.

I personally applaud this current strategy of no loss of live and only inconvenience
What do people on the ground actually think? The average person doesn't see the point of hitting places like Homebase, it's hit and run terrorism and is a nuisance to ordinary people - whilst at the same time police officers are walking the Falls in short sleeved shirts. It seriously undermines the credibility of these people.

[Bear]

The armys mandate has been clear cut for a decade now. The unity incentive is relatively new, hence your argument does not hold water.

[scarface]

It's that clear and concerted policy that comes from the upper echelons of Gardai Special Branch and MI5. But there's no use crying over spilled milk.


are you seriously saying that RSF's policy on broad fronts or republican unity or whatever you want to call it comes from the branch and mi5?

[quirk]

The fact is that these groups may as well be on ceasefire, to say they're active in armed struggle against the British is a falsehood to be very honest.

I don't think that the RIRA claim to be involved in active armed struggle against the British at present.

whilst at the same time police officers are walking the Falls in short sleeved shirts.

Not since last week. For the first time in a long time the cops in Newry anyway (and I would think elsewhere) are back in body armour and driving land rovers.

[Vox Populi]

are you seriously saying that RSF's policy on broad fronts or republican unity or whatever you want to call it comes from the branch and mi5?
No, but the inconsistently is sinister.

[Calv]

I don't think that the RIRA claim to be involved in active armed struggle against the British at present.

"We were not on ceasefire, we are committed to a campaign to end British rule, and there will be further operations by Oglaigh na hEireann," a Real IRA source has told the Sunday Tribune.

Full Article (http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Sunday_Tribune/arts2007/nov18_RIRA_predicts_more_attacks__SBreen.php)

[quirk]

But saying they are committed to such a campaign and are not on ceasefire does not mean they believe they are involved in such a campaign at present.

[Calv]

But saying they are committed to such a campaign and are not on ceasefire does not mean they believe they are involved in such a campaign at present.

Well it sounds to me that this is what they are implying.

[quirk]

I think it just means they are committed to one at some stage.

[Vox Populi]

Derry republicans meet - Republican regroupment on the cards?

May 17 2007

John McAnulty

A meeting to discuss a united republican regroupment was held in Derry on May 12th. The meeting had grown out of discussions between the IRSP and other republican groups as well as the activity of a Prisoners group and a Concerned republican group opposing the RUC/PSNI. In the recent past activities have included a mass petition by former republican prisoners opposing Sinn Fein’s decision to support the RUC/PSNI and an electoral campaign in support of Peggy O’Hara, mother of hunger striker Patsy O’Hara. The campaign gained almost 2000 votes. As one militant put it, it hadn’t secured a seat, but it had secured a base for republicanism.

The meeting had many strengths. Working-class militants take politics a great deal more seriously than the clappy-happy section of the Irish left and the discussion reflected this. The sheer size of the meeting, well over 100, dwarfed most recent political discussions and marked a noteworthy rejection of Sinn Fein’s capitulation and a willingness to organise against the sectarian colony they were helping to revamp. The number of younger people there was significant.

There were many grim tales of abandonment. Working people who had supported republicanism all their lives found that calls for help at Sinn Fein’s door went unanswered. The conference was told of Sinn Fein packing community groups, taking over the leadership, and forming a new layer of apparatchnicks paid by peace grants – the grantocracy.

What was most impressive was the relative openness of the meetings. One militant remarked that he felt empowered and enthused by the many different views put forward. The discussion was a necessary part of moving forward again.

There were however a number of weaknesses:

The meeting relied heavily on the sponsorship of prominent republicans both here and in the US. This is a standard form of dialogue within republicanism but it has already failed to have any influence on the mass of Sinn Fein supporters. A political base for action is what is important now.

The conference seems to be repeating the mistake of the socialist movement in Ireland. It has spent many years, unsuccessfully seeking socialist unity and the new group now seeks republican unity.

The point here is that there are different political positions that reflect themselves in different organisations. It is more realistic to look at tasks that face the Irish working class and around which socialist and republican groups could co-operate rather than trying to smooth over differences.

The IRSP proposal to the conference, for a united Bodenstown commemoration, seems to fall into this category, involving lots of work without getting much closer to political tasks.

In any case it was quite clear from the conference that a close republican unity would not be possible. Marian Price of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement spelt that out very clearly. Her movement would unite around tasks but would oppose organizational unity.

This stance, and the reasons for it, were the substance of the general discussion. Marian was standing by the traditional republican position – that commitment to revolution depended on the right to carry on an armed struggle and on the boycott of elections short of the elections of a new republic. She was in a minority, but peoples views were very unformed. I suggested that any new movement would have to explain the absolute failure of the militarist perspective – it was unrealistic to see the collapse of republicanism as based on betrayal by a few leaders.

The discussion that followed is difficult to sum up. In brief most present stood by the need for force given the attacks by the state. They did not now believe that there was an armed road forward and were looking for a political road. They were willing to use electoral tactics but suspicious that an electoral movement would be easily hijacked.

I suggested that a new policy would be based on the difference between what people expected and the reality of the settlement. Most expected that sectarianism would decrease while in fact it was being built into every facet of society. Most expected a period of prosperity while a savage economic offensive was built into the agreement.

It was too early for these issues really to fit into the debate. The point is that things are moving on. Drumcree is on its way, the reality of an effective Paisleyite majority is sinking in. It is in the way that the new movement responds that will determine its long-term future.

[Cael]

Can you address the points I made above other than those on armed struggle.

The fact is that these groups may as well be on ceasefire, to say they're active in armed struggle against the British is a falsehood to be very honest. All we've had over the past few years from the CIRA is countless statements, words upon words upon words, but absolutely no substance. Firing over a police station, as the CIRA has done a handful of times is ridiculous when the PSNI are strolling the Falls Road in short sleeved shirts.

You know full well that the IRA is arming and training and building up its infrastructure throughout the 32 counties.

[quirk]

i believe it means that all broad fronts dilute the national objective and there is no chance of RSF being involved in the unity initiative

This motion unlike those in previous years talks of all political broad fronts rather than just broad fronts containing other republican groups. With this in mind will RSF no be obliged to withdraw from P.A.N.A.?

[Kat]

This motion unlike those in previous years talks of all political broad fronts rather than just broad fronts containing other republican groups. With this in mind will RSF no be obliged to withdraw from P.A.N.A.?


It only refers to broad fronts which dilute the nationalist objective

"That this Ard-Fheis reiterate our opposition to political broad fronts which serve to dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 Proclamation."


it does not assert that all broad fronts dilute the natianalist objective.

[Vox Populi]

Do you know what diluting the national objective refers to?

[Kat]

I cant speak for rsf but for me I will just say it is anything having to do with the nationalist objective that does not coincide with rsfs vison of the ireland of Tone, the ireland they strive for. I dont think you are daft enough to actually need that articulated for you though

[Vox Populi]

Perhaps a better question would be how does co-operation with the IRSP and 32CSM dilute the national objective?

[KillinSnakes]

I cant speak for rsf but for me I will just say it is anything having to do with the nationalist objective that does not coincide with rsfs vison of the ireland of Tone, the ireland they strive for. I dont think you are daft enough to actually need that articulated for you though

Could you explain?

Indulge us - pretend we are daft.

Because if memory serves, the INLA have done a lot more for the national objective than the CIRA have done since '86.

[Kat]

Could you explain?

Indulge us - pretend we are daft.

Because if memory serves, the INLA have done a lot more for the national objective than the CIRA have done since '86.

Why? you are not. But why dont you indulge me, cause i genuinely dont know, what have you done for the national objective since 1986?

[Moogie]

Could you explain?
Well for a start the 32csm see the UN as having a say in Irish independence, doesn't that "dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 proclamation"?

[quirk]

Well for a start the 32csm see the UN as having a say in Irish independence, doesn't that "dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 proclamation"?

No it doesn't. The 32CSM see the people of Ireland as the only one's with the right to decide Ireland's future, acting as a single unit.

[Liam Lynch]

Well for a start the 32csm see the UN as having a say in Irish independence, doesn't that "dilute the national objective as expressed in the 1916 proclamation"?

No more than Dail Eireann sought a role for the Paris Peace Conference. But Vox Populi is correct where is the dilution of the national objective.

[Vox Populi]

Perhaps the situation has now become transparent.

[KillinSnakes]

But why dont you indulge me, cause i genuinely dont know, what have you done for the national objective since 1986?

No, I won't discuss that here.

Your response to a question on politics is to counter with a personal question? What is the point of that?

[Kat]

No, I won't discuss that here.

Your response to a question on politics is to counter with a personal question? What is the point of that?


That was not a personal question, it was directed at your self who proclaims to support the IRSP, what i might have more properly phrased it as, is what has your preffered organisation, the IRSP to further the national objective since 1986? I was not asking what you PERSONALLY have done.

[KillinSnakes]

That was not a personal question, it was directed at your self who proclaims to support the IRSP, what i might have more properly phrased it as, is what has your preffered organisation, the IRSP to further the national objective since 1986? I was not asking what you PERSONALLY have done.

I'm glad to hear that. I wouldn't mind discussing my personal contributions in some settings, but not the net. :eusa_silenced:

My party's largely spent its time rebuilding from almost total destruction. That involves recruiting and participating in campaigns. The RSM's also been developing our political line and building ties with other anti-imperialists.

The INLA have continued to defend nationalist communities, and for this have great respect in many areas. They've also taken out a few druggies and crims along the way. :eusa_dance:

I'd say our main contribution to furthering the national objective is in learning to not repeat the terrible errors of the past.

[Vox Populi]

They have also killed British soldiers and police officers since 1986 in pursuit of the national liberation struggle...

[KillinSnakes]

They have also killed British soldiers and police officers since 1986 in pursuit of the national liberation struggle...

You are correct... I had a brain malfunction and thought we kat meant post-1996, lol.

yeah, post '86 the IRSP and INLA have done quite a few things for the national cause:

'...in 1986 all Republican Socialist prisoners in England won repatriation to Ireland through a renewed blanket/dirty protest.'

Foinse (http://irsm.org/history/whatis.html)

in the 80s and 90s they carried out a lot of attacks on the occupation forces, their agents and loyalists, including taking out billy wright, who was directing a campaign of assasination against nationalist civilians. The INLA is also the most active republican group in defending nationalist communities under seige from loyalists, as well as being very active in preventing communalist strife in interface areas.

'A British soldier was killed while walking to his army recruiting office in Derby. The victim was shot in the head at point blank range. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility.'

foinse (http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=6792)

there's just a few examples, I could find many more if I had the time.

[Risteard]

Members of RSF were present at the policing meetings, one from Fermanagh spoke on the platform in a personal capacity at the meeting in the Tower Hotel.
You are being dishonest. The "one from Fermanagh", as you call him, stated clearly at the meeting that he was not a member of Republican Sinn Féin, but added that he was familiar with their analysis and would be presenting that.

[Vox Populi]

You are being dishonest. The "one from Fermanagh", as you call him, stated clearly at the meeting that he was not a member of Republican Sinn Féin, but added that he was familiar with their analysis and would be presenting that.But the fact is that he was a member of RSF, Risteard. Members of RSF from Armagh were also present at the meeting in Conway Mill.

[Risteard]

I thought I had stated that he wasn't a member of RSF (as he himself had stated). I'm not sure where the confusion arises.