Yes, Putin and his henchmen should be prosecuted for war crimes. So should those who led the invasion of Iraq
admin
- Posts: 3005
- Comments: 0
- Since:
- Website: http://www.villagemagazine.ie
-
-
So far, manifestations of difficulty include an insidious marginal judicial interest in historicism and a move away from unenumerated rights, particularly that of a general right to privacy
-
VILLAGE IDIOT JULY-AUGUST RYAN TUBRIDY Privileged scion of Fianna Fáil Royalty, Tubridy never — unlike his mentor Gay Byrne — challenged authority or power structures, obsessing instead with antagonism to political correctness and, despite a self-conscious bookishness, promoting consumerism, environmental recklessness, and a culture of prizes for everyone. Not surprisingly it turns out he didn’t seek a correction when his employer published figures underestimating the income, which had become a totem for RTÉs need for cost-cutting and accountability — he received from it by fully €345,000 over the last five years, or that the environmentally inert Tubs received a greedy extra €75,000 annually from Renault Ireland which sponsored his show and drove at least some of its consumerist ethos. He has squandered his considerable broadcasting talents and his career is now in tatters because of greed and disingenuity. July-August 2023 79
-
Charity founded by close ally of Helen McEntee, Minister for Justice, obtained €1.6 million from discredited Immigrant Investor Programme By Frank Connolly Former Fine Gael TD and councillor in County Meath, J V Farrelly, has confirmed that a charity of which he is a founder and director purchased a nursing home last year with the help of €1.6 million in Chinese funding obtained through the, now discredited, Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP). Mr Farrelly was among the owners of the nursing home before it was purchased by the charity. Mr Farrelly is also registered with the IIP at the Department of Justice as a lobbyist for Chinese investment. The ‘visa for investment’ scheme, which was abruptly closed in February over concerns about the source and distribution of some of the €1.2 billion in cash it has raised, is run by the Department of Justice and supervised by Farrelly’s close political ally in Meath East, the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee TD. Mr Farrelly confirmed to Village that the charity, Kilmainhamwood Area Development Association (KADA) had received funds from Chinese investors in order to purchase the nursing home at Kilmainhamwood, Kells, County Meath. However, he could not identify them. “I’ve no idea who they are. I wasn’t dealing with them,” he said. “We found them through a solicitor. They were Chinese people. I don’t know them”. When it was put to him that he is politically “closely associated with the Minister” who is responsible for authorising IIP applicants and asked whether he had had any discussions with her or officials of the Department (in relation to the application under the IIP scheme), he replied: “This discussion is over”. On Friday 9 June, Village asked the Department the following questions: • Whether there been any contact during her time in office between the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, and the directors of Kilmainhamwood Area Development Association (KADA) or any person associated or working on its behalf, concerning an application under the Immigrant Investment Programme? • Whether Helen McEntee approved an application by KADA or any associated persons or vehicle for investment in purchasing a nursing home at Kilmainham, Co Meath, during her time in office? • Whether the Minister had any discussions with J V Farrelly in respect of such an investment under the Immigrant Investment Programme? • Whether her departmental officials were lobbied by Mr Farrelly concerning the nursing home or any other matter during her time in office? In response, Village was informed that “The Department does not comment on individual applications to the IIP”. Farrelly has been registered as a lobbyist with the Department of Justice since 2016 on behalf of a company which has promoted the IIP scheme for potential investors. His application stated that Mr Farrelly was “looking for approval of the investment opportunity for the Chinese applicants which would result in them being approved for a 5 year visa”. In 2022, the funding from Chinese investors financed the purchase by KADA, a registered charity, of the nearby Mowlam Nursing Home, in Kilmainham Wood, County Meath. Farrelly is a founder of KADA and was also an investor, with nine others, in the nursing home from its establishment in 2000 and before its recent acquisition by the charity. According to one director of KADA, the investment by the Chinese donors amounted to some €1.6 million. Peadar Fitzgerald, a consultant on social housing, who recently joined the board, also insisted that the KADA directors were aware of Mr Farrelly’s part ownership of the nursing home before its acquisition by the charity. He said the charity intended to reburbish and extend the 36-bed nursing home and that it had applied to build 10 social housing units on the site of the retirement village run by KADA. “I believe the investment was something in the region of €1.6 million. It was used to purchase the nursing home. The directors of KADA were aware that Mr Farrelly was the owner of the nursing home along with a number of other shareholders in a tax scheme“, said Fitzgerald, who provides consultancy to KADA on a voluntary basis. He said it was his understanding that there was a charge against Farrelly as a result of his bank debts which he may have cleared when the nursing home was sold to KADA. Farrelly has also confirmed that there was a charge against his shareholding in the nursing home. The nursing home is managed by Mowlam Healthcare, which was purchased by investment fund, Cardinal Capital, in 2020. KADA operates a retirement village with over 30 residents, many of whom own their homes, and a day-care centre for residents and others from the locality, which is located close to the nursing home. KADA received a capital grant of over €1.9 million from Meath County Council in 2020 and also obtains annual funding from the HSE. Farrelly is a former Fine Gael TD for Meath East and was recently appointed chairperson of the Strategy Committee for the party’s constituency organisation. He is a close political advisor to Helen McEntee who was appointed justice minister in 2020 and had responsibility for endorsing applicants to the IIP scheme. It attracted over €1.25 billion since 2012 before it was suddenly closed in February 2023. An audit of the controversial programme has suggested that there were concerns within the Department about the lack of security vetting of Chinese donors but there are also questions to be asked about many in business and charitable enterprises in Ireland that have been rewarded financially by its operation. At the time of the award to Farrelly’s charity, the scheme was under intense scrutiny and the subject of an, as yet, unpublished review which eventually led to its closure. It would be surprising if McEntee and her officials were not aware of the sensitivity of this particular application. The programme granted residency rights to non-EU citizens, their spouse and children under 18 if they invested a minimum €1 million in a business in Ireland or provided an endowment of up to €500,000 to a social cause or charity. Nursing homes,
-
“Whoever was tortured, stays tortured” — Auschwitz survivor Jean Amery. In My Fourth Time We Drowned, multi-award-winning freelance journalist Sally Hayden documents the experiences of those who flee homes destroyed by conflict and oppression. Sally Rooney’s reaction is typical — “the most important work of contemporary reporting I have ever read”. Numerous boat crossings from Libya are detailed, each risking what happened off the Greek coast in mid-June when a boat with hundreds crammed aboard sank. Of an estimated 700 plus passengers, less than 100 bodies were recovered. The majority, locked in the hold, were feared dead. Rescue charities, and authorities in France, Greece and Malta, as well as European border control Frontex, had all been alerted, and monitoring the boat for 12 hours, but disagreed over words exchanged with passengers and what unfolded. Alexis Tsipras, Greece’s former left Prime Minister asked, “what sort of protocol does not call for the rescue … of an overloaded boat about to sink”? If practical assistance was not offered until it was too late, organisations failed in their sea duties under international laws. Barack Obama and others noted the contrast in media coverage of the Titanic submersible incident and called out obscene inequality and disparity in life chances. Meanwhile, Ireland is sending a Navy ship, Lé William Butler Yeats, to Libya, which may indirectly facilitate more drownings, because it is joining an EU naval operation tasked to sink or burn migrant ships encountered, often under smugglers’ control, meaning migrants must use increasingly more dangerous ships. Hayden explores similar ploys; denials of responsibility, or outsourcing it to criminal operators, passing the buck, hands-off exploitation and careerism, politicising desperate plights, whitewashing with tokenism, jargon, image branding, and more. The stricter migration control regime installed by the West since Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011 has paved the way for ever-graver human rights catastrophes befalling those seeking sanctuary. Hayden’s use of unfiltered messages received directly from hundreds of refugees themselves illustrates how these European policies often result in cruel inhumane incarceration across North Africa, with Libyan militias and the modern slave trade being bankrolled by the EU, and with NGOs and the UN standing by, complicit and even corrupt. The opaque trail of accountability and striking under-reporting of activities and conditions suggest a collective wish to ignore and forget so many victims of the West’s neocolonial foreign policy. The EU does not count detainees, or have a process to contact families in emergencies, though the UN tracks numbers drowned at sea. At least 23,000 refugees have drowned or gone missing in the Mediterranean between 2014 and 2022. 1 in 51 attempting the crossing died in 2017 versus 1 in 21 in 2019. The number of people living as refugees rose by nearly 20 million from 2021 to nearly 110 million people by December 2022, according to a UN report. Hayden’s book is accessibly laid out, with lists of contents and key data, plus maps, notes on terminology, acronyms, acknowledgements and 65 pages of other notes and references, to end. According to the late David Graeber, co-author (with David Wengrow) of The Dawn of Everything, for the vast majority of human social experience, people enjoyed “three primordial freedoms: the freedom to move, the freedom to disobey and the freedom to create or transform social relationships”. Peaceful anarchy was the modus operandi. While inequalities in early human societies were not unknown, the structures of domination common to hierarchical government were absent. The tentacles of many institutions now creep around the planet, enforcing an imagined world of divisive identities, affecting millions of individuals in every facet of their lives. Exploration and colonisation over centuries brought genocides, ethnic cleansing, capture of labour, and accumulation of capital and resources. The spoils are still not going to those who earn them, although the Global South is waking up to the raw deals and lies imposed for too long. As power centres shift, Naomi Klein’s words seem apt: “In the hot and stormy future we have already made inevitable through our past emissions, an unshakeable belief in the equal rights of all people and a capacity for deep compassion will be the only things standing between civilization and barbarism”. A tragic parallel can be drawn between current migration journeys and those of Irish migrants piling into the infamous filthy overcrowded unseaworthy ‘coffin ships’ often arranged by Anglo-Irish landed gentry during the Great Irish Famine halfway through the nineteenth century. Many applicants were already at death’s door, unable to bear further hardships on route to America or Canada. Drownings and sinkings were common. Over 100,000 chose this dangerous option in 1846 alone, numbers which shocked the US Congress into passing two new Passengers Acts to raise minimum voyage fares as deterrents. Unfortunately, modern Ireland mimics international shortcomings. Evidence of human trafficking of migrant fishers off the Irish coast is mounting. And the Irish Refugee Council has recently criticised the preferential treatment of people seeking protection: “While we acknowledge the pressure on homeless services in Ireland, where homeless figures are at a record high, the decision to respond to two groups of people, that are both experiencing homelessness, with different policies on the grounds of their different status and/or nationality, risks being discriminatory and is not tenable”. The 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention states, “no Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. In a shameful saga, Hayden can be proud of her contribution That is the obligation under international law, incorporated widely into statutory law, but rarely cited anymore. Libya was not a signatory. Still, developing countries shelter about 87 % of the world’s refugees, most of whom have clear entitlements with experiences of conflict, poverty, enforced militarisation and so on. The goal of those fleeing strife is to contact the United Nations refugee agency, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and/or the International Organisation for Migration (IOM)
-
A conceptual look at the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy By J Vivian Cooke The Consultative Forum on International Security Policy that was held at various locations from 22 June to 27 June was an appropriate metaphor for the international security structures it discussed so earnestly. A small and select group directed the discussion about global security and offered their view to a larger General Assembly, some of whom would be allowed to insert them into the conversation from the floor. To add an extra layer of authenticity to proceedings, occasionally a dissident voice would be raised to protest the entire basis of proceedings. The desire expressed by the Department of Foreign Affairs that discussion should be “open, informed, respectful and evidence-based discussion on the State’s foreign and security policy”, was thwarted by a number of subversive interruptions. A shouting match between protesters and Tánaiste Micheál Martin at UCC was an early highlight. However, the chaos was largely constrained, and the moderators of each session were admirably efficient in keeping to the printed timetable. Perhaps the organisers had made allowances in their schedule for these fractious contingencies. The suspicions expressed publicly by the President that the Forum had been carefully curated so that the process would arrive at a predetermined outcome proved, on the whole, to be unfounded. The invited panellists provided important insight and nuance even if it did not reflect the full range of public opinion. Although many panellists were open in expressing their policy preferences on various issues, there was no attempt to disguise these positions and, for all the fulminations, there was little evidence of anyone acting in bad faith on either side of debates. It is helpful to order the wide-ranging discussions using an analytical framework that distinguishes positions based on intrinsic or instrumental values. An instrumental approach assesses various security policy options based on how effectively they deliver underlying policy goals. The advocates of either strict neutrality or deeper cooperation with NATO – positions that are irreconcilable – maintain that their policy preference is best suited to advance Irish security and/or promote the international rule-based order; and/or facilitate Irish participation in UN peacekeeping missions. In this sense, neutrality is not an end in itself, but rather a mechanism of Irish diplomacy to achieve the national interest and values. Even among UN veterans, peacekeepers, diplomats and administrators, there was sharp disagreement on precisely the extent to which Ireland’s neutrality is acknowledged or valued by other members of the international community. The suspicions expressed publicly by the President that the Forum had been carefully curated so that the process would arrive at a predetermined outcome proved, on the whole, to be unfounded For its advocates, international recognition of Irish neutrality distinguishes us from other European States, is evidence of impartiality, and makes Irish interventions more acceptable to other States and peoples. For example, the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said that our neutrality was “helpful” in securing our election to the UN Security Council. Those who are urging changes to Ireland’s security posture assert that, in their experience, Ireland’s position is not recognised around the world as unique, and we are categorised with other small and well-intentioned countries such as Norway or Denmark, both of whom are members of NATO. Renata Dwan, a panellist at the Forum, suggested that a more realistic evaluation is that Ireland’s policy of neutrality underlies the more obvious aspects of our international reputation which others value – such as our consistent support for human rights; our distinguished track record in peacekeeping; and the absence of overriding national interests. On the face of it, the isolation of neutrality is less of a guarantor of Ireland’s national security than any mutual defence pact that creates a treaty obligation for all members to defend Ireland should we be attacked. However, such a collective security agreement cuts both ways: Ireland will have an obligation to all other members of the treaty organisation. Clearly, we could be dragged into an international conflict without having the opportunity to make a positive decision to do so. The Forum questioned if the current ‘Triple Lock’ guarantees ‘traditional neutrality’. It has created a situation where Ireland can only deploy a maximum of 12 personnel in response to any international crisis, including the evacuation of Irish citizens and aid workers from conflict zones. It also frustratingly grants to Russian and Chinese dictatorial regimes and NATO states, the US, UK and France, a veto over Irish peacekeeping missions. In any event, the ‘Triple Lock’ only applies to the authorisation at the start of UN missions and does not grant the Oireachtas a role in the continued oversight of such deployments. This deficiency has been exposed by revelations in internal UN and international reports of widespread sex and child abuse in numerous UN deployments. Any review of the ‘Triple Lock’ must include a role for the Oireachtas in renewing authorisations. The second category of contributions takes it as a premise that our security policy should be an expression of our national values, whether that is pacifism or solidarity. In this sense, neutrality is a categorical imperative that has inherent ethical value – and, for some, moral purity. Those holding this position are typically suspicious of the intent of former colonial masters attempting to maintain their political and economic influence. They note the US’s long history of illegal wars as well as innumerable invasions and coups, and the fact it has been compromised by its material interests in, for example, ensuring energy imports. Unfortunately, at times, this appraisal veers into a cognitive confirmation bias that fails to acknowledge the moral complexity of modern US diplomatic history where, often at the same time, it has been both the architect and the transgressor of international law; it has both encouraged and undermined democracies; it has been both a fierce opponent of some tyrants and close allies of others. Neutrality is not an end in itself, but rather a mechanism of Irish diplomacy to achieve the national
-
The State, which has been reimbursed only €242m of the €1.5bn it has paid out, should now take only lands and buildings for Community purposes; not paltry cash By Carolin Zaniewicz and Michael Smith The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, also known as the Ryan Commission, was established in 1999. Its goal was to investigate the extent of physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children in institutions such as children’s homes, schools, foster care and hospitals run by Catholic Orders in Ireland from 1936 onwards. The results of this investigation were published on 20 May 2009 in the Ryan Report. The report detailed “significant levels of abuse” suffered by children, who were placed by the Irish State in residential institutions run by Catholic religious orders. It found that thousands of boys and girls were subject to chronic beatings, sexual abuse and humiliation at the hands of Catholic priests and nuns. The investigations also brought to light that the government had been aware of those abuses happening, yet the “deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools”. First, Indemnity, Deal The outcomes of the report shocked the nation; and further controversy followed an indemnity deal signed on 5 June 2002 between then Minister for Education, Michael Woods, and 18 religious orders. It was decided that the contributions of the religious institutions to the bill for the abuse would be capped at a value of €128 million Euro, including originally 64 properties. An indemnity was given by the State against further liability, forcing the remainder of the bill onto the Irish State. Woods seemed animated by the fact that the congregations estimated their legal liability at under €60 million if forced into court, as they believed nine out of ten cases would fail— mainly because of the statute of limitations. Woods was determined to believe them though 20 years later it is clear that many religious orders including Spiritans, Jesuits and Carmelites are now reportedly paying pupils for abuse in their schools because they cannot sustain technical defences, morally, and want to continue to act in positions of authority. Crucially too, the cost of the estimated redress portion of the liability rose fivefold to €1.25 billion as a result of the numbers and severity of claims. The State has long estimated the total cost of the inquiry bill, a survivor redress scheme and related survivor supports at €1.5 billion. This has proved accurate and includes payments of nearly 15,000 claims, at an average award of €62,250; and €193 million in legal costs. The State thinks the religious should in principle pay 50%, but the religious demur. The agreement was infamously signed just before the 2002 general election, and consequently was not laid before the cabinet for its approval. It then remained unpublished for several months. Woods said that his strong Catholic faith made him the most suitable person to negotiate the deal. When asked to give a statement about the exclusion of then Attorney-General, Michael McDowell, and his officials from two meetings, Woods said: “The legal people simply couldn’t have attended – it was a no-go area for them – they had fallen out with the religious”. Woods also tried to shift the blame for the institutionalised child abuse onto the State and made the untrue statement that it was the Department of Education that “had control, management role, organisation” and that the State knew all the details when making the deal. Of course, exaggerating the culpability of the State minimised the liability of the Catholic Church. However, the reality was that management was exclusively a matter for the religious orders. Journalist and campaigner Mary Raftery criticised his remarks, pointing out that some of them contradicted statements made by Woods himself. While Woods said his Catholicism was an asset that had helped to break a deadlock in negotiations, he denied he was a member of Opus Dei, the Knights of St. Columbanus or any other lay Catholic organisation. Second, Voluntary, Deal In 2015, there was a second, this time voluntary, deal which agreed to an additional €352 million, given the findings of fault. However, according to an April 2017 report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the voluntary sum was reduced to €193 million (a press release from the same body a month earlier said €226 million), after the Christian Brothers reduced their voluntary commitment to surrender playing fields by €127 million. There were also other extraordinary adjustments and re-evaluations. The government was aware of the abuses yet the “deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools” The value of the indemnity and voluntary deals was a combined €321 million (€128 million plus €193 million) coming, according to the Irish Times, in part from a portfolio of 49 school playing fields from the Christian Brothers valued at €127 million and 48 Sisters of Mercy properties valued, though not independently, at some €107 million. Then Education Minister Richard Bruton noted in 2017 that if the religious orders paid up on all the offers it would come to only 21% of the €1.5 billion paid by the State up to then. As if all that was not scandalous enough, it seems that nearly all of the religious congregations have fallen short of their commitments, especially the voluntary ones. Payments under first Indemnity Deal Some €125 million of the €128 million provided for under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement has indeed creditably been contributed, with the transfer of two properties remaining to be fully completed. The cash and counselling contributions received under the Agreement, amounting to some €65 million, were made on a collective basis which is why it is not possible to identify the amounts paid by individual congregations. Payments under Voluntary Deal The voluntary contributions made in the aftermath of the publication of
-
Ryan Tubridy’s evidence to the Oireachtas Committees displays his personal values that have also characterised his broadcasting career – sadly they, and RTÉ’s, are shallow and materialistic. By J Vivian Cooke Ryan Tubridy volunteered to give an exhausting full day of evidence to two Oireachtas committees – (Public Accounts and the Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sports and Media committees) – in order to rescue both his career and his reputation. He can be satisfied that his performance last week left him in a better position than he was in at the start of the day and that he has improved his prospects of returning to the airwaves. Tubridy’s contributions were clear and polished but also focused and consistent in its messaging; for all his polite and respectful congeniality there was plenty of steely resolution on display. There was also an obduracy in how he continued to characterise the payments at the heart of the controversy. Ryan Tubridy’s income paid by RTÉ was not reduced. Although he is correct in saying that the money that RTÉ paid him directly for his broadcasting work was reduced. But this pay cut was made up by a separate contract between Renault and Tubridy for €75,000 per annum for personal appearances. Tubridy’s position is that the calculation of his salary from RTÉ should not include the €75k p/a payments as they were not for his broadcasting work. He maintains this position even after the revelation that the amount Renault paid to him was offset by a reduction of the same amount in how much RTÉ charged Renault for advertising. Moreover, Tubridy’s contract stipulated that RTÉ indemnify him for any failure by Renault to make the contracted payments. When Renault withdrew from this direct contract with Tubridy, this guarantee was called on and RTÉ ended up paying Tubridy €150,000 (2 payments of €75,000) directly – not mediated through the series of transfers of earlier payments. As it transpired, RTÉ funded Tubridy’s payments either indirectly through their credits to Renault or directly once the guarantee was invoked. The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, was not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts. Still, the evidence in the public domain clears Tubridy of any culpability in and any knowledge of dodgy accounting practices. While Tubridy has acknowledged that he has made some mistakes over the years in not questioning or challenging erroneous RTÉ statements, he feels, with good reason, that RTÉ used his celebrity as a diversion from its own delinquencies. In response, Tubridy and his agent attempt to apportion all of the blame for the scandal at RTÉ’s doorstep. However much this is true for the presenter, many committee members repeatedly quizzed Kelly about his participation in the deceptions and questioned the credibility of his evidence. Kelly is Tubridy’s agent in both the show-business sense and in the sense that he is authorised by Tubridy to represent him and to act on his behalf. As such, Kelly’s actions reflect on Tubridy’s character – particularly given Tubridy’s repeated declarations of faith and trust in his agent even in light of the revelations put to him. Both Kelly and Tubridy displayed complete indifference to ensuring the facts of the payments were accurately stated. Kelly provided the invoices that facilitated RTÉ’s accounting deceptions when requested. Their stated objections to the recording of his end-of-contract payment that he forewent were faint and not pursued. The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, were not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts. Like the presenter’s own shows, and, sadly, too much of RTÉ’s output, their behaviour at the time was complacent when confronted with commercial impropriety; was to avoid forcefully challenging or questioning those in power; and above all, not to be disruptive nor create problems. Kelly’s actions reflect an ethos that he shares with Tubridy – a corporate sensibility that is concerned with financial profit while being spiritually bankrupt. While Tubridy has not disputed that, in his own words, his salary was “eye-watering” he makes no apologies for seeking to extract the maximum remuneration from RTÉ or other companies. Tubridy repeatedly stated that he employs Kelly to maximise his income without any consideration of the appropriateness of the quantum of those payments in the context of the company or society that ultimately pays his fees. Tubridy’s commercial personal ethics translates to promoting crass consumerism that sacrifices environmental survival or social equity for the sake of material acquisition. It is a value system that is selfish and narcissistic in its utter unconcern for anyone or anything else. The problem with Tubridy in this instance and throughout his career is not what he has done but what he fails to do.
-
The hands of former Attorney General Paul Gallagher and of the property industry are all over the Planning Bill By J Vivian Cooke The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2022 The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2022 attempts to bring clarity to the legal underpinnings of the planning system which are currently scattered across numerous laws, regulations, and court decisions (at both national and EU levels). Historical balance between central and local government The history of planning legislation is of a balance between centralised powers, typically emanating from the Minister and latterly from the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR); and local authorities’ powers, which in turn have been divided between officials’ and elected councillors’. Too often powers exercisable at either a centralised or local level, have simply not been exercised properly, and many would say local government has not justified the trust that underpins the delegation of such powers as planning permission (in officials) and zoning (in elected councillors). The Bill is a significant salvo at taking back some of the powers of local authorities by requiring their deference to centralised standards. Whether the requirements will be observed by headstrong local authorities remains to be shown. Equally uncertain is the appetite of the OPR to exercise zealously its powers or of any Minister to sanction councillors in a delinquent local authority who might be party colleagues. Long-standing and egregious failures of planning, including the sprawl of Dublin and one-off housing, have been largely perpetrated in contradiction to national policy due to enforcement inaction rather than action, with such consistency that it must be deemed to be policy inaction. Unclear if local authorities will defer to the centralisation The Bill carries forward the often-unenforced logical impetus of the existing system. It is based on a clear hierarchy for strategic planning and policy in which subsidiary plans are obliged to be materially consistent with all policies that are above them in the hierarchy. The hierarchy descends from National to Regional to Local Authority to Local. Under the Bill, the Minister will set out certain aspects of important policy in National Planning Statements which contain directives that purport to be binding, termed National Planning Policies and Measures (NPPM). The history of planning legislation is of a balance between centralised powers, typically emanating from the Minister and latterly from the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR); and local authorities’ powers, which in turn have been divided between officials’ and elected councillors’ New planning procedures Regional assemblies must draft Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES) that are “materially consistent” (the term is significant: “comply with” would have been stronger, requiring, as it does, positive action) with the specific directives in NPPMs, and support overall government goals; while both national and regional documents aim to coerce often recalcitrant local authorities in their individual Development Plans which drive the planning permissions they issue. The Bill sets out a process common for all actions provided for in law which, the drafters fear, might not necessarily be observed in the political process. Each individual step, in both policy drafting and permission-decision-making, is explicitly laid out in comprehensive step-by-step detail. The requirements for consultation, notification, review, compliance, appeal and deadlines are all stipulated in statutory process maps. Within these policy constraints, local authorities can, as now, give effect to national standards in ways that they deem appropriate to local circumstances; this may be valuable in preserving the democratic legitimacy of the planning process and, in addition, because local authorities have better knowledge of conditions on the ground. Compliance and Enforcement Errant authorities, whose subsidiary document diverges from a higher-level policy instruction are legally obliged to amend their policy documents to take such steps as are necessary to make it materially consistent with national, regional or local standards. Moreover, coherent planning objectives are pursued by obliging regional and local plans to have an internal, or horizontal, consistency with the authority’s other formal policy documents in areas such as housing, transport and climate action. It remains to see what will happen if authorities fail to amend as required. The longstanding experience has been that correcting the flouting of such directives inevitably depends on intervention by the often-reluctant OPR or by beleaguered individual litigants. The Bill maintains the current status of OPR enforcement actions against local authorities which are recommendations to be implemented at the discretion of the Minister, but they probably should be changed to be mandatory. This legislative review project has been misled from its conception by exclusively focusing on the wrong goals – consistency, efficiency and speed. A legal obligation doesn’t necessarily lead to compliance. It would, for example, be better if a standing body — the powers of the OCR could be increased — were to be charged with — and employed personnel who were scrupulous and determined, indeed passionate and fired up about — taking action to enforce compliance. And if the standing body were properly funded. It would ensure that local authority development plans and individual planning decisions complied with planning policy. This is what was envisaged in the recommendation from the Planning Tribunal to establish a Planning Regulator. Unfortunately, lobbying means that we got a regulator for propriety but an advisor for compliance.Much of the Bill is a reiteration and refinement of the existing approach to planning rather than a radical new departure. However, some proposed changes have the potential to create difficulties. Locus Standi for Individuals and Limited Companies If the Bill works in practice, developers will know better, before submitting a proposal for permission, by what standards their proposal will be judged and by when a definitive decision will be made. The building industry has, largely self-servingly, identified inconsistent planning decisions and the threat of legal challenges as a major obstacle to designing and financing urgently needed new private residential developments and, through extensive lobbying, appears to have convinced the Department of Housing of this spurious argument. Too much of the adverse comment that the Bill has been subjected to has focused
-
So far, manifestations of difficulty include an insidious marginal judicial interest in historicism and a move away from unenumerated rights, particularly that of a general right to privacy. By David Langwallner This article is about dangerous trends in American jurisprudence driven by problems with the political culture of that country. The trends risk being replicated in Ireland but must be resisted. The recrudescence of neo-conservatism in the American judiciary is a least a 30-year phenomenon with a limited and ever-shrinking liberal counterweight. It has been fuelled by the political nature of judicial appointments, Trumpism and indeed Trump nominees. The difference between neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism is important in the judiciary. A traditional neo-liberal like the UK’s Lord Sumption believes in disallowing state interference and police interference in private lives and the liberty of others — which is at least intellectually cogent. Neo-conservatism on the other hand enforces on others a fundamentalist and dogmatic worldview of religion and the deserving. It is led by Trump and Christian rednecks in America. In the US Supreme Court in the last two years, there have been chilling changes as it veers towards far-right-wing extremism. Intentionalism/historicism/constructivism In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, a case concerning the tragic mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, the Supreme Court recently held a 1911 New York edict that anyone in possession of a handgun in a public place needed proper cause violated the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms So, just as you could use muskets against the British in the Eighteenth century, you can use handguns on the streets of New York in 2023. This ludicrous underpinning doctrine, known as originalism, intentionalism, or historicism is an approach inherited from the recently deceased Supreme Court judge Anthony J Scalia, for whom Trump’s 2020 appointee, Amy Coney Barrett clerked. The idea, if it can be called that, is of an unevolving text that should be interpreted according to the original intent of the founding fathers or those who drafted the text. This all militates against the derivation of new rights particularly that of privacy and its emanations. Apart from the objection that such intent is unknowable, there is also the objection posited by Ronald Dworkin that this is rule by the dead hand of history and that it just creates an unanswerable imperative for the constitution to be overhauled for modern times, and legitimacy. It is a silly method of constitutional interpretation for a progressive society. Privacy Rights The biggest recent outing for the obscurantist doctrine of historicism was the overturning of the abortion case Roe v Wade in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on 24 June 2022. The trimester analysis in Roe which was overturned was not, it must be conceded, medically sound — allowing, as it did, for termination up to six months which, as medical science advanced, became long post-viability. The subsequent case of Casey established that the abortion right derived not from a right to privacy but from the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and that restrictions could be imposed on abortion unless they were unduly burdensome. This led to a flurry of State retrenchments and subsequent litigation. Notifications, parental consent, and independent advice were all promoted as obstacles to the procedure. It also led to abortion wars, the murder of doctors providing abortion services and, just recently in South Carolina, proposals for the death penalty for abortionists. It culminated in 2022 with Justice Samuel Alito in his majority opinion, overturning Roe, in Dobbs: establishing that Casey was wrong in upholding Roe because a right to abortion was not found in the constitution and could not be inferred from the concept of ordered liberty since it did not historically, as a matter of consensus. feature as an inherent component of liberty. In his recent book, ‘The Supermajority’, Michael Waldman says the judgment preserves “in amber 19th-century social norms”. It is implicit in Alito’s opinion that privacy rights should not ever have been added to the constitution. Waldman implies that conservatives might have been less put out if decisions on contraception, abortion and criminal justice had been couched in less “groovy” and “psychedelic” terms. This augurs badly for homosexuality and contraception. Unwillingness to infer rights from liberty – and other constitutional imperatives — is also arguably evident in recent Irish Constitutional judgments which are shifting away from the idea of “unenumerated rights”, to, as with the Supreme Court in Climate Case Ireland (2020) more limited “derived rights”. Unenumerated rights are anathema to historicists but in fact, flow logically from the fact Bunreacht na hÉireann iterates a list of personal rights “in particular” which necessarily implies there must be others. Abortion has of course been ineradicably secured in Ireland by referendum. In McGee, which recognised a right to marital privacy leading to a right to contraceptives for marital couples, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected historicism and said that it was the public mores of today and not of 1937, which were relevant. As Walsh J, opined referring to the values declared in the Preamble: “It is but natural that from time to time the prevailing ideas of [prudence, justice and charity] may be conditioned by the passage of time”. Of course, Ireland’s Supreme Court’s rightist Titan, the late Adrian Hardiman, endorsed historicism in Ireland. The more recent case of Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] includes an application of the historical method of interpretation. Hardiman, J stated: “If the term “primary education” is construed on a historic basis it is clear that what was in the mind of the drafters of the Constitution was the ordinary, scholastically oriented primary education represented by the ministerially prescribed National School curriculum. The contrary was not submitted”. The historicist approach is one thing but more generally the Sinnott judgment, according to Professor Colm Ó Cinnéide, is significant for “how the majority of the Supreme Court pushed back against new approaches to protecting rights which had become highly fashionable by the end of the 1990s – favouring instead
-
By Barry Ward No right is absolute; all rights are balanced against other rights, to one extent or another. Our free speech is constrained by defamation laws, public order legislation, public safety limitations, and a concern that free speech should not be abused to negatively impact on other citizens by incitement to hatred or violence against them. Balance The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 attempts to balance those competing rights to free speech and to live a life without fear that someone else will seek to make others hate you or commit violence against you because of your individual characteristics defined here as race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic origin, descent, gender, sexual characteristics, sexual orientation or identity, or disability. Indeed, so important is freedom of expression in Irish policy that Section 11 of the Bill specifically protects it by saying that discussion simpliciter, can not be taken to be an incitement to violence. Criticisms As the Bill began its passage through the Seanad, some have harshly criticised it, making unsubstantiated claims that it will end freedom of speech or that it constitutes a gross over-reach by the government into people’s private lives and thoughts. In addition to critics here, Donald Trump Jnr. has described the legislation as “insane”, Elon Musk said it was “a massive attack on freedom of speech”, and Fox News ran a headline suggesting that the Government was restricting freedom “to protect trans people from discomfort”. Offensive people can still be offensive, and offended people still offended. However, when free speech is targeted at a defined group, calculated to cause hatred against that group, or intended to incite violence against it, we should prohibit it None of these statements is true, of course, and none stands up to scrutiny. Therefore, it is important to dispel the misinformation that has been put out there about what the Bill will actually do and how it will address hate crime and hate speech in Ireland. In Ireland at least, most of the Bill’s detractors accept the need for, and desirability of, hate crime and hate speech legislation, but they dispute how that should be done or that this Bill is a reasonable response. However, central to the Bill is the right, irrespective of personal characteristics, of all individuals to go about their business peaceably, without being subjected to hatred, and without being under the threat of violence. This Bill is not about stifling debate but taking the hatred out of debate. What the Bill does and does not do Which is not to say that this legislation will outlaw taking, or giving, offence. Offensive people can still be offensive, and offended people can still be offended. However, when free speech is targeted at a defined group, is calculated to cause hatred against that group, or intended to incite violence against the members of that group, it is absolutely appropriate that we, as a community, draw a line and say that that behaviour is not acceptable. This bill will repeal the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which was ineffective, resulting in just 50 prosecutions in almost 35 years. Where hate speech might have manifested itself in pamphlet form in 1989, the modern iteration is substantially more digital. This new legislation is broader and specifically addresses online activity, whether in Ireland or not. The Bill also includes protections in addition to the normal fair procedures that we associate with our criminal justice system. For example, it excludes “a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse”. The permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions, independent in her functions, will be required for any prosecution. The Bill does a number of things, including ensuring that, where certain crimes are committed against a person because that person is gay, or black, or Jewish, or a woman, or transgender, or some other defined personal characteristic, any sentence will necessarily be higher because of the hate element of the offence; making it an offence to condone, deny or grossly trivialise genocide and other crimes against humanity; and making it an offence to incite violence or hatred against someone for those reasons. Hate crime effects Being the victim of crime is one thing. It is unpleasant, unacceptable and unfair, sometimes it takes time to get over, depending on the nature of the crime, where it happened and other factors. But we know that, when a crime is motivated by hate – be it racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or anti-traveller sentiment, or any other manifestation of hatred – the victim is significantly more liable to a long-lasting effect and is twelve times more likely to suffer psychologically beyond the physical effects of the crime itself. Whether the perpetrators of such offences know it, acknowledge it, or admit it, hate crime damages our whole society, and not just individual victims. Burden of proof Some people have claimed that this bill will overturn the burden of proof, which, in Ireland, requires the Prosecution to prove the case against the Accused. While the Bill will not change this important principle, it does contain a “rebuttable presumption”, which allows certain conclusions to be drawn if there is no reasonable explanation for particular circumstances. The Bill also includes protections for “a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse” Rebuttable presumptions are common and can be found in the law on theft and fraud, misuse of drugs, and firearms and offensive weapons, to name but a few, yet the same critics have not complained about the operation of those statutes since the 1970s and before. Possession Others have condemned the provisions that criminalise possession of certain material, even if it has not been distributed or published. They claim that people should be able, for example, to possess material that, if distributed, would be criminal, but because they have not yet distributed it, those people should suffer no consequences. It should not be that the Garda
-
CRH systemically flouts competition and company law with impunity. By Séamus Maye As I walked into the elegant Carlisle room at the Royal Marine Hotel in Dun Laoghaire in April last for CRH plc’s latest AGM, many thoughts flashed through my head. Why am I here? Why have I been in Court with CRH plc for 27 years? Why are the political parties and regulators protecting CRH plc? Why has my family been blacklisted by the banks for over a quarter of a century? Where are the media? Then it dawned on me like an epiphany. This is no ordinary plc, this is a mafia complete with criminal structures and behaviour and the usual protection rackets with every machination of the State and the banks, working arm-in-arm to protect what I now believe to be an OCG [Organisied Criminal Group]. The gang leader, Albert Manifold delivered his usual silky-smooth State of the Nation address. But the meeting was fronted by a decidedly uncomfortable Chairman, former Bank of Ireland CEO, Richie Boucher. You see Richie was tasked with shielding the Board of Directors from my unwelcome intrusion. Richie didn’t deny any of my allegations, just an unconvincing reply, “that’s your perspective, Mr Maye”. So just how did this OCG survive and thrive? CRH plc has been Ireland’s largest company for several decades and now ranks itself as the world’s No. 2 in the construction materials sector. The company is synonymous with controversy going back at least to the 1969 takeover of Irish Cement. Then Fianna Fáil leader, Jack Lynch, had intervened to ensure that Roadstone was the preferred bidder for Irish Cement and former Taoiseach Seán Lemass was appointed as the first Chairman of the new Cement Roadstone Holdings (now CRH plc). The late Des Traynor, arguably Ireland’s most corrupt business figure, also figured on the board of the newly created monster. Don’t worry, no cross-party stone was left unturned, CRH stalwart Tony Barry had his brother Peter to call on as long-time Fine Gael Deputy leader. Labour too was captured, it was under Labour’s then Minister for the Environment, Dick Spring that the illegal cement certification scheme was introduced in March 1983. The Progressive Democrats huffed and puffed about taking down CRH. In the end, Mary Harney and Michael McDowell played a good cop/bad cop blinder and frustrated any attempt to hold CRH to account. The PDs’ betrayed everything they (apparently) stood for in their efforts to protect this leviathan. The Greens too huffed and puffed under John Gormley and his lieutenants but when they went into government in June 2007, they too back-pedalled and acquiesced in the protection racket around CRH plc. That’s all the parties that have been in power since 1969. Then Fianna Fáil leader, Jack Lynch, had intervened to ensure that Roadstone was the preferred bidder for Irish Cement and former Taoiseach Seán Lemass was appointed as the first Chairman of the new Cement Roadstone Holdings By 1973, Ireland was immersing itself in the EEC. It had to introduce several new laws and regulations in order to make Irish Law compatible with EU Competition (Antitrust) and, later, Money-Laundering, Laws. This is where it gets really sinister. Ireland brought in (on the face of it) strong competition law, starting with the 1991 Competition Act, the successor to the Restrictive Practices Act 1972, which created the Competition Authority. This was followed by the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001, which created the Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement. However, these regulators have proved chimerical. The lengths that these supposed regulators have gone to protect CRH plc is staggering. Taxpayers have been forced to pay enormous sums of money to fund these inept regulators for over fifty years. So, what of the Garda, Ireland’s primary crime busters? The author has presented files to the last four Garda Commissioners complaining about unprecedented economic crime (allegedly) committed by CRH but there has been an ongoing failure to act. Indeed a Wexford family has made very serious allegations of fraud against CRH plc but while gardaí initially got involved and acknowledged the fraud to the Somers family, the family were subsequently told by local gardaí that, “we’re killing the case”. And what of the legal system? Suffice it to say that my family’s proceedings (best known as “the Framus case” have been running for 27 years and the, almost identical Goode Concrete case for 13 years with little progress made. Add the Ballymore Properties pyrite case and we have a cumulative 50+ years of litigation against CRH plc, without a blow being landed. The above-mentioned Somers family have now spent eight years seeking effective legal representation against a background of chronic barriers to justice. Typical of the connections that would make you paranoid is the conduct of the late High Court Judge, John Cooke (RIP). In the mid-eighties, John Cooke, then a senior counsel, was engaged by Hytherm, a new entrant to the EPS (insulation panels market). John Cooke’s mission was to obtain an injunction against CRH plc, the dominant player in the EPS market, to stop its relentless predatory pricing, collusion and market-sharing. Cooke was successful with his quest. So impressed was CRH plc with Cooke’s smooth performance against it, that it signed him up to appeal the EU Commission decision of 30 November 1994. It has also been established that Judge Cooke began accumulating CRH shares in 1994 and continued doing so, at least until 2010 (that we know of). Neither Judge Cooke nor CRH plc made disclosures in relation to the Judge’s relationship with CRH. Judge Cooke went on to give three damaging judgments in the Goode Concrete case (subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court) and to strike out the Framus proceedings in their entirety in 2012. The Framus case is a spectacular example of the failure of the Irish Justice system. This can only be a failure by design on the part of the legislature with the object of protecting the defendants, CRH plc and its associates
-
In the 1990s, artists working in diverse mediums, from painting to installation, redescribed the world in the image of the “non-place”. Coined by French anthropologist Marc Augé, non-places are transitional spaces (motorways, airports, hotel rooms) found between places that are more culturally established and static. In such non-places the socially constructed identity of the individual is less certain, groups cannot form, and loneliness permeates. As Gertrude Stein said, “there is no there in a non-place”. Art, in one sense, is the display of the parts of the world we don’t notice or value, but discover anew in the work of art For the contemporary artist, these non-places are a perfect metaphor for a distracted body politic, whose members go about their workaday lives without paying attention to the liminal nooks and crannies of society. In a sense, the transitional non-place is a marvellous foil and opportunity for the artist to exhibit what is in plain sight, something both familiar but ignored by society at large. Art, in one sense, is the display of the parts of the world we don’t notice or value, but discover anew in the work of art. The most common non-places redescribed by the contemporary artist have an uncanny quality that evince a Freudian influence. Installation artists such as Mike Nelson, Mark Manders, Miroslaw Balka, Gregor Schneider, and photographers Thomas Demand and Jeff Wall, construct strange yet familiar spaces dotted with objects and props, that unsettle their architecture’s normalcy with the theatre of the absurd and the psychology of fear. In the same uncanny vein, the conceptual and minimalist artists of the 1970s presented the viewer with almost empty gallery spaces, such as Michael Asher’s removal of a gallery partition to reveal the machinations of the gallery administration and nothing more; or the masturbatory mechanics of desire performed in Vito Acconci’s Seedbed, where the artist jerked off under a solitary timber ramp in an otherwise empty gallery. Closer to the mainstream, Lars von Trier’s Dogville (2003) starring Nicole Kidman, is a good example of how stripping back a film stage to chalk-outlines can haunt the viewer with their own imagination and desires, like the inkblot Rorschach dramatised in the psychological TV drama. Why the long preface to a review (my first review for Village Magazine) of the solo exhibition We’ll See You Now by Tanad Aaron at Pallas-Projects Dublin? Well, I want to begin this critical venture by making explicit the importance of context and setting in the appreciation — what Christoph Menke calls more appropriately “apprehension” — of contemporary art. If we are dealing with subjectivities and ideologies over truths and facts in the apprehension of art, it helps if you are armed with a little context. The context (or ghost) that haunts Tanad Aaron’s work at Pallas Projects Dublin is collaboration. For close to a decade the artist has been instrumental in building timber displays and gallery furniture for exhibitions in the Irish art scene. Curators, art institutions and artists have commissioned Aaron’s artisan sensibility to consistent effect. In the early days, Aaron was known as part of a trio of artists (with Andreas von Knobloch and Tom Watt), who made exhibitions on their own terms, not under the aegis of curators and art institutions, who wanted yet another piece of shelving or table to decorate their administrative settings. In these curated contexts Aaron, von Knobloch and Watt became artist-technicians, commissioned for their carpentry skills to fabricate settings for exhibitions, which was at first novel, but then became convention. Going it alone at Pallas Projects is both an intriguing and challenging prospect for Aaron. Pallas Projects is a small gallery space, divided by a hinged partition that facilitates one large gallery space or two smaller ones. Aaron has gone for the latter configuration, using the larger entrance room to display some wall- and floor-bound objects, including tentative oil paintings that redescribe the shape of the curved ramp that arcs into the smaller room of the gallery. The gallery is dark, with the alien vibration of blue and green light emanating from argon tube lights that form illegible doodles in plain sight, or in-hiding under the platform. The lighting, which some might refer to as obsolescent neon without referring to the list of artworks, sets the mood, the feeling, that this is a space that tries to evade easy description. Empty speech bubbles, in their glass and refracted-light manifestations, testify wordlessly throughout the gallery. For those who aren’t equipped with context, whether historical or local, I can only imagine that Aaron’s exhibition presents a conceptual stumbling block, even though the timber platform is accessible via a smoothly crafted ramp. Craft is a big thing in Aaron’s toolbox. Even in his use of cheap plywood, MDF and paper bags, every corner and edge is finely bevelled and pleated in a dutiful alchemy. So much so that my attention is repeatedly drawn to the corners and edges of his timber fabrications, at the expense of digging deeper into the elusive content. You might say that this is to Aaron’s credit, that he is not interested in presenting the theories or issues of the day, rather they exist here as sublimation, not a headline. In the user-friendly press release the artist casually signposts to “waiting rooms” and sites of permanence and impermanence. And yet without other signposts, whether philosophical, journalistic, or literary, the installation slip-slides away, always going with the grain, without any breaks in the uniformly tanned language of MDF. If you refer to the gallery map, as I did, it does help to divide and conquer the wholeness of this exhibition into bit-parts, named and orphaned from their maternal MDF embrace. Socially primed for pronoun usage, the use of the pronoun we, as in the exhibition title We’ll See You Now, does (or doesn’t) do one of two things: it points to the obvious fascination the art world (and every other institutional bubble) has these days with the we of inclusion and community; or two,
-
Having promised to provide box office viewing, today’s Public Accounts Committee failed to deliver meaningful answers to important questions. By Conor O’Carroll After three hours of questioning by the Public Accounts Committee, Ryan Tubridy and his agent, Noel Kelly, emerged largely unscathed following a failure by the committee to ask direct, pointed questions that reached the heart of the ongoing scandal. Despite a long opening statement from Tubridy, it quickly became apparent that Kelly’s presence at the committee was to serve as a shield for his star talent. His insistence during his opening statement that “this is not the Ryan Tubridy scandal. This is the RTÉ scandal” is proof of that strategy. At one stage, while a question was being posed to Tubridy, Kelly even interjected, requesting permission to answer on behalf of his client. However, his eagerness to defend Tubridy was premature, as Tubridy himself turned to him and said, “we don’t even know the question yet”. Kelly later said that he “sees people as brands”, a stomach-turning equivalence that goes some way to explaining why he leapt to Tubridy’s defence at every opportunity. He was merely protecting brand Tubridy, hopeful no doubt that his star man will return to the airwaves in due course. During the following quizzing from members of the committee, a common theme emerged where Tubridy attempted to absolve himself of all ethical and moral responsibility, pointing the finger at his agent, who then in turn pointed the finger at RTÉ. While Kelly’s repeated answers of ‘we were just following RTÉ’s instructions’ bordered on unbelievable at times, the committee failed to bombard either witness with pointed follow-up questions. The closest we came to a bruising came from Alan Dillon TD, who focused on one of the most pertinent outstanding questions: was Noel Kelly, and by extension Ryan Tubridy, complicit in the potential fraud raised by RTÉ former Chief Financial Officer in a Public Accounts Committee hearing two weeks ago. However, Kelly resorted to the now tried and tested rebuttal, stating that “we were just following process…the lack of credibility is on RTÉ’s side”. Further questioning on the issue failed to move beyond this answer. Questions regarding why the invoices were met by two different companies (both owned by Noel Kelly), and later why the tripartite deal was not signed by Noel Kelly Management until April this year, were left similarly unresolved. The blame was laid squarely at the feet of RTÉ, with the insinuation being that Tubridy and Kelly were just pawns in the game of chess played by the executive board. Kelly’s insistence that the tripartite agreement was “brokered by RTÉ” further attempts to disassociate both himself and Tubridy from the mess created as a result of this scandal. Having been hyped up on social media as essential viewing since it was announced, today’s Public Accounts Committee failed to bring about answers to the remaining questions in this saga. Little was actually learnt about the details of the arrangement, and Kelly was largely permitted to reiterate the same response every time: It’s not us, it’s RTÉ. Disappointingly, perhaps the most memorable exchange came right at the end when Chair of the committee Brian Stanley TD asked what Noel Kelly sold for Cadbury’s. The laughter in the room and subsequent response on Twitter says it all about today’s hearing.
-
Drogheda and Louth Councils disgrace themselves by finding spurious legal reasons not to consider rescinding the 1997 award of Freedom of Drogneda to the former head of the Christian Brothers who has been making life difficult for an abuse victim who is suing them. By Michael Smith Brother Edmund Garvey, 73, was given the Freedom of Drogheda, where he had been born, in 1997 when he was head of the Christian Brothers. He went out of his way on that occasion to apologise for hurtful experiences people suffered because of the order, or in its schools. However, in the last few years, he chose not to act as a nominee for the Brothers for the purpose of a High Court action for abuse, taken against the Brothers in 2019. Though certainly, that is his legal right, it meant that the more than 100 living members of the order at the time of the alleged abuse had to be made defendants in the case, six of whom live abroad, if the traumatised plaintiff wanted to sue the Brothers, a tall order. The High Court ordered judgment in default against 29 of them on 20 June. Damian O’Farrell is an independent Dublin Councillor from Clontarf and a survivor of the widespread abuse perpetrated by the Brothers. He obtained the first-ever criminal conviction against a Christian Brother, in 1998. Farrell wrote to Councillors in Louth last October asking them to rescind the freedom. Alleged victims hired a hotel in the town and asked Councillor to talk to them but only five of 29 turned up. Independent Louth councillor Maeve Yore has attempted to have the following motion tabled in the Council on two occasions: “That Louth County Council supports all victims of child sexual abuse and condemns the current litigation strategy chosen by the Christian Brothers order…and this Council calls on our members in the Borough District of Drogheda to rescind the Freedom of Drogheda bestowed on [Garvey]”. A letter from the Council to Yore states: “your most recent Motion will not be placed on the agenda of council for May as it is considered potentially defamatory and could expose the council to litigation”. It’s about as defamatory as a Bridget’s cross. On 10 May the Council replied to Yore’s solicitor, MacGuill and Company, confirming that it considered it was potentially defamatory: “It could be interpreted as making specific allegations against an identifiable person which, if unsubstantiated, could be injurious to the reputation of that person”. It suggested the Councillor submit alternative wording. Yore is said to be contemplating a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission though it is unlikely to find ethics grounds on what is essentially a procedural matter. She is also looking at a legal route. Section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 states that “an elected council may by resolution require any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in the resolution and which the local authority or the [CEO] concerned can lawfully do or effect, to be done or effected in the performance of the executive functions of the local authority”. Louth County Council should pass a resolution requiring its CEO, Joan Martin, to put a resolution rescinding the Freedom awarded to Brother Garvey which, whatever the Council thinks, is non-defamatory, on the ‘Clár’ or order sheet for expeditious discussion. Though the Cathaoirleach took legal advice that rescinding the Freedom is a matter for Drogheda Borough Council, it is in fact more appropriately dealt with by the full Louth Council rather than the legally depleted Drogheda Borough Council since, on 1 June 2014, the Borough Council was dissolved and the administration of the town was amalgamated with Louth County Council’s. Brother Garvey has not behaved well and it is entirely appropriate to call him to account, or eject him from the honour he was, unwisely, afforded by the Council in a slightly less cynical era. The CEO has already wasted enough of Councillor Yore’s time and legal fees. The Councillor might legitimately demand that if the CEO does not comply with this resolution and the law that she will hold the CEO and her agents personally liable for the costs including legal costs, of her non-compliance. More difficult for Councillor Yore will be obtaining the necessary two-thirds majority vote for her Section 140 Resolution. Without the political support the legal action will not be possible. However, the Mayor of Drogheda, Michelle Hall, signalled last December that at least nine of the ten Borough Councillors were against bringing forward a motion to rescind Brother Garvey’s Freedom. It is not clear why. What is extraordinary is, apart from one Sinn Féin County Councillor, the lack of support from the mainstream political parties, including the defiant Labour Party. locally or from their national representatives, for an attempt to undo a small part of the abuse that most of them at least accept is real. It’s to be hoped those parties will be held to account for their heedlessness.
-
Dermot McLaughlin mismanaged Temple Bar and, facilitated by the uncontrolled Arts Council which never took responsibility for failures in Temple Bar, is now arrogantly calling out mismanagement in Listowel. By Michael Smith Temple Bar Properties converted Temple Bar into a high-rent drink-driven cultural centre in the 1990s. Its focus then moved from physical regeneration to consolidating the cultural offering it was housing and, in 2006, it became Temple Bar Cultural Trust (TBCT), with a new board appointed by Dublin City Council. It was a private and limited not-for-profit company engaged in cultural development in Temple Bar, organising Temple Bar Food Market, concerts, circus, street, Culture Night and Handel’s Day. In 2005 it had an income of €2m, with €1.6m of this coming from its 50-strong property portfolio estimated to be worth at least €100m. Its CEO was Dermot McLaughlin, a 17-year Arts Council employee who had risen to become its assistant director. He was also a talented fiddler. Governance of TBCT was dysfunctional and in 2011 a review by Latitude, a consultancy, recommended it be wound up and subsumed into the Council. Independent City Councillor Mannix Flynn, a board member of TBCT, tabled a successful motion to that effect. The then city manager John Tierney agreed to commission a review of the organisation focusing on corporate governance standards, board representation and whether the trust was fulfilling its brief as a cultural promoter and enabler. However, a Council audit report published in March 2013 levelled charges of a different level of seriousness against TBCT, including failures of corporate governance and “control weaknesses and/or regulatory violations [that] represent unacceptable exposure and risk” for the company. McLaughlin remains a continuing consulting favourite for funding by the Arts Council of which he was once a senior employee The report found that the trust’s board minutes and papers were “not available” in relation to certain financial transactions, noting that TBCT’s business plan for 2010 and 2011 had not been approved by its board. There were found to be no appropriate financial procedures and the fact the same external auditors had been acting for over 10 years was deemed “in contravention of good corporate governance”. The party at most risk from these failures was the publicly-funded Arts Council which funds most of the cultural activity in Temple Bar, not exactly an oasis of private culture, to the tune of €9m in 2022. The Arts Council notably failed to investigate whether certain sums paid by it to institutions in Temple Bar were forwarded as intended to TBCT. A TBCT-commissioned review of the audit by former IBEC chief Turlough O’Sullivan found that the McLaughlin-fed board had “failed in its duty of oversight and governance by not enquiring into and satisfying itself that proper procedures were in place around financial transactions”. O’Sullivan was no subversive so it was telling that even he found this level of delinquency. McLaughlin resigned, agreeing not to pursue actions for defamation, and obtaining a substantial severance package after a disciplinary hearing into his role in offering generous redundancy packages to four senior staff members was cancelled. So what’s happened to the man who presided over the mess? Funny thing is McLaughlin doesn’t now mention his period in the van in Dublin’s Cultural Quarter. He remains a continuing consulting favourite for funding by his former employer, in the absence of a clear Arts Council policy on how it procures its consultants. According to now free agent Dermot McLaughlin he’s “been involved in voluntary work with organisations and on boards for many years. I enjoy being involved, I’m always interested in finding ways to help, and I love learning new things. So for me, voluntary work in enriching and valuable”. His voluntary work which came largely to an end after 2008 included spells as: Chairman (2011-2018) of Irish Traditional Music Archive; Chairman (current) of TG4 Gradam Ceoil selection panel (annual national traditional music awards); Chairman (2007-2011) of Dublin Dance Festival; Chairman (2007) of Údarás na Gaeltachta and Arts Council National Monitoring Committee on Gaeltacht arts; Board Member (2006-2008): Irish Architecture Foundation. Beyond this strings to McLaughlin’s bow include that he was: Board Member (2003-2005): Rough Magic Theatre Company; Founder and Board Member (1994 to date): Scoil Cheoil Frankie Kennedy; Founder and Committee Member (1982 to date): Cairdeas na bhFidléirí. In 2014 he set up his own independent consultancy practice, Creative Strategic Solutions. After that he was involved in the Arts Council of Northern Ireland’s Audit of Traditional Music in Northern Ireland (2014-15); the Arts Council’s review of contemporary music policy initiative (2015) Ealaín na Gaeltachta’s Competitive assessment of funding proposals (2015); and An Cosán Glas’s Business planning, negotiation strategy (2015). It’s amazing how far an unassailable relationship with the Arts Council can take a man. He also claims (admits?) he was involved in the “Meeting House Square €2.2m capital redevelopment, business planning and marketing project (2010)”. Sounds good, so let’s have a look at what the project architect says about this. Seán Harrington architects’ website is as sanguine as McLaughlin is about the situation. “There is a saying in Ireland that you can have four seasons in one day. Warm spring sunshine can lead to intense summer light. Lively autumn gales can turn to a sudden wintry shower because Irish skies are constantly changing. Seán Harrington architects was commissioned to find a solution. The innovative solution provides a convertible umbrella covering over a popular public square in Dublin Temple Bar area. The landmark umbrella projects bespoke design comprises of four 21-m high steel structural masts”. This is shameless and shocking when you realise the, admittedly attractive, umbrellas don’t work, never really did. In the last few weeks one of the brolly arms buckled and repair costs are so prohibitive as to make its reinstatement unlikely. The audit commissioned by Dublin City Council was particularly scathing about Temple Bar Square: “Board minutes were altered, deleting concerns raised by some Councillors, and provided to Ulster Bank to support a loan; Reams of financial data relating to the project were
-
The stench of death associated with the Kincora child sex abuse scandal is heady. It includes the murder of a Westminster MP by an MI5 agent inside the IRA. The murderous agent was Alfredo ‘Freddie’ Scappaticci. The victim was Robert Bradford, a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party. He represented Belfast South. The death of Scappaticci earlier this year shut the door on the last realistic opportunity to solve Bradford’s murder. Operation Kenova, which has been probing the Scappaticci scandal for seven years, and has cost approximately €40,000,000, is unlikely now to establish what took place. The killing was linked to the cover-up of the Kincora Boys’ Home scandal. There are other murders which are associated with Kincora. One of the most significant Loyalist terrorists of the period 1968-82, was John McKeague, a paedophile. He knew all about Kincora. McKeague was murdered by British agents when he threatened to spill the beans on the scandal. William McGrath, who was the ‘housefather’ at Kincora, was a British agent. He was involved in the clandestine importation of arms for Loyalist terrorists, including his own paramilitary organisation, Tara. Many people were shot dead due to the arms smuggling efforts of British agents inside Loyalist paramilitary circles such as McGrath. The cascade of death connected to Kincora did not end with murder. Sex-abuse victims committed suicide. One Kincora boy took his life after being violated by Lord Louis Mountbatten. Rishi Sunak’s proposed legacy legislation, if passed, will help conceal the full extent of State-Loyalist collusion, some of which was linked to McGrath. 1. Honey Trap MI5 and MI6 ran a ‘honey trap’ operation at Kincora Boys Home, a residence in Belfast for boys, aged 14 years and upwards, in the 1970s. Residents were trafficked to Loyalist politicians and paramilitaries, as well as VIPs, for sexual abuse. Some were molested at the home, others at hotels such as the Europa, Girton Lodge and Park Avenue in Belfast, as well as the Queen’s Court in Bangor. ‘Kompromat’ or dirt was collected about politicians and paramilitaries. Some were blackmailed into working for the intelligence services. The British Establishment applied a double coat of whitewash over Kincora in an attempt to cover up the full extent of this scandal decades ago. A lot – but not all of it – has been peeled away by survivors, whistleblowers and obstinate truth-seekers. 2. Driven to suicide Eric Witchell is a paedophile. He now lives in London. In the 1970s he ran Williamson House in Belfast where he preyed on pre-pubescent boys and young teenagers. He and his accomplices drove at least three of them to commit suicide; another two to attempt it. A select few were transferred to Kincora when they reached 14. Witchell was not interviewed by any of the various inquiries into Kincora. Stephen Waring, one of the residents of Kincora, ran away from the home in November 1977, a few months after being abused by Lord Mountbatten at Classsiebawn, County Sligo. Waring made it as far as Liverpool where he was captured and put on the Ulster Monarch car ferry destined for Belfast. He never made it home. Apparently, he jumped overboard to his death. His body was never found. The Garda have retained the security logs which record the visitors to Classsiebawn in 1977 but have declined to disclose them to me and Andrew Lownie, Mountbatten’s biographer. They undoubtedly record the arrival of Joe Mains, the Warden of Kincora, in a vehicle with boys, including Waring, who was seated in the rear. I am frankly aghast that the Irish government – which could intervene – has no interest in helping the survivors of sex abuse committed in Sligo by ordering Garda Commissioner Drew Harris to release the security logs. 3. A dismembered child’s body in the Lagan Brian McDermott, aged 10, disappeared from Ormeau Park on 3 September 1973. Part of his dismembered and charred body was found in a sack in the River Lagan a week later. The RUC discovered evidence that he was abducted and murdered by Alan Campbell, a founding member of the DUP. Campbell was also in Tara, a Loyalist paramilitary organisation, and was a friend of the paedophiles who ran Kincora. Colin Wallace, who worked at the British Army’s HQ at Lisburn, has told Village that the British Army, which had an interest in Tara, was alerted by the RUC that they were about to arrest Campbell. Then, suddenly, the police were ordered to stand down. Only the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) possessed that sort of authority. The security apparatus of the NIO was run by MI5 and Ministry of Defence officials. The manoeuvre ensured that the Kincora ‘honey trap’ operation did not unravel at that time. Significantly, Campbell was a British agent. Authors Jack Holland and Henry McDonald, referred to him as the ‘Demon Preacher’ in their books, describing him as an obvious British agent. Campbell and his cabal are suspects in the abduction of four other Belfast boys whose bodies were never recovered: Jonathan Aven, age 14, who disappeared on 20 September 1969; David Leckey, aged 12, who went missing on 25 September 1969; Thomas Spence, age 11, and John Rogers, aged 13, who both vanished on 26 November 1974. Had the RUC been permitted to arrest Campbell, it is probable that young Spence and Rogers would still be alive today. The BBC commissioned a documentary about the disappearance of these boys. It was completed in 2021 and entitled, ‘The Lost Boys of Belfast’. It was intended to be broadcast in May 2021 but was pulled by management. It is not certain if it will ever be aired. It uncovered evidence of MI5 involvement in the protection of Campbell and the Kincora cabal. RUC officers went on record in front of the cameras. Campbell was not interviewed by any of the various inquiries into Kincora. 4. The gunrunning operations of the ‘housefather’ of Kincora, William McGrath Colin ‘Jay’ Wyatt, joined Tara following the
-
Conor Lehihan probes ‘Anatomy of a Lie’ by Paul R Hyde. Sir Roger Casement was an icon for the British Empire in the Edwardian age. His two peripatetic reports on the degradation of natives and exploitation in the Congo and the Amazon were truly ground-breaking in the evolution of human rights. They were also solace for British people who had seen the imperial project discredited by the instigation of ‘Concentration Camps’ in the Second Boer War in South Africa. Knighted in 1911, Dublin-born Casement began to become more sympathetic to Irish nationalism due to his disenchantment with colonialism and a growing love for the Irish language. Significantly he never bothered to open the box containing the CMG that had come with his knighthood. He joined the Irish Volunteers and became a member of its national committee. He helped organise the Howth gun run and found a friend to part finance it. He later travelled to Germany, now at war with England, to enlist German support for a rebellion in Ireland. Before this, he had been in the USA to discuss his mission to Germany with Irish-American Fenians like John Devoy. Casement was caught landing arms at Banna Bay in Kerry and put on trial in London for treason. In an effort to discredit Casement, British officials claimed that he kept what became known as the ‘black diaries’ for the years 1903, 1910 and 1911, now kept in the public archive in Kew (London). They depict Casement as a homosexual who had many partners, had a fondness for young men and mostly paid for sex. The surreptitious campaign by the intelligence services was to frame Sir Roger as a moral degenerate who was owed no debt of sympathy for his earlier work on behalf of the Empire. Little difference was attached to the fundamental difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. Of course, prejudice persists to this day: it was revealing the online vituperation that greeted the advertisement in June 2023 by Kilmainham Gaol of ‘Pride Month Queer History tours of the Gaol’, much of it presumably from so-called republicans. The specific goal of the British establishment was to taint Casement to deny him a pardon from the death sentence in his trial for Treason in 1916. In his book, ‘Anatomy of a Lie’, Paul R Hyde shows that a British diplomat in Oslo fabricated a hasty report hinting that Casement enjoyed an “unnatural” relationship with his manservant. Hyde demonstrates through intense interrogation of the British documents the utter falsity of the original allegation. Furthermore, he discredits the effort by two Scotland Yard detectives to beef up the original Oslo allegation and gather reliable evidence which none of the possible witnesses were prepared to sign. Key figures from politics, the clergy, journalism and the administration were shown concocted details of Casement’s predatory sexuality allegedly culled from an actual diary that was forged from his own disparate notebooks and writings. When Casement heard of the rumours, he virulently denied they were in any way true; none of his close friends and colleagues ever apparently believed he was homosexual; and in the US and in Germany he was under intense surveillance yet allegations about his sexuality were never levelled Typed-up versions of the black diaries were circulated as the actual handwritten forged diaries had not yet been copied onto paper. The actual forged physical diaries were only produced after the smear campaign. The sheer detail of Hyde’s exegesis is impressive and reveals, point-by-point, the contradictions, factual errors and shoddy work the intelligence officers and policemen perpetrated in their effort to fit the spurious sexual allegations into the broader narrative of Casement’s day-to-day routine. Casement’s supporters have maintained his innocence. It has become an article of faith, particularly among supportive nationalists that the forged diaries maliciously rigged out a weakness for sex with young men, paedophilia; but that he was nevertheless homosexual. However, Hyde makes the point that none of the British and American surveillance threw up evidence of homosexual acts by Casement. In fairness to Hyde, he chooses not to enter into the debate about Casement’s sexuality but rather puts all his energy into proving that the black diaries are forgeries. Jeffrey Dudgeon, himself a distinguished gay-rights campaigner who published an edition of the diaries has also been cautious but in the end definitive. Noting that there is an absence of any evidence of heterosexual activity on the part of Casement, he has claimed: “His homosexual life was almost entirely out of sight and disconnected from his career and political work”. For this author, there is no evidence of homosexuality. For a start, when Casement heard of the rumours being circulated about him during his trial, he virulently denied there was any truth whatsoever to them. None of his close friends, including those that had worked with him as a professional, ever claimed before his execution or afterwards that they believed he was homosexual. Both in the USA and in Germany he was under intense surveillance. In the USA both the Fenians and British intelligence kept a close eye on his activities. The Germans and the Fenians both shared suspicions that Casement with his impeccable establishment credentials might have been sent by the British to infiltrate them. No allegations about his sexuality were ever levelled. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive! Inference rather than proof may continue to dominate the controversy surrounding Casement’s sexuality and it has taken over one hundred years to disentangle the story to the point of informed and probable speculation. Scholarly writers and academic authors for many years accepted the authenticity of these forged diaries. However this, as Hyde points out, should not surprise anyone. Significant historians and hand-writing experts were all fooled by the famous Hitler diaries, with the elaborate hoax completed in a period of two years. The forgers of the Casement diaries did not have as much work to complete. The actual completion of the false narrative in physical form
-
RTE’s lead talent has rarely covered environmental topics and the range of gas-guzzling cars he drives goes some way to explain why. By Conor O’Carroll. Amid the ongoing controversy over payments made to Ryan Tubridy through a barter account by RTÉ as part of a sponsorship arrangement with Renault, his relationship with cars ought to be examined. Particularly against the background of the dramatic lack of environmental coverage showcased on his TV and radio shows down the years. Last week, People Before Profit TD, Paul Murphy, told the Dáil that The Late Late Show had covered climate change just twice in its history, questioning whether sponsors were exerting editorial influence over the show’s production. Renault has been the show’s main sponsor for eight years – the longest in its history – and details of the agreement between Renault, RTÉ and Tubridy are now the focus of intense public scrutiny. And it is difficult to forget Tubridy’s controversial comments on RTÉ Radio 1 back in 2019, where he criticised climate campaigner Greta Thunberg’s impassioned speech to a United Nations summit. He claimed that watching her, he wasn’t thinking about the climate. Instead, he appeared to focus on her appearance, describing “her face contorted in pain, in agony and in anxiety”, adding that he felt her campaign to save the planet was “not good for her mental health and wellbeing”. Tubridy continued his dismissal of Thunberg by suggesting she “return to the simple things”, such as being brought home to watch a movie or go for a walk, as if to say ‘leave this stuff to the adults’, whilst ignoring the fact that ‘the adults’ are part of the reason we’re on the verge of an environmental catastrophe. He later apologised for his comments. The reticence over environmental causes begins to make sense when examining Tubridy’s relationship with cars. It appears he favours a gas-guzzler. And of course, there’s the nostrum that you cannot convince people of the truth of something if their pay packet depends on not recognising the truth. The issue of RTÉ ‘talent’ receiving sponsorship deals to drive cars is far from a new phenomenon. Tubridy himself had a brand relationship with Lexus, signing a two-year contract with the manufacturer in June 2003 “to drive an IS200 and to participate in a number of Lexus customer events and promotions”. In an interview with the Irish Independent in 2004, Tubridy remarked how much he enjoyed the heated seats on his luxury car. Nice and cushy. However, those heated seats fell short, because after Lexus rejected Tubridy’s request for a larger, more expensive model, their partnership ended and Tubridy returned to driving a BMW, as he had before the arrangement with Lexus. Unluckily for Tubridy, it was around this time that the German manufacturer announced its decision to end its ‘brand ambassadorship’ programme, requiring several RTÉ ‘stars’ to return their sponsorship cars to the company. I drive an old car, it’s an ’07, but it’s a beautiful looking car Tubridy was not a part of this programme, though BMW did confirm he had approached the company about upgrading his current car to a newer, flashier model. Several years on from this, it was reported that Tubridy had elevated his choices, swapping his BMW for a swanky Jaguar XJ. It’s a brand he appears happy to promote, having been pictured alongside former Ireland and Leinster scrumhalf Eoin Reddan in front of a brand-new Jaguar F-TYPE in 2014 as part of the inaugural Jaguar Golf Classic for the Irish Youth Foundation. Jaguar Ireland insists that Tubridy has never been part of their ambassadorial scheme, stating that “while he may personally own and drive a Jaguar, that is not, in any way, directly linked with Jaguar”, and that “any attendance at events was also on a personal level and no way part of any partnership with the brand”. From here on, the make and model of Tubridy’s car of choice is difficult to pinpoint, though he is always quick to remind us of how old his car is. A 2021 interview with The Times makes pointed reference to the fact that the car parked in his drive is 14-years-old, and during a discussion of electric cars on his radio show in 2022, he repeatedly reiterates that “I drive an old car, it’s an ’07, but it’s a beautiful looking car”. Let’s face it: it’s not truthful to describe an old Jaguar as an old car: the connotation is misleading. These reminders attempt to convey a sense that Tubridy is ‘just like everyone else’, a narrative that has been truly shattered following the revelations over the past few weeks. It also doesn’t help that in 2020, before this grandstanding about how old his car is, he can be pictured leaning out of what appears to be a modern Volvo. It’s impossible to say whether this is the car Tubridy refers to, but the car certainly doesn’t appear to be 14-years-old. With such a list of petrol-burning automobiles, it’s little wonder that Tubridy’s environmentalism is elusive. Having suggested that Thunberg went for a walk, perhaps a humbler Tubridy may accept that he needs to get out of those cars to retain the public confidence on which his career depends.
-
Prigozhin is a Putin construct and illustrates underlying Russian structural deficiencies including indulgence of oligarchs and a dysfunctional relationship between the public and private sectors that I recall from my time there. By Conor Lenihan. The Russian government has gone to enormous lengths to maintain an illusion of business as usual on the domestic front, but Prigozhin offers a rare insight into the power struggles still raging beneath the apparently tranquil surface. Writing about the invasion of Ukraine in the early days, I predicted that one way or the other, it would unleash another power struggle within the Kremlin, however well-masked from prying western eyes. That Prigozhin would be the one to stage the uprising, coup or as he called it ‘march for justice’, was not initially obvious. There are historical and sociological reasons for the rise of Prigozhin. Before Putin came to power 23 years ago, it was never quite clear who was running the country – Boris Yeltsin, or the insiders and cronies who had taken ownership of previously publicly owned oil, gas and commodity, resource-based companies in the chaotic, crash-course transition to fledgling democracy. This situation whereby these wealthy oligarchs – often referred to as the “Yeltsn family” – effectively ran the Russian government caused much discomfort to the newly ascendant Putin. It was an early hallmark of the new regime that he set about reversing the nature of the relationship between the Russian Federation’s government and the oligarchs, many of whom either sat in the state Duma (parliament) or actually owned dozens of members – almost like proxy voters in a public company. In July 2000, Putin brought the country’s top oligarchs into a meeting that was beamed out live on television where he formally warned them that if they interfered in politics and media via their ownerships, he – Putin – or the State would come after them. Present at the meeting was one Mikhail Khodorkovsky owner of the one of the richest oil companies in Russia (Yukos). Khodorkovsky seemed to have ignored the warning and ended up in jail with his companies stripped and re-allocated either to the state or friends of the regime. Putin introduced his own system where the relationship between him and the Oligarchs became one of Servant-Master and he was the Master. Putin reversed the nature of the relationship between the Russian Federation’s government and these extraordinarily wealthy oligarchs many of whom either sat in the state Duma (parliament) or actually owned dozens of members almost like proxy voters in a public company. Putin introduced his own system where the relationship between him and the Oligarchs became one of Servant-Master and he was the Master. Added to his own “new money” oligarchs came a set of people largely drawn from the state sector called “ silivoki” a polite terms for middle or senior ranking state employees with an emphasis on those from the state security apparatus – the KGB, GRU and other such agencies. These “siloviki” were everywhere in the private companies and state organisations that I came into contact with, and the power they wielded was significant. Within Russian company these operators act as protectors for their patrons and in business terms have an uncanny way of both penetrating the often hazardous and slightly impenetrable Russian state bureaucracy. In 2011, after the loss of my Dáil seat, I had been invited by Viktor Vekselberg to become a vice-president of the Skolkovo Foundation – a $10 billion innovation project which was Moscow’s effort to build its own Silicon Valley and lessen the dependence on oil, gas and commodities. Vekselberg himself has been on the US sanctions list since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The foundation employed dozens of siloviki, typically well-connected former intelligence agents, and at least one former KGB General. The point is that in Russia important roles at the highest levels are filled by people who got there dysfunctionally – Yeltsin oligarchs, Putin oligarchs and silivoki. Yevgeny Prigozhin must be framed against this dysfunctionality though he is not rich enough to quality as a an oligarch in the usual sense. He is part of an elite spawned through corruption, nepotism and violence. Putin exploits this system and depends on it to consolidate his leadership and control of Russia. He is Putin’s creation. He derived his massive Wagner mercenary army, not from ownership of oil and gas resources, but from direct friendship with Putin. He rose from criminal, to hot dog seller, and eventually created a catering company that supplied not just the Kremlin, but also the Russian army. It was a small jump to supply paid mercenaries in 2014, renting them out to regimes in Africa and the Middle East who for one reason or another needed military muscle. The Wagner operation became a “discreet offering” from the Russian state to friendly allies like Assad in Syria and General Haftar in Libya. In a way, Prigozhin’s own story is emblematic of the state built by Putin. So it is a profound irony that he became a putative coup leader himself. This accounts for the clear look of fear and anger in Putin’s face during the live broadcasts in which he pledged to crack down on the coup and the coup leaders themselves. With Prigozhin speeding up the road to Moscow, Putin chose to offer him a way out – a safe haven in Belarus in a clearly staged intervention by his close ally Aleksandr Lukashenko. One member of the Russian Duma was heard to remark that Prigozhin deserved to get “a bullet in his head” rather than a comfortable exile arrangement. The Russian public will have been alarmed at the instability of those two days where the past once again seemed possible. Still, the immediate consequence of the failed mutiny will be to strengthen Vladimir Putin and lead to a re-doubling of the Russian war effort in Ukraine. But Putin is not a young man anymore and the inherent instability of both the war in Ukraine and his own visible vulnerability
