Politics

March/April 2022 39Fine Gael commemorating Griffth and Collins at Glasnevin cemetery, 2016Fianna Fáil commemorating De Valera, Ennis 2021Sinn Féin commemorating Wolfe Tone, Bodenstown 2019All the nationalist parties misappropriate history, immaturelyImmationalismPOLITICSFianna Fáil and Fine Gael deny any historical analogy between their own party histories and the process which Sinn Féin/IRA are currently going through to make the transition from political violence to fully peaceful democracy; and Sinn Féin confuses the inspiration nationalists have drawn on from preceding generations of revolutionaries with institutional continuityTHE REPEATED vandalism of a necrology wall in Glasnevin Cemetery shows that Ireland has not avoided the paroxysms of iconoclasm that have tormented British and American cultural activists since 2020. There is an important diference in as much as the wall in Glas–nevin Cemetery was not a public monument. In a civilised society it should be reasonable to expect that a monument to the dead in a cemetery, of all places, might be exempt from such attempts to erase history.The listing of all those who died during the Irish War of Independence is proving contentious 100 years after the event. Ireland seems eager to move on from the event as quickly as possible. We adopted a new urban nomenclature to purge selected Irish place–names of their British associations: with Sackville Street being renamed O’Connell Street; Gloucester Street changing to Sean MacDermott Street; and King Street becoming MacCurtain Street. We also enacted a perfunc–tory programme of cultural defenestration for the most egregious representations of royal authority. However, very quickly, semiotic purity yielded to convenience and, rather than remove every ofensive symbol of the crown, it was simpler just to paint them green – think of the royal mono–grams on many surviving Victorian or Edwardian cast-iron post boxes.Unfortunately, such relaxed historical sensibilities were not, indeed could not be, reproduced in Northern Ireland. There, one literally cannot turn a corner without being confronted by contentious murals, fags or symbols that are as much intentionally ofensive as commemorative.Sadly, Glasnevin is only one of an increasing number of signs that the animus prevalent in such matters there is beginning to infect the use of his–tory in the Republic. As a result, in Ireland, the populist history is being misused increasingly for petty political gains with disastrous consequences for our national identity and social cohesion. When Professor Jane Ohlmeyer exercised her professional expertise and experience as a historian to explore the nature of the Irish experience of British imperialism, one hysterical key–board warrior felt her work amounted to an ofence under incitement to hatred legislation and should be investigated by the Garda as such. Simi–larly, the two measured and considered interventions that President Higgins By J Vivian Cooke 40March/April 2022made about Irish history this year were met with equally ludicrous overreac–tion and manufactured outrage. Clearly, there are large parts of the public which have no appetite to broaden their understanding of Irish history if that entails the slightest devia–tion from a pre-existing narrative from which they draw comfort. However, mature societies confront exactly those difcult parts of their history to allow themselves self-awareness. Time and again, we have seen recently that Ire–land continues to lack the necessary intellectual bravery to do this. Of course, in this we are not alone: one need only look at how French historians continue to struggle to account for their wartime collaboration or the Algerian War of Independence or indeed Britain’s perception of its role in World War II. The neglect of history as an academic discipline within our education system has allowed a populist form of history to take root. It is a variety of history that strays from the academic rigour demanded of professional his–torians and, even more worryingly, it leads to a misunderstanding of actual history itself. It is useful in this context to consider the diferent uses that can be made of the term ‘History’ as: actual history as things that happened in the past; academic history as the systematic study of things that hap–pened in the past and; populist history as collective memory of historical events and how those memories are reproduced through various cultural representations. Unfortunately, some populist history has become untethered from aca–demic and actual history. Populist history tends to be mesmerised by narrative arcs that can be sketched only by treating actual history as artif–cially discrete incidents, at the cost of ignoring important aspects of establishing context and arriving at balanced judgements. Each of the dif–ferent mediums of cultural representations through which populist history fnds expression imposes specifc sets of constraints on the capacity for nuance and the degree of accuracy it can achieve. Actual history has a dif–ferent relationship with a Hollywood historical blockbuster from that it has with a BBC documentary. Ron Chernow’s treatment of the life of Alexander Hamilton has a relationship with the actual history that is very diferent from that in the representation ofered by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Populist history has a legitimate function in creating common historical memories that act as shared points of culture that bind nations together. At its best, populist history can spark people’s interests in actual history or be an introduction to academic history, so that people can broaden and deepen their engagement. Sadly, too often, engagement arising from populist his–tory only results in the regurgitation of the half-digested gristle and bone of actual history. While delivering the 1961 George MacCaulay Trevelyan Lectures, E H Carr colourfully noted the selectivity of history: “(facts) are like fsh swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fsh in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fsh he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants”.The essential skill of the historian is to sift through all the things that occurred in the past, most of which are trite, quotidian and insignifcant; to identify

March/April 2022 35IntroductionCounty Armagh, 1982. In just over a month six men, one only 17-years-old, were killed in controversial circumstances by a RUC Headquarters Mobile Support Unit (HMSU). On 11 November, Sean Burns, Eugene Toman and Gervaise McKerr, all members of the Provisional IRA (PIRA) were killed after allegedly driving through an RUC roadblock in Lurgan, injuring one ofcer. The ofcers of the HMSU fred some 109 shots, killing By Nick CliftonThirty years ago this year, three IRA men were murdered by the RUC. John Stalker was appointed to investigate but he was set up, his report defused and the truth about the murders he was investigating confounded so that RUC impunity could prevailIn his trial summing up, Lord Justice Gibson controversially stated that the offcers were “wholly blameless” and celebrated that Toman, Burns and McKerr had been brought to the “fnal court of justice”Gervaise McKerr, Eugene Toman and Seán Burnsall three men. Two weeks later, 24 November, Michael Tighe was killed, and Martin McCauley seriously injured in a Hayshed, again in Lurgan. The HMSU opened fre because the two men allegedly pointed Mauser rifes at them. Lastly, on 12 December, Roddy Doyle and Seamus Grew, both members of the INLA, were killed after allegedly trying to fee a police checkpoint in Armagh City. Constable John Robinson claimed that he heard a loud noise emanate from the reversing car, so he opened fre and killed both men. Doyle and Grew, like Burns, Toman and McKerr, were all unarmed. Shoot-to-Kill?But all was not as it seemed. In McCauley’s subsequent trial for possession of the frearms in the Hayshed, the three ofcers involved admitted that large parts of their witness statements were untrue: they had claimed they had come across an armed gunman outside the Hayshed whilst on a routine patrol, when they had actually been keeping the location under close observation. The presiding judge, Lord Justice Kelly, decided the ofcers’ statements should not be considered as they were “tainted with lies”. McCauley painted a diferent picture of the incident. They had climbed through the open window of the Hayshed and seen the Mausers. Without warning they were sprayed with bullets, killing Michael Tighe. When the fring stopped, the RUC ofcers ordered the men to surrender but when McCauley attempted to, they delivered another burst of gunfre, seriously injuring him. Lord Justice Kelly also disbelieved McCauley’s testimony, handing him a two-year suspended prison sentence.This was not an isolated incident though. Constable Stalker NobbledPOLITICS 36March/April 2022attack on a RUC patrol at Kinnego Embankment. Tragically, Sergeant Sean Quinn, Constable Alan McCoy and Constable Paul Hamilton were killed instantly in the explosion.Casus Belli?Stalker revealed that the same informant had told Special Branch that four men were behind the attack; Eugene Toman, Gervaise McKerr, Sean Burns and Martin McCauley. Were their deaths part of an RUC vendetta? He was aware the Hayshed had remained under investigation following the Kinnego murders and strongly suspected that the informant had become an agent provocateur as all three incidents involved an ambush by HMSU ofcers. Damningly, Stalker also found that a report from the informer claiming Michael Tighe was a member of the Provisional IRA had been faked, as it had been forged after the entirely innocent teenager had been killed. But he found that the RUC Chief Constable would not allow to him listen to the tape or even read the fles relating to the informer. So, after months of failed negotiations with Jack Hermon, Stalker produced a 10,000-word interim report. It stated that new and extensive “independent forensic evidence” supported claims that all fve men “shot dead in their cars were unlawfully killed by members of the RUC”. He suspected that Michael Tighe was also unlawfully killed but could not confrm this until he had heard the tape. Hermon delayed handing the report to the Direct of Public Prosecutions, Sir Barry Shaw, but when he did Shaw unequivocally decided that Stalker would have access to anything he wanted. Conspiracy of LiesThis sent of an unforeseen chain of events. In late-may, 1986, Stalker was called into GMP’s HQ and suspended from duty. He was now being investigated for impropriety. He was not told what he was alleged to have done, but he was informed John Robinson stood trial for the murder of Seamus Grew. He too admitted that his witness statement had been fabricated by ofcers of RUC Special Branch. Three more HMSU ofcers stood trial for the murder of Eugene Toman and were subsequently cleared. In his summing up, Lord Justice Gibson controversially stated that the ofcers were “wholly blameless” and celebrated that Toman, Burns and McKerr had been brought to the “fnal court of justice”. Stalker by Name and by NatureThough Gibson appeared to condone the killing of three unarmed men, it was Robinson’s false witness statement that had political repercussions. The RUC’s Chief Constable, Sir Jack Hermon invited the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), John Stalker, to investigate the three Shoot-to-Kill incidents. Stalker was the 45-year-old rising star of Britain’s policing community with over 20 years’ experience as a detective. He had a great deal of experience in the GMP’s drugs and serious crimes squads as well as investigating other constabularies. But from the moment Hermon passed a fattened cigarette-packet highlighting Stalker’s mother’s Irish Catholic ancestors, he realised this would be an altogether diferent proposition. In Hermon’s words, Stalker “was in the Jungle now”.Still, Stalker conducted a thorough investigation, one that sufered from constant interference, obstruction and obfuscation, but his team’s fndings were alarming to say the least. They found that the ofcial narrative of the killing of Sean Burns, Eugene Toman and Gervaise McKerr, was entirely false. There had been no roadblock and the ofcers involved had been removed from the scene immediately after the killings to be debriefed by Special Branch ofcers. The original forensic investigation left much to be desired as it had initially studied the wrong crime scene, then Stalker’s forensic investigators found fragments of the bullet which

March/April 2022 33THE BAN against naming Soldier F, one of the Bloody Sunday murderers, by his real name, remains in force, but only in the UK. Last July, Colum Eastwood, leader of the SDLP, got around the prohibition by naming him under privilege in the House of Commons. War criminal‘Soldier F’ shot a number of people including Patrick Doherty on Bloody Sunday. He did so while Doherty was lying on the ground crawling away from him. Barney McGuigan stepped forward with a white handkerchief looking to help him whereupon Cleary dropped to one knee, aimed his rife and shot McGuigan in the head.By David Burke POLITICSTWITTWhen it comes to naming Bloody Sunday murderer, Soldier F, Twitter isn’t enforcing its own rules that allow censorship only in accordance with the laws of the tweeter’s own countryThe victims and families are not a threat to Soldier F’s life?The survivors and families of Bloody Sunday’s innocent murder victims have known perfectly well who F is for years and have left him alone. He has even posted selfes on social media, including one taken on a recent holiday. There is another one of him in circulation in what looks like a bar or hotel. Does the IRA pose F a threat? Hardly. If they wanted him dead, it would have happened by now. There is little chance that the IRA’s Army Council would sanction a hit with their minions in Sinn Fein edging close to political power in the South. Moreover, it suits them to have him alive as he is a propaganda stick with which to beat the British government. The same argument applies to dissident Republicans.There is only one realistic threat to F, and that is from his own side. F and his former superior, Colonel Derek Wilford, Commander of 1 Para, know the full truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday. Wilford had a secret conclave with soldiers F and H immediately before the Bloody Sunday massacre. Soldier H has since died. If, as I suspect, Wilford gave F and H orders to provoke the IRA by shooting at anyone who looked like a possible IRA volunteer, then F has a lot to fear. 34March/April 2022Twitter squall After the murder charges against F were dropped last year, his name appeared on notices in Derry, proving, yet again, that his name was well-known. The ban on naming F only applies to the United Kingdom. F was named by this magazine on its website A number of residents of the Republic retweeted posts emanating from Village highlighting the publication of the articles. They and Village were suspended by Twitter, mostly for a 12-hour period. A few weeks ago, ‘F’ was named by Peadar Tóibín in the Dail. Village reported Deputy Tobin’s speech later that night.  Feargal McCann, whose father was murdered by paratroopers ten weeks after Bloody Sunday, read the story and transmitted a tweet about it. Twitter locked McCann’s account.A twitter force feld to protect the ukFor a while it looked like Twitter might have had a point. It could have argued that tweets are international. Hence, one emanating from the Republic could reach the UK. The consequences of such an argument, however, have a far-reaching potential. If, for example, a Russian Court were to ban coverage of Alexei Navalny or Pussy Riot, Twitter might lock the account of anyone who mentioned them. Now it transpires that Twitter had the ability to block tweets from the Republic fying across the border all along. Will the PSNI pick on someone else?Someone – presumably the PSNI – is putting pressure on Twitter to provide them with the details of other account holders who have transmitted F’s name. At things stand, at least one such individual, Jim Smith, not a resident of the UK, has asked Twitter not to breach his GDPR rights by furnishing anybody with his details. No doubt the PSNI is hoping to fnd someone who is a resident of Northern Ireland and with a low profle, to make its point. The lone wolf argumentThe judge in Derry who acceded to the PSNI’s request for the ban pointed out in his judgment that threat assessments had been carried out in July 2019 and March 2021 which had found that F was at low risk from dissident republicans but that the threat level could rise if F was to be denied anonymity. The judge also stated that F faced a threat not only from dissident republicans but “from a lone actor, not a member of any organisation, but someone who might be prepared to carry out an attack”.These were perfectly reasonable grounds upon which to reach a determination, especially in light of the dire warnings put before him by the PSNI. However, in the months that have passed, no one from any quarter has lifted a fnger against F. If this precedent is to come the norm, it will become virtually impossible to name any defendant in future since anyone named in public could be targeted by “someone who might be prepared to carry out an attack”. Perhaps this could be a good thing – a robust extension of the idea that all accused are innocent until proven guilty – but it is notable that the PSNI is only making it for F, not for other criminals.Byron lewisParatrooper Byron Lewis broke ranks and told the truth about what he witnessed F do on Bloody Sunday.. In 1998 the Saville Inquiry – then up and running – recorded that Lewis “has had to move out of his home. Last night 2 men attacked the person he has been sharing a bungalow with while he was outside the house in his car. First they attacked the car, then they dragged him [the other man living at the bungalow] out of the car and beat him up…They ofered him a block of concrete and said, ‘That’s your one chance. Give it your best shot, because afterwards we’re going to kill you”. They mentioned Bloody Sunday,