So I scribbled the request in my 'must look' book and got on with the important pastoral things of life. But then someone reminded me that I said I would return to the topic and that it was obvious I was hiding. So in pursuit of truth and a bit of exercise, 'WHAT IS TRUTH?' was born.
So let's take a look at the things I have been asked to comment on:
Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA
I found this an important matter as having many friends who have worn military kit and served in the British Forces I have heard this claim echo around many a pint in the bar over the years.
So I started to take a look at the claim and the evidence, and this is what I found:
There were some interesting claims surrounding Corbyn's support of the 'Red Action' (RA) group - a bunch of people who were the love child of Socialist Worker Party(SWP), Anti Nazi League (ANL) attitudes. They were predominantly young, working class Irish kids who were engaged in combat with the fascists who were engaged in clashes with anything left-wing or non-white and British in origin.
RA were typical of their time and differed little from their right wing opponent in their adoption of violent action. The group were also quite extreme in their political thinking (Leninist in nature) and were (perhaps because of heritage) opposed to the situation in Northern Island and the 'troubles'.
It seems that Corbyn became associated with them through the actions of the 'Anti Fascist Action' (AFA) and RA did provide stewards at some of the rallies and meetings, so they were present and whilst we could claim 'guilt by association' and be content that he stands damned - who in the political world will end up guiltless at the end of our journey?
The AFA fell apart because of the tensions between anti-racist and anti-fascist groups and those pro-violence and those formal in favour of peaceable protest. Corbyn was decidedly on the 'non-violence' side of the debate. Apart from confirming my belief that the left wing is dogged by the divisions within it as marxist, Leninist and other factions all enjoy the infighting which makes it so impotent at times all it has shown is that Corbyn is a committed pacifist. That said, he advocated standing one's ground if attacked and so, like many pacifists, is willing to resist physical oppression (who wouldn't?).
There is an additional RA link, which seems to be have been made more for political capital and a bit of ad hominem, regarding the Warrington bombings in 1993 (which the IRA claimed) but the links and material I have read are really beyond tenuous and have little credibility.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that Corbyn has never supported the IRA. I do reckon that he has met with members of the IRA simply because he met with members of Sinn Fein on more than one occasion in the mid-eighties onwards as part of the various 'peace' processes.
It's interesting to have so many people tell me how Corbyn opposed the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) because a simple check tells me that this is incorrect and that he supported the GFA and voted in favour of the Northern Ireland Bill (1988). What he did oppose was Margaret Thatcher's Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) - something which did nothing to broker peace at all and was generally opposed by Sinn Fein, Unionists and IRA alike.
Again people tell me how having never spoken out against it, Corbyn supported the IRA but I have come across many interviews where Corbyn has been asked to condemn the IRA and their violence, he has never directly done this. His response has resonance with 'Black Lives Matter' and people's response, "All lives matter!" This sentiment is true and yet the situations before us in the news obviously proclaim that some lives are regardless more cheaply than others.
This I think is where Corbyn falls down. An example of this can be found in a 2015 radio interview where he was asked whether he condemned the IRA and its violence. I would most likely have said, " "Of course I do," and moved on.
Corbyn's response to the question is:
"I condemn all bombing and I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well.” I can understand that this
Here we have a man who is sticking to his pacifistic principles as he condemns bombs and other violence. Corbyn's answer condemns bombing full stop, and then reiterates his view that the British Army (whose presence he felt exacerbated things and was unhelpful *see bottom of page) and loyalist and republican groups were all guilty of being engaged in wrong action. This seems to be his default response - nowhere do I find him issuing anything but blanket statements. Another example of this appears in another broadcast where he has been asked to condemn the actions of the IRA and responds with:
“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”
In 2017, in an news item in the Irish Times (22 May 2017) cites Corbyn's response to Northern Ireland Minister's (James Brokenshire) request for him to 'come clean' over his attitude to the IRA.
"Mr Corbyn’s aides told the PoliticsHome website that he believed the IRA were terrorists. “Yes. The IRA clearly committed acts of terrorism,” they said.
On the question of whether Mr Corbyn believed the IRA’s armed campaign was justified and legitimate, they said: “Jeremy has said that the he was opposed to the IRA’s armed campaign.”
Mr Brokenshire joined in the attack on Monday after Conservative-supporting newspapers criticised Mr Corbyn for an interview in which he declined to condemn IRA bombings without also condemning loyalist bomb attacks.
I find this rather concern-making as it's an awful example of politicking as one might hope never to encounter!
So this is where I'm going to draw stumps for a while. I have much more material to read but that will have to wait until another three o'clock in the morning reading session sometime soon. I hope this has proved to be interesting to someone other than me but at the time moment me is the target and anyone else is merely cherry on the cake.
I'm sure some won't like what I've written - I have to be honest and say that I've generally been quite ambivalent with regards to Jeremy Corbyn and this has left me with a little more understanding of his attempt to be consistent in his pacifist views. Think he's made things more difficult for himself in the stance he has taken but don't see him as other wanted me to. I don't agree with some of the positions he takes, but that's one of the joys of living in a democracy I guess - we won't always agree. But it is how we handle our disagreements that matter most!
But there's more to read, so who knows where the journey will take me and end
Pax
* “In the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution in Ireland. It clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at that time, and therefore you have to seek a peace process. You condemn the violence of those that laid bombs, that killed large numbers of innocent people, and I do,” Sky News May 2017
Just worth saying that I neither endorse or embrace Jeremy Corbyn's views examined here, I am merely examining what there is to be found across the media and testing it to see whether the claims I have been asked to support by others have any obvious validity. It's called 'seeking after truth' :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment