Social Items

TPQ
Anthony McIntyre ☠ Chilly as it is this Saturday morning even nippier is the thought that the Trivela Group who owns Drogheda United FC is trying to create a chill effect around freedom of opinion.

The decision by this band of profiteers to fire Joanna Byrne TD as joint chairperson of the club is odious. She was a Drog long before Trivela showed any interest. She will be a Drog long after Trivela have departed for more profitable climes. Passion keeps her with the club, profit keeps Trivela. 

For those who wish to swallow the politics of illusion that Trivela rather than Joanna Byrne has the best interests of the club and community at heart, the acerbic observation by John Maynard Keynes might serve as a wake-up call: Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.

Joanna Byrne is an elected Sinn Fein TD. She is also her party's spokesperson on sports. The public who elect her fully expect her to speak on the crucial issues of our time, one of which is the genocide in Gaza which matters greatly to the Irish public. So much in fact that we have Israeli ministers telling the people they torment in Gaza that they can always move to Ireland. The public might not all, or always, agree with Joanna Byrne but would have every reason to feel shortchanged if she failed to use her voice for the purpose of enhancing public understanding.

Some Drogheda United fans have taken the view that a line should be drawn under the matter and that it is time to move on for the good of the club. I don't share that sentiment anymore than I share a similar sentiment that GAA fans should just move on for the good of the Association, quietly acquiescent in the GAA leadership's partnership with Allianz despite the latter's sordid financial association with the genocidal regime in Israel. I would prefer to see a campaign initiated which, if successful, would lead to the reinstatement of Joanna Byrne as joint chairperson. At the very least it would give voice to a sentiment that publicly disapproves of what Trivela has done, a simple reassertion of the principle Not In Our Name. Despite wishing the club well, being a season ticket holder, I certainly do not want to be on the same side as Trivela. Investment is important for the club's future but like the boycott of Israeli goods, there is the option of shopping around.

The tepid contention that sport and politics don't mix and should be kept separate has raised its head in some quarters; that politics should be left at the turnstile of Sullivan and Lambe Park. How hollow is that? Every home game we attend at Sullivan and Lambe we hear a political-cum-ideological statement issued. It informs spectators that discrimination and bigotry will not be tolerated and lists the type of bigotry that is banned from the stadium including targeting people on the grounds of their race, sex or religion. Moreover, there has been a considerable amount of political energy expended in lobbying Trivela to invest in the development of Drogheda United. So it is a myth that there are no politics in and around Drogheda United. Politics and sport might run on separate tracks but the history of both shows beyond doubt that they often merge. There is a term for it: Sports diplomacy. Think of the history of the Olympic Games. As a powerful cultural tool, sport is one of the ways in which cultural power is brought to bear on a range of issues, for good or bad.

If those who genuinely believe that sports and politics should at all times be separate, the very least they could do is pull Trivela up for bringing its sporting business into politics. Joanna Byrne was not wearing her Drogheda United chairperson hat when she called on the FAI to fulfil a humanitarian obligation. She was speaking in her capacity as an elected TD and party spokesperson on sport. She had a greater right to speak than Trivela had to muzzle her. Had Joanna Byrne made a statement calling for the upcoming match between Ireland and Israel to go ahead, she would never have been thrown under the bus by Trivela. She was not fired for speaking but for what she said.

It would be a sad day for Drogheda United fans if when faced with a choice between Joanna Byrne and Trivela, they shouted Give Us Barabbas

⏩Follow on Bluesky.

Choose Wisely

A Lawyer Writes ★ Written by Joshua Rozenberg. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

The home secretary has won an appeal against a ruling by a tribunal judge that an asylum seeker should be allowed to remain in the UK because he had murdered only one person.

The killer, a 54-year-old Turkish national identified only as KD, arrived on a lorry in 2001 and claimed asylum on the basis of his Kurdish ethnic origin and his Alevi Muslim faith, adding that he was a supporter of groups that are banned in Turkey and elsewhere.

He was refused asylum and in 2004 his appeal was dismissed on the ground that his claims were fraudulent. He and his wife remained in the UK unlawfully. In December 2005, he stabbed her multiple times in a fit of jealous rage. She was 23.

KD was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years. He was released on licence in 2018 and served with a deportation order the following year. His appeal was heard in November 2022 by Judge C Scott, sitting in the First-tier Tribunal. The judge allowed KD’s appeal on asylum grounds.

Continue @ A Lawyer Writes.

One Murder Is Enough

Friendly Atheist ⛨ Attorney General Peter Neronha says missing records, rebuffed interviews, and destroyed files hide the true scale of abuse

After a nearly seven-year investigation, the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office has released a report detailing its findings of sexual abuse in the Catholic Diocese of Providence—in a state that boasts the highest proportion of Catholics anywhere in the country. Attorney General Peter Neronha said his office examined over “250,000 pages of documents held by the Diocese dating back to 1950.“

But even that won’t tell the whole story because the Catholic Church refused to help him any more than he was legally permitted to go.

According to the report, which can be read in full here, Rhode Island doesn’t have a law regarding a grand jury reporting statute. You may recall that this whole ball got rolling after a Pennsylvania grand jury report came out in 2018, but that’s because, in that state, the law allowed the state to force the Catholic Church to produce certain documents and testify about what had happened. In Rhode Island, however, there’s no such law, which meant Neronha could only work with the documents the Catholic diocese chose to give him. And that left huge gaps in their knowledge.

Continue @ Friendly Atheist.

Rhode Island Uncovers Decades Of Clergy Abuse 🪶 And A Church That Still Won’t Fully Cooperate

Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières 💣 Written by Bashir Abu-Manneh & Gilbert Achcar.

Why has the Middle East been so consistently wracked by war? In an interview with Jacobin contributing editor Bashir Abu-Manneh, political economist Gilbert Achcar argues that the answer lies above all in the region’s central place in the global oil economy and the strategies of great powers seeking to control it. Achcar discusses the logic of US intervention, the limits of the US-Israel alliance, Iran’s strategy in the current conflict, and the regional consequences of Washington’s evolving imperial doctrine.

Bashir Abu-Manneh - It is impossible to talk about the Middle East without talking about war. It’s probably the region most ruptured by war in the post-1945 era. In the last decade and a half alone, many Arab uprisings devolved into prolonged civil wars. Not to mention Israel’s forever war against the Palestinians. Why do you think war is so prevalent in the region?

Gilbert Achcar. There is no doubt that the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is, of all world regions, the one that has witnessed the highest number of armed conflicts since 1945 . . . 

Continue @ ESSF.

Middle East Wars Are Still About Oil And Empire

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Kyle Mantyla.


Last week, Christian nationalists Joshua Haymes and Brooks Potteiger urged their fellow right-wing Christians to pray "imprecatory psalms" against James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Texas.

Talarico is a Presbyterian seminarian who has openly cited his Christian faith in support of his progressive political positions, much to the outrage right-wing Christian nationalists.

Potteiger, who was the pastor at the church attended by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in Nashville, Tennessee, and will soon take over the Washington, DC church founded by Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, warned that Talarico is "a wolf" who is working to "distort what Christianity is in order to lead people away from Christ, toward the teaching of demons."

As such, Potteiger and Haymes encouraged the use of "imprecatory psalms" against Talarico, which are prayers asking God to pour out his destruction upon one's enemies.

"I pray that God kills him," Haymes declared. "Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ ... If it would not be within God's will to do so, stop him by any means necessary."

Shortly thereafter, Haymes, a far-right podcaster and commentator, returned to the subject of calling upon God to destroy one's enemies . . .

Continue @ RWW.

By Any Means Necessary 🪶 Christian Nationalists Call For The Destruction Of Their Political Enemies

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Twenty Five

 

Pastords @ 37

 

A Morning Thought @ 3100

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 14-March-2026..


On March 11th the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on the war against Iran. Of the SC members two abstained (Russia and China) and the rest, including Colombia, voted in favour. Russia put forward its own resolution rejected by a majority of the countries, with just four votes in favour.[1]

The resolution adopted is an initiative of Bahrein, a key US proxy, and calls upon Iran to not take action against the states in the region. It says:

1. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.

2. Condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan and determines that such acts constitute a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security.[2]

According to the Resolution Iran doesn’t have the right to sovereignty, nor territorial integrity and less still the right not to be attacked. It does not mention the US and Israeli aggression that began the war, in itself a clear violation of the UN Charter whose Article 2.24 reads:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.[3]

Of course it is not the first nor unfortunately will it be the last time that Israel and the US violate the Charter, but the brazenness of the UN members demanding that the country under attack not respond and blaming it for all that has occurred is perhaps new. Prior to the resolution various European countries criticised Iran harshly and demanded that it cease its attack. What they argue is that Kuwait, the UAE and the rest are not taking part in the conflict and thus are neutral and enjoy protection under the Charter which is not applied to Iran, of course. But it is not the case.

The US has bases in all of the states in the region except Iran, of course. For example, Bahrein is the location of the Headquarters of the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy. What do the toadies at the UN want? That Iran not attack the Fleet that attacks it, it would seem. The US military base is still in Bahrein for one reason only, the monarchic leadership violently put down the protests and uprising of 2011.

And what about the other states? Well, they just like Bahrein have US military bases and other necessary installations such as radar etc. In a war between countries, all military installations (with the exception of military hospitals) are a legitimate target, wherever they are. None of the Gulf monarchies can claim they are not part of the conflict. They supply the required aid without which the war would not continue, or at least would not continue in the same way. Their participation and role is not incidental or minor.

Before the war the US had around 40,000 troops in the region in all, and about 19 bases, eight of which were permanent. The “host” countries of these bases are Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Turkey and of course Israel. Furthermore, it has bases in Cyprus and Greece. As the joke goes, what was Iran thinking when it put its country in the middle of all those Yankee bases?

Faced with this panorama of a ring round Iran, Colombia decided to betray the country and demand that it not defend itself and get down on its knees to the Yanks and voted in favour of the resolution. We don’t know why. Maybe when Petro bent over to Trump in his visit to Washington part of the accord was that Colombia would vote favourably on US initiatives and lend political support to its imperialist adventures. Gone is the pomp of his speech to the UN criticising the genocide in Gaza stating there is only one human race and no chosen people of god. It would seem that Iran is not part of that human race and if there is no chosen people of god as such, it is clear that according to the Colombian government there is one that is definitely not.

They have little or nothing to say in the UN of the other violations of its Charter and also International Humanitarian Law such as the attacks on hospitals and schools. Of course I am not referring to the hospitals in the USA where the poor can’t get treated because they have no money, but rather the hospitals and schools in Iran bombed by the US and Israel.

In international law Iran has a right to attack all the bases and military installations of its enemies in war i.e. the USA and Israel. Moreover, it has the right to attack any installation or body that provides a significant service to the war effort, regardless of where it is. If the banks in Dubai meet that requirement or not, we can discuss, and if bank branches also meets the requirements can also be discussed, but that debate is for everyone. The USA has attacked banks and their branches in the Iran. Are the Arab banks an important part of the war? To argue that it is not the case is not easy, but perhaps. So, why does the USA attack banks in Iran which due to the sanctions do not have the same access to the international financial markets like the UAE. We are not comparing like with like. It is like comparing the Chase Manhattan to a local credit union.

Petro’s legacy will not be his speeches to the UN but rather his support for unjustified attacks against Iran and his submission to the USA.

References

[1] See Press Release Security Council Adopts Resolution 2817 (2026) Condemning Iran’s ‘Egregious Attacks’ against Neighbours as Middle East Violence Rapidly Escalates. 

[2] See Resolution 2817 (2026) 

[3] See.

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

Iran Betrayed By Colombia At The UN

Stanley Cohen 🎤 talks to RT.

The human rights attorney, joins the discussion from New York to analyze the rapidly escalating Middle East crisis and the role of the United States.

View



Stanley L. Cohen is lawyer and activist in New York City.

Trump Is Desperate 🪶 Trump Is Lost

Muiris Ó Súilleabháin ✍ The Oxford English Dictionary defines a smear as an attempt to damage someone’s reputation by saying unpleasant things that are untrue.

The civil case against Gerry Adams fizzled out last week, just as many suspected it would. In that narrow respect, I find myself on the unfamiliar ground of agreeing with Adams and Sinn Féin that the case should never have reached the courts. That, however, is where any agreement ends. My own view is simpler: no one should ever again find themselves in the dock over a conflict that ended almost thirty years ago.

I am no lawyer, and I have genuine sympathy for the three victims of the IRA who brought the case. But they appear to have been badly advised and insufficiently alert to the financial risks that civil litigation carries.

I know nothing of how the case began. I can only take the plaintiffs at their word: that they were innocent victims of the IRA seeking the same truth and justice that should be available to all who suffered during the conflict.

Having followed the proceedings closely, I was struck by how thin the evidence against Adams actually was. Stripped of presentation and theatre, it amounted largely to repetition: material long in circulation, drawn from public sources, and allegations that have persisted for decades without substantiation, many of them traceable to British military and RUC Special Branch briefings. John Ware aside, there was little that could honestly be described as new, and even less that could be described as probative. On the few occasions when Adams came under pressure in the witness box, I admit I felt a brief flicker of schadenfreude. It did not last. The reality remained that this was a British court.

It came as no surprise that former IRA figures who had served alongside Adams were not prepared to appear in a British court to testify against him. That remained true even of those who had since broken with the strategy he led or had criticised him publicly. For Irish republicans, participation in a British court attempting to adjudicate on the legitimacy or conduct of the armed struggle remains a line that is not crossed.

In that context, Shane Paul cut a sad and isolated figure, separated from a wider tradition which, whatever its internal quarrels, still maintains its red lines.

The fact that the trial was years in the making gave Adams and Sinn Féin ample time to choreograph their response. The arrival at court in a top-of-the-range Land Rover, wearing an Israeli-made bulletproof vest and accompanied by a security team using Israeli-made communications equipment, was a mistake. The choice of public-facing security personnel was deliberate. It included men who had played a central role in policing the peace and suppressing dissent in Belfast. The message was understood.

Adams had raised the stakes even before proceedings began, issuing a carefully worded statement pre-trial in which, he said, his primary concern was for the victims, while insinuating that they had been manipulated by darker forces intent on advancing the case. He cast it as a full-frontal assault by the British establishment on the legitimacy of the republican struggle.

Safe in the knowledge that this was not, in fact, what the case was, Adams doubled down on the same performance on the opening day outside the court. Saint Gerry of the peace process was once again being victimised by perfidious Albion. It was not Gerry on trial, we were invited to believe, but the republican struggle itself, of which he was merely the embodiment, guilty only of being an Irish republican.

The evidence presented against him told a different story. Had either the British or Irish governments wanted this case to succeed, they could have strategically leaked contemporaneous documents from multiple sources to help make that happen, not least material from figures such as Scappaticci or “Wee Roy”, Gerry’s former driver. The outcome of the case was always set to vindicate not just Adams, but the peace process and both governments that underwrote it.

And that is the heart of it. The case, the evidence, and the outcome changed no one’s mind. Not about the legitimacy of the armed struggle, and not about who or what Gerry Adams was, or remains. Like many others, I do not need a British court to tell me what I know, or what I do not know.

What the case did confirm was something else: the extent to which Adams is prepared to construct and defend a legacy as a man of peace. He is not a foolish man. Given months to prepare, his evidence was delivered without error. There were no slips, no deviations, no uncertainty.

He joined Sinn Féin. It was separate from the IRA. He was never in the IRA. Former comrades were recast as liars or disappointments. Presidents, prime ministers and Taoisigh were mistaken. He had delivered the peace process to the British “on a plate” and, in doing so, had brought the IRA to heel. Resentment followed. The allegation that he had been a member of the IRA was framed not as history, but as smear. He was, he insisted, a man of peace, not an IRA volunteer.

At times, I was unsure whether we were part of the same movement. Sinn Féin was always an army project, even at the point when I left. That was understood internally, whatever was said publicly.

Some of the commentary now circulating, often from those who should know better, suggests otherwise. It reflects not confusion, but revisionism. The past is being recast by people who were either not there or not yet lucid enough to understand what it was they were looking at.

Within the movement, to say that someone was a member of the IRA was never a smear. Many regret their involvement. Very few are ashamed of it. Fewer still would have described it as an unpleasant or false accusation.

That is why the spectacle of former IRA volunteers now supporting Adams, as he recasts IRA membership as a smear, is so difficult to reconcile. It is not ambiguity. It is contradiction, openly stated.

The contradictions were once again visible as Gerry delivered his valedictory speech on returning to Belfast. Standing beneath a mural of IRA Volunteer Bobby Sands, he again asserted that he had never been in the IRA. Behind him stood Sinn Féin MPs and MLAs, arranged and attentive, their presence signalling adulation and loyalty.

At the same time, multiple Sinn Féin TDs, MLAs and MPs issued near-identical statements across social media. Only Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill diverged. The message was uniform: Gerry had gone to the belly of the beast and struck another blow for Irish freedom.

Gerry repeated his concern for the victims who had brought the case. If it was delivered sincerely, it sat uneasily with the reality that one of those involved in planting the bombs stood alongside him.

And so it ended.

⏩Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.

The Smear

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Twenty Four

 

A Morning Thought @ 3099

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)