Prisoners demand progress

A chairde,

I would like to take this opportunity to make your readers aware of the lack of progressive movement in the current talks process on the part of the British government.

I feel it is important to highlight that, according to virtually all participants in the current talks process, we have already reached an important stage in the peace process where progress is essential if our hope is to be realised. Positive moves in relation to the issue of political prisoners is only one area where the necessary momentum can be applied which may help to sustain the hope we all share for a just and lasting peace.

To date, however, the British government have not shown any imagination whatsoever towards this end. We still have Irish political prisoners being victimised and brutalised in English prisons. We still have republican prisoners being refused repatriation to Ireland, never mind the failure to release one single political prisoner.

As republican prisoners we are not demanding anything out of the ordinary. In all post-conflict resolution situations throughout the world the release of prisoners has always been an integral part of the process to build confidence and to consolidate any progress made. Unfortunately, recent British governments have not been very active in consolidating the present potential to resolve this conflict, which was one of the many factors that led to the collapse of the IRA's August `94 cease-fire.

However, in an attempt to force the British government to live up to their responsibilities in this peace process Saoirse plan to hold mobilisation rallies and demonstrations at home and abroad; demanding the release of all political prisoners and pending that outcome the repatriation of all political prisoners. Therefore, we would urge all those who are interested in consolidating this peace process to participate in any up and coming Saoirse events.

December is prisoners' month and we fully appreciate the generosity shown throughout the many years of our incarceration. We would ask that you take that extra step, necessary at this stage, to have your voice heard in support of the peace process by attending these Saoirse functions.

Seán Mathers,
H5 D Wing, Long Kesh

Death squad answers wanted

A Chairde,

In your issue of 20 November you carried a photo report of a meeting in Dublin on the peace process organised by Dublin Trades Council. I was present at the meeting when John McAnulty of Socialist Democracy spoke from the floor. The substance of what he had to say was that if people were to negotiate then they should be clear about what the participants represented - for example, Billy Hutchinson, who was on the platform, was the voice of the death squads.

Mr Hutchinson replied to the effect that he was not a representative of the death squads but an elected councillor. He questioned John McAnulty's manhood, apparently on the grounds that, unlike Mr Hutchinson, he hadn't killed anyone. On three occasions he stressed that he was not afraid of John McAnulty. As he has no conceivable reason to be afraid I took this to be a threat directed at John.

So far this is all par for the course. What took me aback was the reaction of a section of the audience which included well-known members of Dublin Trades Council and the Communist party, who responded to Hutchinson's remarks with tumultuous applause.

On reflection I have become more angry and upset. Just what were these people applauding? Just what twists and turns of policy led them to applaud a loyalist killer who was threatening a long-standing member of the socialist and trade union movement?

Perhaps some of them would like to use your letters page to explain.

Gerry Byrne,
Dublin.

Articles 2 and 3

A chairde,

Last week's An Phoblacht editorial was correct to criticise those in the Irish media who are clearly pushing an agenda which has as its aim the removal of Articles Two and Three of the Irish Constitution.

Despite this, however, there were other aspects of the editorial which were worrying. Chiefly there was the inference that whilst discussions concerning Articles Two and Three in isolation are unacceptable, those which involve also the British Acts of 1920 and 1973 might be OK.

I found this inference most worrying. It is wrong to link together Articles Two and Three with the British Acts of 1920 and 1973. Articles Two and Three represent the oneness and unity of the Irish nation, in terms of both its people and its territory. They cannot be bargained with, bartered, or diluted in any way, shape or form, under any circumstances.

The British Acts of 1920 and 1973 are very different. They represent an illegal claim to, and occupation of, part of the Irish nation. Of course they must be removed, but this must be a process which does not involve any alteration of Articles Two and Three.

Articles Two and Three have no place on any negotiating table, in any talks process, in any context. Any changes to them will be a betrayal of the Irish nation, and all of its inhabitants.

Cathal Buí,
Belfast.

The US view

In a recent article entitled ``SF Blaze Trail Across US'' Gerry Kelly was quoted as being generally suprised by Americans' vast knowledge of events in the six counties. I feel compelled to express quite the opposite observation.

I believe knowledge among non Irish-Americans concerning the situation in Ireland is remarkably limited. Furthermore, what the average American does know has been so warped by Hollywood and British/American propaganda as to be utterly worthless.

In our movies, the IRA are depicted as bloodthirsty terrorists, bombing sites randomly. Sinn Fein is regarded as nothing but a political front for the IRA. Americans have never heard of the RUC or their daily injustices, and if you ask an American why the British remain in Ireland they would likely answer (if they could give an answer at all), ``Oh, the British are there to keep the peace between the Protestants and the Catholics. They're trying to kill each other, you know.''

It is sad, but true.

Matt
Los Angeles

Protect Britain from Unionists

A chairde,

Might not Ulster Unionists' opposition to the release of Roisin McAliskey reveal their essential un-Britishness? For the Crown has already questioned the young mother and, after six or seven excruciating days, found, like Pilate, no fault in her. Britain is holding McAliskey for extradtion to Germany, whose case against her has collapsed both on German Television (``Kontrast'', ARD, 27 March 1997) and in The Guardian (p6, 30 September 1997). Thus whoever opposes freeing McAliskey says the Euro-Germans are better at determining justice than is the Crown, Keeper of the Common Law.

Perhaps the Tory party could, with its new-Portillo-ism, stage a comeback by working to free McAliskey, thus showing that its committment to Brittania's highest goods exceeds the silly bigotries of their past. But it need not be English Conservatives alone who believe that Great Britain can adjudicate her citizenry or subjects better than a Germany that, despite its demand for McAliskey, will not extradite Germans to Britain when the Crown, whose criminal-investigative techniques Germany now mocks, require them.

Thomas Hutchison McFadden,
London

Remove transmitters

A chairde,

I am writing on behalf on the Regeneration Of Ballyholland Area (ROBA) and Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitters (NIFATT), to protest against the telephone transmitters that are erected near people's houses.

In the ROBA area (just outside Newry), a transmitter was erected two and a half years ago, 48 feet from a house in which three very young children live.

During a NIFATT meeting in the Inn on The Park, Dungannon, on Sunday 30 November, one lady stated that a transmitter was erected 16 metres from her house and as a result she had her first miscarriage.

Our committee call on people not to sign, to lease land or property to Cellnet, Vodaphone or Orange Company for the erection of a transmitter. Schools and any high buildings appear to have been targetted as ideal sites.

The land owners who lease property to any of the above companies are directly to blame for the erection of same, and furthermore are responsible for any claims taken against the telecommunication companies.

All the experts, plus a sign on front of the transmitter, state that the transmitter sends out Non-Ionising Radiation. The experts now say that 600 metres is just out of range of danger, but in some cases this can extend to ten miles.

In Ballyholland two and a half years on we are seeing what we were afraid of: an increase in cancer, brain disorders and haemhorrages, asthma and tumours etc. We also had the same reports coming froward at a meeting of NIFATT in Dungannon, where delegates from all over Northern Ireland attended to represent their area.

We from both ROBA and NIFATT implore Sinn Féin to make it their policy to have these Mobile Phone Transmitters removed.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Padraigin bn Mhic Mathuna,
Secretary,
NIFATT.

Support HB

A chairde,

Now that the Spanish government has declared war on Basque independentist politics by jailing the leadership of Herri Batasuna, I think there is a moral responsibility on Irish people to respond.

HB have been involved in a struggle for self-determination for the Basque Country and they have been to the forefront in presenting a peace process. Now the Spanish state has reverted to Francoist tactics the people of the European Union must speak out against this anti-democratic move.

I feel sure that the Basque nationalist people will respond with determination and commitment and that a new leadership will be put in place. They deserve our full support.

Terry McKeown
Belfast