WE look at the stories that were making the headlines in the Andersonstown News this week back in 1982
by Gerry Adams
IN the summer edition of IRIS, the IRA said it supported – and gave detailed reasons for supporting – Sinn Féin intervention in the Assembly Elections, and an IRA spokesperson said (in part) "It (the electoral strategy) was a conscious decision.... at the same time, armed struggle is the first facet of our resistance and always will be till the British are removed from Ireland." This position followed, presumably, some consensus-finding process among IRA Volunteers. That is, among the men and women doing the actual fighting. It could not have been publicised without their approval and consent.
The debate within Sinn Féin, for obvious reasons, was much more public and quite easily followed in Republican publications. It culminated in last year's Ard Fheis democratically mandating the leadership to authorise electoral involvement when it, in consultation with local opinion, deemed necessary.
This procedure was followed in relation to Assembly elections, and it was decided to contest the elections on a principled Republican ticket and an abstentionist basis if a total boycott could not be achieved. Republicans made strenuous attempts to achieve such a boycott and these efforts have been well publicised elsewhere. Suffice to say here, that the SDLP rejected such an approach, determined as they were to join the Prior game, with their only objection being to the substance of his proposals, which, following last year's hunger strike, they could not accept.... at least not yet.
We can be assured, however, given that Party's history of sell out, double dealing and collaboration, that as soon as it is expedient that the SDLP will be engaged in the process outlined by Prior. Their record, in this regard, speaks for itself.
What then is the Republican attitude to James Prior's proposals? It is quite simple and straightforward. Republicans have never been involved in the old Stormont at any time. They will never be involved in the new one. Our record of continuous resistance to British rule and loyalist domination is proof of that.
From the time of the Fenians, strongly principled physical-force Republicans contested and won elections. Bobby Sands, Kieran Doherty, Paddy Agnew and Owen Carron follow in that tradition.
James Prior and his cohorts have no right to outline proposals for the return of Stormont or any other regime. They and their British Government have no right to be in Ireland at all. Only when this position is forced upon the British will the Irish people be free to unite, without outside interference, in a 32-county democracy. Support for Republican candidates is another way of forcing this realisation upon the British government. In spite of this, however, there remains, it appears, a natural abhorrence among some Republicans and strong nationalists, for British elections. This is understandable given the fact that many of us organised and supported boycotts in the past, and many more of us had "no interest in politics." Despite the predominance of the boycott strategy in recent years. however, it should be noted that Republican intervention in elections is not a recent development. From the time of the Fenians, strongly principled physical-force Republicans contested and won elections. Bobby Sands, Kieran Doherty, Paddy Agnew and Owen Carron follow in that tradition. Does anyone suggest that Bobby and Kieran's involvement and subsequent election in Free State and British elections was in any way approval by them of the Free State or British regime? Of course not! Does anyone suggest that the splendid vote for Bobby showed approval by the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone of Margaret Thatcher's treatment of political prisoners? On the contrary, the enemy media correctly saw such votes as a psychological defeat for the British Government. Because of the nature of our struggle, freedom will only be won by inflicting such defeats again and again, using whatever means, whenever and however possible. The readership of Andersonstown News have the power to inflict such a defeat. They have three clear choices;
1. Boycott and allow the British to say that the Republican struggle and the desire for ‘Brits Out' has no support in West Belfast;
2. Elect SDLP candidates or by default ensure their election so that SDLP involvement in James Prior's plans will be given 'nationalist’ respectability;
3. Elect Republican candidates and tell Prior and his government to get out of the country.
With this in mind, it appears obvious that any misgivings or confusion must be put to one side. We must all put our shoulder to the wheel by uniting and mobilising between now and October 20th. In the final analysis, the situation is straight forward: Who would Maggie Thatcher prefer to see elected in West Belfast?
Editorial
The decision by Lord Chief Justice Lowry to deny accused people a preliminary hearing of their case, should come as no surprise to all seasoned observers of the courts in this unfortunate part of the country.
The law here, has continually been administered for, and on behalf of, the state. With the ordinary citizens' rights relegated to a secondary position. Since the onset of the present troubles, the individual’s rights to equality before the law has been eroded continually at the behest of the so-called “guardians of the state", who prostitute the law every day and yet demand that we ordinary citizens respect its integrity. This we expect from elected political hacks who know no better – and if truth were known – who well understand that the ordinary people don't expect anything else from them but deviousness and double dealing for their own personal
gain.
But what of our bewigged and often beknighted brethren of the gown and gavel, who administer these crooked laws for the political hacks? Are they not more guilty than the most lowly criminal in our society for demeaning and denigrating the rule of law in our country.
At some future date these over-paid and under-wrought individuals will have to be brought to justice before an open forum of the people, to answer for their contempt of the common rule of law.