The Wool Over Our Eyes

I've heard Tomas say to me many times how safe the area is that we live in. One night we went for a run together, and he left the apartment door unlocked. Most nights it's dark when the taxi drops me off on the Andytown road, and as I walk up through the alley, I remind myself that this is a safe neighborhood, and though I might've felt threatened walking through a similar area in America, I needn't feel that way here. Even last night, as I passed a group of young men in hooded sweatshirts, I didn't feel as urgent of a need to take countermeasures, like crossing the street or pulling out my apartment keys and placing them between my fingers like makeshift weapons.

But lately, there have been a lot of reports on the BBC about attacks and robberies, particularly in North and West Belfast, that I find troubling (though I will come to how much or how little I now trust the BBC later). In the BBC, these are said to be mainly robberies and assaults in the course of robberies. Some of the most recent ones are targeting the elderly, which is especially awful. These reports bring two somewhat related issues to my mind: first, the troubling representation of the motivations of these attacks in the media, and second, why these are attacks are taking place in what's always been safe territory .

On the BBC's Northern Ireland page today, the main article is about a man shot dead by masked men in a neighborhood in Derry. The headline reads: "Dissidents Blamed for City Murder - Politicians have blamed dissident republicans for the murder of a man in Londonderry Wednesday." The article then goes on to say that it's suspected that drugs were involved (as they so often are, according to the BBC, whenever 'dissident' republicans are involved...). Further down in the article, we find out exactly WHO has decided that it was these so-called 'dissident' republicans: DUP Assembly member William Hay. According to him, "That is worrying because you still have organisations out there who think the only way they can solve the problem of Northern Ireland is by killing someone and taking the law into their own hands.They don't have any respect for law and order themselves."

And, lest you think that I am completely biased and do not give weight to the other side of the argument, here is what the Sinn Fein representative for Derry, Raymond McCartney, had to say about the incident. Notice how little it differs: "The people in this city have overwhelmingly shown their support for the republican project as it's going forwards, and if these people are trying to step in to fill any vacuum which they feel exists then they have had their answer. So if this is coming from a group that calls themselves republicans then there is no support for their actions."

Really?

I, personally, know many people who would severely disagree with that assessment. Who would even vehemently disagree with the label of 'dissident.' In their eyes, they are the ones who are continuing to carry on the republican ideal, they are the ones who didn't sign up to an agreement that cedes control of the island, and compromises the constitution of the Republic, and recognizes, for the first time in republican history, the British government in Ireland by participating in the parliament of what they see as an illegal partition - to them, those who signed that agreement are the 'dissidents.' It has become a curious juxtaposition to observe. If one group in power says that the other is carrying out illegal activities motiviated by money and drugs, this disenfranchises them from what they view as their own ideals: republicanism. It prevents the general public from making their own judgment. It makes 'republicanism' the sole purview of one specific group, which cannot be infringed upon, and anyone not in that group who purports to be a republican simply cannot be, and moreover, they are probably a criminal. In this, the motivations of Sinn Fein and the DUP are remarkably similar, and though they are 'enemies,' they are getting a lot out of a not-so-inconspicuous symbiotic relationship.

Second. And probably what I would get most in trouble for saying. Think back, those of you who are familiar, to the nature of nationalist communities during the Troubles. The RUC was largely unable to enter many nationalist strongholds. Where did the law and order come from? How did these communities stay safe? There's one very simple and controversial answer: the IRA. They were nearly as heavily involved in policing their own communities as fighting their enemy. There was a much lower level of petty crime during that period (and no, you're right, I haven't any verifiable figures at the moment to back that up; I know I've read it, but take this as my journalist acknowledgement that I'm not giving you a concrete fact at the moment, and get off my back). Why the rise in neighborhood crime nowadays? People aren't getting blown up or butchered by rival paramilitaries with the same frequency (or at all, really), but elderly people are being held at gunpoint and robbed in their own homes, young women have been raped on the Queen's campus, and homes are getting burgled with shocking regularity and disregard. Why?

The police service in Northern Ireland is still hotly contested and incredibly controversial (I really need a thesaurus, 10 points to whoever can suggest a new word for controversial for me, thanks). They still encounter gangs in many areas they try to act in. They aren't a strong presence in most (nationalist) communities. What used to be there, that took the place of an effective police service, is the IRA. The IRA acted against 'anti-social behaviour,' as it's known here. Whether you agree with their methods or not, and most don't (kneecapings, punishment beatings, etc.) it's hard to argue against the fact that petty crime has gone up since the decommissioning of the IRA. I don't think a young man should lose the use of his legs because he is severely misguided and engages in activities that are illegal, but I would also like to retain the safety I feel in Andytown. I can only assume that there are others out there who feel the same way.

This is important. So much of what the world now knows about Northern Ireland has a rosy sort of a glaze over it, huddled in the 'success' of the peace process and the supposed transition to a post-conflict society, swathed in triumphalism and phrases like reconciliation, hope, peace, moving forward, moving past...

I'm not saying there hasn't been progress. Obviously, there has been a tremendous effort and society has transformed in many significant ways. I wouldn't be able to live here safely if that wasn't true. All I'm saying is that, as one person said so succinctly to me when I was here in July, "Northern Ireland is a post-violence society, not a post-conflict society." There is still fear, there is still struggle, and there are still so many who feel disenfranchised and left behind. How can Northern Ireland truly become a "post-conflict" society until these issues are addressed?

written by  ebienelson on February 11, 2009 from Belfast, United Kingdom
from the travel blog: "She is the Belle of Belfast City..."
Send a Compliment

comment on this...