While the communities in the north of Ireland struggle to come to terms with these senseless acts of violence, and renew efforts to work on meaningful solutions, a new element has entered the mix.
Paramilitaries have long used journalists in order to take responsibility for a particular act or operation or to pass on messages, counting on the protection of being a journalistic source. This protection, obviously extended to other confidential sources beyond paramilitaries, whether it be policemen, soldiers, or others within society who wish to remain anonymous for whatever reason, allows journalists to expose, to examine, and to shed light on matters that would otherwise likely be hidden from the public eye. In many of the crime shows on American TV, the journalist is almost always made out to be a weasel protecting a scumbag drug dealer form police prosecution just to continue getting information or a 'big story.' Here in the north of Ireland, the ones often being 'protected' by journalistic confidentiality are members of the remaining paramilitary groups (and make no mistake, they're there - just because the BBC says someone was shot in a "paramilitary-style" attack does not mean it was a real paramilitary). This is precisely the case right now.
The journalist who received the confirmation from the Real IRA that it was responsible for the shooting deaths of two soldiers in County Antrim in March is being taken to court in an attempt to force her to give up her sources. She is of course fighting this - she says she will go to jail rather than reveal her source - and journalists from around the world are rallying behind her, as well they should.
Freedom of the press is an essential piece of a democracy. Without it we are liable to become a state in which the media is merely a mouthpiece for various political interests - indeed in the U.S., it is arguable that we are already halfway there. If this journalist gives up her source, what does that say about the integrity of the media in the UK? Or any democracy, for that matter? Are all our democratic, rights-based principles a big show that we use to bully other countries, a big golden stick we wave? Why is it that we campaign on behalf of those in third world countries whose rights are being abused if not disregarded completely, and yet we are the quickest to take away the rights of our own people for their own 'protection'? In the name of 'justice?' It is a slippery slope, and one we must be extremely wary of starting down.
On a side note, I am simultaneously discussing with my mother on Skype the change in the Irish-American community. We were one of the most vocal supporters of the Irish all along, and yet we walk about saying 'that's all over, over there now.' I know that from the outside, it DOES look like it's all over - but it's not. I want to encourage the Irish American community to educate themselves, to maybe pay a little more attention, to ask more questions, not to talk the 'party line' for granted. If we supported Ireland so vociferously, I would like to think that it was for a reason, and I would also like to believe that that reason still exists. People with family from Ireland owe them that much, I think. Perhaps investigating things, you won't agree with me - and that's fine. But it saddens me that so many people don't understand how difficult it still is here, how every word and every step has to be calculated. That's not a post-conflict society, it's a post-violence society. It's a step, but it's not the whole 9 yards. It's not about religion, it's about politics. The Irish American community needs to become aware again.
Maps
People
Photos
My Stuff
trip feed
trip kml
