Bloody Sunday: 30 years and no justice

On Jan. 30, 1972, thousands participated in a peaceful march to call for civil rights in Derry, Northern Ireland.

Compiled by Sean Marquis

Jan. 30— On Jan. 30, 1972, a demonstration was called in Derry, Northern Ireland, to protest British deprivation of Irish civil liberties in the six counties of Ireland under British rule.

Thousands of unarmed demonstrators assembled to march peacefully through the streets of Derry to voice their opposition to these policies. They were met by armed British paratroopers, and when the chaos cleared, 13 Irish people lay dead.

The British soldiers were decorated with medals for their part in the event. To this day Britain has failed to offer any apology for the killings.

Today marks the thirtieth anniversary of what has come to be known as Bloody Sunday.

This is a very short version of the events of that day, but nothing in Northern Ireland can sit without a longer explanation.

Historical background

After centuries of brutally suppressing rebellions and uprisings in Ireland, the British government was finally forced to the negotiating table in 1921 by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Out-gunned and out-manned the IRA fought a mostly covert -- but sometimes open -- war against British troops in Ireland (using tactics that today would have George Bush attacking them for being “enemies of freedom”).

When the peace negotiations were settled, most of Ireland went back into the hands of the Irish people, to be ruled by them, forming the Republic of Ireland. But six counties in the North, that being the most concentrated area of people loyal to Britain, were to remain under British rule.

The problem was -- and is -- that not everyone in the North was British or loyal to Britain. This has resulted in a constant state of strife -- with occasional “quiet” periods -- for the last eighty years.

This is usually portrayed in US media as Protestant/Catholic violence without much of an explanation.

The simplest way to break it down is this:

* The Unionists/Loyalists are mostly Protestants who want Northern Ireland to remain British.

* The Nationalists/Republicans are mostly Catholics who want the North to rejoin the Republic of Ireland.

In a Feb. 11 1996 article in the Boston Globe, Kevin Collen summed it up well: “Protestant Unionists, whose ancestors were imported to Ireland four centuries ago by a British government determined to install a loyal population, believe they are just as entitled to the land as the settlers who pushed aside Native Americans.”

The events of Bloody Sunday did not happen in a vacuum; they are part of a cycle of repression and resistance.

Civil Rights Association

Just as Blacks in the US suffered under the Jim Crow laws, Catholic Nationalists in Northern Ireland suffered under laws and policies which kept them out of positions of power and without a political voice.

To combat myriad inequalities, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was formed in 1967. Among its demands were: “one man-one vote”; redrawing of gerrymandered electoral boundaries; repeal of the Special Powers Act; and laws against discrimination in local government.

“One man-one vote” was counterpoised to the situation where business people were allowed multiple votes and gerrymandering was commonplace. Derry had a population of 36,000 Catholics and 17,000 Protestants. Elections always returned a safe Protestant/Unionist majority. This was achieved by splitting the city into three wards and only allocating housing to Catholics in one of them.

The Special Powers Act gave the Stormont Minister for Home Affairs absolute power to arrest people on suspicion of endangering the State and to imprison them without trial. It also empowered him to send police raiding parties into homes without warrants, impound any property without giving a reason, suspend Habeas Corpus and even abolish inquests.

The Civil Rights movement in Ireland was consciously organized on the Black-lead, American civil rights movement model, relying on peaceful, mass demonstrations not on military prowess.

The NICRA was successful enough to win over some elements of the IRA -- which had resurfaced as a clandestine group to force the British out of the North. Some top IRA members went with the NICRA and laid down their arms; others though, continued using violent tactics.

Bloody Sunday

On Aug. 9, 1971, the British government introduced a new policy in Northern Ireland. That policy was one of internment without the benefit of a trial -- the Special Powers Act. Understandably, there was much resentment and anger on the part of the Irish people as citizens were imprisoned without due process.

On Jan. 30, 1972, the Derry Civil Rights Association organized a march as means of peaceful protest.

As they drew closer to their destination, the march had attracted between 10,000-25,000 supporters (depending on various accounts).

Unbeknownst to the peaceful marchers, the British government, fearing the worst, called upon its 1st Parachute Regiment to back up the Royal Green Jackets and other battalions. On William Street, The army had formed a barricade blocking the protesters way into the city.

It was at about 4pm when the civil rights marchers turned onto William Street, stopping short of the barricade in confusion.

At that moment, a shot of unknown origin rang out and struck a church, where British soldiers had been positioned on the roof. The Parachute Regiment said they believed the shot originated from the Glenfada Park area and fired rounds in that direction, wounding two civilians.

Panic ensued and rioting became widespread as the paratroopers were ordered to move in and make arrests. Ten Regimental armored vehicles moved in as support, and more British shots were fired.

It was later established that the Parachute Regiment soldiers fired 108 high velocity rounds within a thirty-minute period. Twenty-six civilians were hit. Fourteen died from their wounds. Seven of them were under the age of 19.

One of the 13 march participants who died on Bloody
Sunday. Photo courtesy of Ireland's OWN.

A tribunal lead by Lord Justice Widgery was convened to investigate the shootings. The tribunal concluded that the British soldiers were justified in their actions, as it was believed they were fired upon first.

Although none of the soldiers were prosecuted for the shootings, the Ministry of Defense stated that five of the people were killed because there was: “reasonable evidence they were using or carrying a weapon”; four were killed from random shots “bordering on reckless”; two deaths were due to “genuine mistake”; and two were killed “probably accidentally”. The fourteenth victim died as a result of complications caused by the shooting.

The aftermath

In 1998, as a result of twenty-six years of campaigning by the relatives of those killed for a new inquiry, British Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered the case reopened, a first in English history. That new inquiry -- the Saville Inquiry -- is now in its fourth year.

Relatives of those killed by British Paratroopers on Bloody Sunday in 1972 have accused the British Army and the Ministry of Defense (MoD) of trying to undermine the Saville Inquiry and thwart the search for truth and justice.

The accusations were made after it was revealed that the MoD destroyed 13 rifles which were fired by British soldiers on that day in 1972. The weapons were destroyed after the new Saville Inquiry was established in January 1998.

It has now been revealed that only five of the 29 rifles that underwent ballistic testing during the Widgery Tribunal are still available.

The lawyer who represents the family of Jim Wray, one of those killed on Bloody Sunday, said: “Lord Saville has made it clear that he wanted all material relevant to the shootings to be preserved and made available to him, and it is beyond belief that the Ministry of Defense should consider that the rifles fired by soldiers on [that] day do not fall into that category.

“Why hold onto these rifles for 26 years and then begin destroying them at a rapid rate as soon as the incident becomes the subject of a new inquiry?

“One of the most crucial pieces of evidence in any murder trial is the murder weapon,” the lawyer said.

It was hoped that forensic experts would be able to match bullets and bullet fragments recovered from those killed and injured to specific soldiers, as each rifle was numbered and assigned to a named soldier. The MoD has now cast doubt on this, saying that records have not been “permanently preserved."

The paratroopers ordered to arrest “trouble-makers” on Bloody Sunday drove past a group of rioters according to the testimony of retired school principal Niall McCafferty, who said the soldiers instead headed towards the “big crowd” taking part in the non-violent civil rights march.

McCafferty testified that the rioting had virtually stopped when the troops came in. But he added:

“There were a tiny number of rioters on the corner of Little James Street and William Street and the Army vehicles -- some with soldiers running behind them -- they simply passed these by and headed towards what they could see, the big crowd.”

McCafferty was a participant in the Civil Rights march and an eyewitness to the events of that day.

“We were astonished at what we described as the overreaction of the Army to a small riot. What we were saying turned out actually to be a remarkable piece of prophetic irony because we little thought just how much the Army was going to overreact to the events of the day with the shooting that was still to come,” testified McCafferty to the Saville Inquiry on Sept. 11, 2001.

Bloody Sunday in the arts

While the new inquiry languishes on, Bloody Sunday continuously spurs artistic expressions.

Earlier this month two documentaries on Bloody Sunday premiered in Ireland and murals in remembrance of the event can be seen in Derry.

The incident has also sparked many songs and poems including the following words by John Lennon and Yoko Ono:

“Well it was Sunday bloody Sunday when they shot the people there. The cries of thirteen martyrs filled the Free Derry air. Is there any one amongst you Dare to blame it on the kids? Not a soldier boy was bleeding when they nailed the coffin lids!

“Sunday bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday’s the day! You claim to be majority, well you know that it’s a lie…

“You anglo pigs and scotties Sent to colonize the North, you wave your bloody Union Jack And you know what it’s worth!

“How dare you hold to ransom a people proud and free. Keep Ireland for the Irish, put the English back to sea!”

Sources: Indymedia-UK, Ireland’s OWN, Irish Times, You Are Being Lied To (Book) by Disinfo

MEDIA WATCH

NYC newspapers smear activists ahead of WEF protests

Jan. 28— In a few days, the World Economic Forum will hold its annual meeting, an elite gathering of what the WEF calls the world’s “top decision-makers”— in other words, big business leaders and government officials. The event usually takes place in Davos, Switzerland, but will be in New York City this year (Jan. 31- Feb. 4), ostensibly as a gesture of solidarity after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Many globalization critics identify the WEF as a nerve center for neoliberal economics, and past WEF meetings have been the focus of significant protest. This year’s meeting promises to be no exception, and local media are serving up some of the same distortions that have greeted past globalization protests.

Mainstream New York City newspapers have tended to frame discussion of the demonstrations in terms of their status as a security problem. A search of the Lexis-Nexis database (12/1/01 - 1/28/02) found that most articles in the New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times and Newsday mentioning the WEF have focused on police preparations for the protests. As a result, the political debate over the WEF has been obscured, as have concerns about police brutality and civil liberties.

Though the New York Times and Newsday didn’t manage to overcome this skew toward security questions, it should be noted that both papers provided more substantive coverage that did the Post and the News. Commendably, Newsday steered clear of the vitriol that has characterized some of its competitors. One recent Newsday article, “Activists: We Come in Peace” (1/25/02), focused on the protest organizers’ endorsement of non-violence and concerns about potential police brutality; another (1/27/02) attempted a serious overview of recent political controversies over globalization.

Contrast this approach to one particularly vicious editorial from the New York Daily News (1/13/02), which referred to anti-WEF activists as “legions of agitators,” “crazies,” “parasites” and “kooks.” The paper threatened activists, saying “You have a right to free speech, but try to disrupt this town, and you’ll get your anti-globalization butts kicked. Capish?”

The Daily News compared critics of the WEF to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. “New York will not be terrorized,” declared the paper. “We already know what that’s like. Chant your slogans. Carry your banners. Wear your gas masks. Just don’t test our patience. Because we no longer have any.”

It’s hard to read such rhetoric as anything other than an attempt to manipulate New Yorkers’ legitimate anger and grief over Sept. 11 in order to whip up a backlash against dissent. Unfortunately, the Daily News wasn’t the only New York paper to attack activists in these terms. Much WEF coverage has been dominated not by serious reporting, but by unsubstantiated commentaries that portray activists as violent thugs.

New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman (1/19/02) described globalization activists as people “less known for their deep thinking than for their willingness to trash cities,” saying “some would say that New York needs this [protest] about as much as it needs another airplane attack.”

In an account of an extremely friendly interview “over a light beer at Lanagan’s” with former New York City deputy police chief John Timoney, the New York Post’s Steve Dunleavy (1/18/02) asserted that planned protests are “a potentially scary scene, promised by little nasty twits.” The column was titled “Econ Summit Brings Own Terror Threat.”

“There are some very serious bad guys out there,” Timoney told the Post, “And I am not talking about Osama bin Laden. We are talking about pretty sophisticated bad guys.” Though Timoney seemed to be making the outlandish suggestion that globalization activists are as dangerous as international terrorists, Dunleavy relayed the claim uncritically, following up with a tough-guy endorsement of Timoney’s prowess: “Timoney, like most cops, has been beaten and shot at by punks all his life.”

The ease with which commentators equate activists with terrorists has its roots in the mainstream media’s rewriting of the history of US globalization protests. Recent articles about the WEF have referred to previous, overwhelmingly peaceful globalization protests in Seattle, Washington, DC, Los Angeles and Philadelphia as “window-smashing, flame-tossing spectacles” (Daily News, 1/24/02), “violent mayhem” (New York Post, 1/20/02), “radical protesters rampag[ing] through the streets... clashing with police” (Daily News, 1/18/02), “wild protest melees” (New York Times, 1/25/02), and, simply, “violent” (Newsday, 1/18/02).

It’s true that violence has been a problem at globalization protests, but the majority of it has been initiated by police, not protesters. The November 1999 WTO protests in Seattle were characterized by unprovoked tear-gassing, beating and unlawful arrests of peaceful demonstrators (and even of bystanders), and a National Lawyers Guild investigation characterized the Seattle violence as a “police riot.” The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed alarm over police abuses at globalization protests, and in more than one case filed suit against law enforcement authorities over the issue. Yet time and again, media have distorted events to suggest that police force was a necessary response to “violent” activists. (See Extra!, 1-2/00 and 7-8/00.)

When coverage is dominated by news and commentary that presents lawful political assembly as a terrorist threat — a threat that the police “know what they have to do” to deal with (New York Post, 1/18/02) — it has a chilling effect on dissent, raises tensions between police and the public, and risks creating a climate where law enforcement agencies feel able to exercise force against demonstrators with impunity.

Source: Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR): www.fair.org