At the end of his Westminster parliamentary career, the member for East Mayo, Michael Davitt, stood outside Parliament buildings and declared: “No worthy cause can succeed here unless backed by massive agitation.”
Until the 1918 general election when Sinn Féin won a landslide victory by winning 73 seats, Ireland sent over many capable, skilled and articulate political orators, including Charles Stewart Parnell, Davitt and Joe Devlin. Despite their best efforts they could never achieve anything of benefit. Massive protest and passive resistance organised by Davitt and the Fenians eventually won the right of the tenant farmers to buy their cottages.
In the 1960s the Civil Rights movement took to the streets when all parliamentary means to achieve civilised standards of human rights proved to be futile. Following the passing of John Hume much of the credit for this campaign has been wrongly attributed to the SDLP. Contrary to this historical revisionism John Hume was not the leader of the Civil Rights movement. And this is not to detract from his contribution to the peace initiative between him, Gerry Adams, Albert Reynolds and Fr Alex Reid. The movement was initiated and driven by republicans and was broadly based. At its inception in 1968 there were leading republicans, prominent nationalists, communists, students, socialists and even some unionists. When it took to the streets it diverged into two distinct groups, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the more left-wing Peoples Democracy.
It had no particular leader, but prominent spokespersons were Michael Farrell, Kevin Boyd, Bernadette Devlin, Eamon McCann and the late Madge Davison. The late Gerry Fitt and prominent nationalists Austin Currie and Cllr Brennan were on the first march from Coalisland to Dungannon. Some of them formed the SDLP political party and effectively gave up politics. In the absence of republican political opposition they enjoyed electoral success in both Westminster and European elections for many years. During all of that time they have never been known to achieve any redress of the grievances including murder, collusion, internment, torture and the whole spectrum of human rights abuse. The SDLP certainly didn’t create or lead the Civil Rights movement. On the contrary, the Civil Rights movement was a launching pad for this political party. They have been punished by the electorate for those wasted years.
Today, effective legislation exists to stop discrimination in employment. The Orange Order cannot decide who gets jobs or houses any more.
None of these rights were ever secured by the SDLP, but by the sacrifice and endeavour of those people who listened to Michael Davitt. It is unfortunate for them that they are punished at the polls for the failure of their much and wrongly acclaimed founder members – and rightly so.
JACK DUFFIN
Belfast BT11
Transfer test has to go
Patrick Murphy is right when he says that “our education system represents a form of madness” (August 15). It perfectly fits Einstein’s definition of madness where you continue to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
Once again the Education Minister Peter Weir has appointed yet another expert panel to examine the links between poor academic outcomes and social deprivation and the first question that springs to mind is why? In the last 10 years there have been numerous reports examining the links between educational underachievement and social deprivation which have recommended an end to academic selection. All of these reports have been ignored by the DUP. You get the impression that the minister is just going through the motions and that really he and his party are quite happy to maintain the status quo.
The DUP’s continued support for a system of selective education at 11 has led to what is known in education as the Matthew Effect, taken from Matthew’s Gospel: “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25: 29). Simply put children from more advantaged backgrounds can use the education system and their parents’ knowledge of how the system works to forge ahead while children from disadvantaged backgrounds get further and further behind.
I think that it’s only fair that this new panel of experts is told by the minister that they can make an unlimited number of recommendations as long as they don’t recommend abolition of the transfer test. The education system is falling apart, the economy is falling apart but nothing will change because the DUP wants the education system we have. The transfer test has to go.
JIM CURRAN
Downpatrick, Co Down
Watered down study of literature
I read with dismay CCEA’s plan to water down the GCSE English Literature syllabus yet further. Students studying literature no longer have to read a novel. What on earth is the study of literature, if it isn’t to acquaint the student with the great classics? When I was a student, many years ago, O-level English was two subjects – language (with an intensive study of grammar, and written and oral expression) and literature. I wonder how today’s student would react if faced with our O-level English Literature syllabus? We had a list of 12 great novels of which we had to be intimately acquainted with four. (I read all 12 before deciding which four I wanted to study.) We had two Shakespeare plays – one of the great tragedies, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet; an 18th-century play – Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer; a book of modern essays by GK Chesterton; a book of 18th-century essays by Joseph Addison and four poetry books at least two of which we had to be intimately acquainted with. (No, this was not an A-level syllabus; just O-level) And this on top of nine other subjects. And yet, we had no problem doing the reading that was required of us. By what stretch of the imagination can today’s GCSE English Literature syllabus be called a study of literature?
BRIAN O’HARE
Newry, Co Down
Irresponsible actions
Despite breaking government guidelines EU Commissioner Phil Hogan reckons, “All of us must display solidarity as we try to stamp out this common plague.” He then goes on to offer, ‘a fulsome and profound apology etc etc’. This seemingly reluctant apology, thankfully instigated by Taoiseach Martin and Tanaiste Varadkar, only serves to make the slogan ‘we are all in this together’ sound mawkish. What we are dealing with here is entitlement, people like Phil Hogan, Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill, Dara Calleary, Dominic Cummings and numerous here today gone tomorrow UK government ministers regard it as their right to do as they wish and airily issue cliched apologies such as ‘unreservedly’ and ‘fulsome’. Their irresponsible actions undermine the noble work of the medical profession. It may sound trite but people like Phil Hogan roaming about the country to attend social events goes to prove that there is a set of rules for them and something different, like a lack of respect, for the rest of us.
WILSON BURGESS
Derry City
