mna na ira

glenkeeran

A board member of TG4 has said the Irish language station must urgently re-examine the remaining programmes in a series on IRA women for "balance and historical context".
The demand follows the first episode of the taxpayer-funded series Mna an IRA which featured Dr Rose Dugdale, the unrepentant convicted terrorist.
Concubhar O Liathain, who is a member of the TG4 board, said that Mna an IRA is a "serious stain" on the television station's record of achievement.
He has asked TG4 director general Pol O Gallchoir and the chairman of the board Peter Quinn to review the remaining programmes which feature female Republicans Josephine Hayden, Pamela Kane, Martina Anderson, Roseleen Walsh and Rosie McCorley.
Josephine Hayden served five years in prison for possession of weapons; Pamela Kane was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment after a 1990 bank robbery in Enniscorthy; and Martina Anderson was convicted of conspiring to cause explosions in England.
Roseleen Walsh was interned in Armagh Prison from 1973 to 1974 and released without charge.
Rosie McCorley was jailed in 1991 for 66 years for the attempted murder of an army officer and possession of explosives. She was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
"If the first programme is any indication of what's to come, it will be nauseating and heartbreaking for the victims of the IRA and their relatives," Mr O Liathain writes in today's Sunday Independent on page 20.
"Right from the title sequence where Dr Dugdale was described as a 'saighdiuir/ soldier' and a member of Oglaigh na hEireann, Mna an IRA struck the wrong chord.
"How could Dr Dugdale be described as a 'soldier' despite never having enlisted in a real army, bound by international laws and conventions regarding human rights, as opposed to an illegal paramilitary force?
"How could a programme, funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and broadcast on TG4, be allowed to describe the Provisional IRA as Oglaigh na hEireann when the only force on this island to legitimately use that name is our Defence Forces?"
An interview with Dr Dugdale conducted on RTE radio last Wednesday by John Murray to promote the TG4 series was criticised because of the perception that Dr Dugdale was given a soft ride.
In the interview Dr Dugdale dismissed the notion of IRA "atrocities".
In a joint statement, the producers of Mna an IRA, Vanessa Gildea and Martina Durac, told the Sunday Independent: "We stand over the approach taken. As independent viewers, they (the public) are more than equipped. . . to make their minds up about how they feel about the actions and activities of the women.
"It [the series] is motivated by an attempt to understand part of the recent history of our country and why certain people became involved in violent activity -- by hearing their personal stories and finding out what motivated them into such drastic action.
"It is not a current affairs-style probe into their lives and activities and had it been so, a different approach would have been employed."
- JEROME REILLY


This is a report in yesterdays independent... I cant understand certain gentleman or ladies that want to shove our history underneath a carpet. Like it or lump it these women are heros to large percentage of people in this country, on another example the queen has been all over the airwaves during the holidays which is another conterversal broadcast to a certain degree of pepole also.


Whats your views?

Manach

Firstly, I myself would not class the women as heroes nor would I support their cause.
Saying that, there are numerous historical viewpoints that are present and their's is a legitimate one, insofar as they were participants in historical events and act as primary sources. For the TG4 board seek to impose its own view points on the morality of the women's actions and essential sweep it under the carpet would be a disservice to Ireland's historical heritage.

The Scientician

It's only a short programme but I noticed the imbalance. In the first episode Duggan was allowed spout dogma as if it were the only real perspective anyone needed to have on the Troubles. There wasn't any attempt at providing a neutral context, or any counterpoints to her and her comrades' own opinions. I don't want to be spoonfed a moral perspective, but at the same time there seemed to be an implicit approval of the woman's actions on the part of the film makers.

I still enjoyed hearing her story, but I think more context away from self-serving narrative would have made it a stronger show.

gigino

I wonder in the interests of balance and fairness, will TG4 find 6 people from the UDA / UVF and give them a soft easy ride for half an hour each ?

It will not do that of course. Far easier to spout republican propoganda.
TG4 should be disbanded or at least stripped of its taxpayer funding.

jamesm5744

I can't believe I'm hearing this from my fellow Irishmen and women, have you all been totally brainwashed by British propaganda??
This is exactly how it happened, whether you like it or not.
The British caused the situation in the north with their policy of dominance and subservience. It might not make nice viewing for you Sun readers but that's how it happened.

Similar stories can be found on every British colony or is that just propaganda too??

The Scientician

jamesm5744 wrote: »

I can't believe I'm hearing this from my fellow Irishmen and women, have you all been totally brainwashed by British propaganda??
This is exactly how it happened, whether you like it or not.
The British caused the situation in the north with their policy of dominance and subservience. It might not make nice viewing for you Sun readers but that's how it happened.

:rolleyes: Ah will you give over. Your ad hominem attack won't persuade me that the documentary wasn't biased. Did you even watch the documentary? You used the term propaganda, nobody else did. You're essentially poisoning the well of this debate. Beyond her own ideology, should Duggan's actions have been assessed in a different way? If not, why not?

jamesm5744

Well I'm sorry for poisoning the well of your little debate but I'm afraid that is not the issue here.
The issue is whether or not the documentary was based in actual fact not to 'assess Duggan's actions', did YOU even watch the programme?

How could you or anyone else on these threads be arrogant enough to think you have the right to assess this woman's actions??
Duggan left a well to do British family and an Oxford education to fight against the injustice she and brave people like her saw in Ireland at that time.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that her actions were not self serving.

These were serious human rights issues, on a par with what Dr.Martin Luther King was fighting for in the US.
Somehow pseudo intellectuals like your good self don't feel the need to 'debate' his righteousness but yet always do when it comes to our own history, why is that?

There is not two sides to this story, there are only the facts which TV3 delivered on a plate. The show is about the brave woman who took up arms against a brutal oppressor, there is no sugar coating it I'm afraid.

'Your ad hominem attack won't persuade me that the documentary wasn't biased',

I don't need to persuade you, unfortunately at the time there was only one side causing the pain in this conflict. That injustice was in the form of total and utter humiliation and suppression of Irish nationalists, this was British policy, without which the IRA would never existed.

British foreign policy throughout the centuries has always led to such reactions, the human soul cannot be suppressed or controlled.
I for one am very thankful and grateful to these brave people who fought and died for OUR freedom, you'd do well to remember that...




Not open for 'debate' I'm afraid

ARGINITE

The Scientician wrote: »

Beyond her own ideology, should Duggan's actions have been assessed in a different way? If not, why not?

Last time I checked the English invaded Ireland and not the other way around. It make perfect sense that to make a stand against the English actions.

When the treaty was signed if the English had given us back all of our country then the situation in Northern Ireland would have never happened. Simple!

ejmaztec

The Scientician wrote: »

It's only a short programme but I noticed the imbalance. In the first episode Duggan

The Scientician wrote: »

:rolleyes: Ah will you give over. Your ad hominem attack won't persuade me that the documentary wasn't biased. Did you even watch the documentary? You used the term propaganda, nobody else did. You're essentially poisoning the well of this debate. Beyond her own ideology, should Duggan's

jamesm5744 wrote: »

Well I'm sorry for poisoning the well of your little debate but I'm afraid that is not the issue here.
The issue is whether or not the documentary was based in actual fact not to 'assess Duggan's actions', did YOU even watch the programme?

How could you or anyone else on these threads be arrogant enough to think you have the right to assess this woman's actions??
Duggan

Should this be Dugdale or am I missing something?

jamesm5744

Dugdale it is, my mistake...

jonniebgood1

jamesm5744 wrote: »

I can't believe I'm hearing this from my fellow Irishmen and women, have you all been totally brainwashed by British propaganda??
This is exactly how it happened, whether you like it or not.
The British caused the situation in the north with their policy of dominance and subservience. It might not make nice viewing for you Sun readers but that's how it happened.

Similar stories can be found on every British colony or is that just propaganda too??

jamesm5744 wrote: »

Well I'm sorry for poisoning the well of your little debate but I'm afraid that is not the issue here.
The issue is whether or not the documentary was based in actual fact not to 'assess Duggan's actions', did YOU even watch the programme?

How could you or anyone else on these threads be arrogant enough to think you have the right to assess this woman's actions??
Duggan left a well to do British family and an Oxford education to fight against the injustice she and brave people like her saw in Ireland at that time.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that her actions were not self serving.

These were serious human rights issues, on a par with what Dr.Martin Luther King was fighting for in the US.
Somehow pseudo intellectuals like your good self don't feel the need to 'debate' his righteousness but yet always do when it comes to our own history, why is that?

This is a history forum and debating 'our own history' is valid here. It is not one view only and this womans actions most certainly can be assessed here. I dont see any reason why this would not be the case. If you wish to make a point positively about the role she played you should clearly describe some of her actions, if possible pointing us towards a source for information. This would be helpful than comparisons to Martin Luther King. So if this is your comparison you need to establish what she did for people to warrant the comparison.

Moderator.

jamesm5744

The comparisons I made were between the civil rights movements in both Northern Ireland and the US, not between the two individuals.
My point is that I'm sick of people who have no understanding of what the North was like for nationalists at that time jumping to rash conclusions.

These people were freedom fighters, not terrorists or thugs or whatever else you want to call them. That is not and opinion, that is a historical fact.
They reacted to an impossible situation when the Irish government, the British government and the international community simple turned their backs on them.

With regards to Dr.Dugdale I was merely pointing out that this woman gave up everything for a just cause at that time.
I don't think she deserves to have her credentials debated upon.
In the programme she gave an frank, honest account or her actions, no more.
This is something we have never seen from British intelligence on these matters, too many skeletons in their closets I dare say...

P. Breathnach

jamesm5744 wrote: »

...
With regards to Dr.Dugdale I was merely pointing out that this woman gave up everything for a just cause at that time.
I don't think she deserves to have her credentials debated upon....

Question settled, then.

Thank you for saving us from the burden of thinking.

ejmaztec

jamesm5744 wrote: »

The comparisons I made were between the civil rights movements in both Northern Ireland and the US, not between the two individuals.
My point is that I'm sick of people who have no understanding of what the North was like for nationalists at that time jumping to rash conclusions.

These people were freedom fighters, not terrorists or thugs or whatever else you want to call them. That is not and opinion, that is a historical fact.
They reacted to an impossible situation when the Irish government, the British government and the international community simple turned their backs on them.

With regards to Dr.Dugdale I was merely pointing out that this woman gave up everything for a just cause at that time.
I don't think she deserves to have her credentials debated upon.
In the programme she gave an frank, honest account or her actions, no more.
This is something we have never seen from British intelligence on these matters, too many skeletons in their closets I dare say...

Because not everyone accepts that they were freedom fighters, that can only ever be an opinion, not an historical fact.

migozarad

Enjoyed Mna na hEireann and I'm looking forward to the remaining programmes if it gets past the 'censors'!It makes a change from the mainstream channels "creaming themselves" over inbred royals.
Our lilly-livered government& partitionist-minded press have a lot to answer for in their laissez-faire attitude to the North.Anyway,that gerry-mandered state days are numbered.Tiocfaidh àr là.

glenkeeran

I understand the fact that the IRA wasn`t everybodies cup of tea. They were always labeled as complete killers but this was not true. Every bomb was reported to the police and ample time was given for people to clear the area without injury but unfortunaltly this did not happen and this was devastating to the families.
The IRA has no choice only to repel the British with armed conflict and no one is to blame but the British repercentives on the island of Ireland who did nothing only to persicute the irish catholics
It gauls me "and i am not a voilent man" how we hear all these anti irish rebelionist in ireland regarding the north without really understanding want went on. Just consider your wife/husband be pulled out of your bed nacked, under the heading routine inspection!...

Remember when after the catholics were hammerd to bits just for marching in 1969, go back and listen to the aftermath reports by the British reps... makes me sick.

jonniebgood1

Thus far this thread has not discussed the facts of Mna na IRA. It has also not discussed any facts regarding Rose Dugdale.

My preference is for this to start now as it could be a worthwhile discussion. If it does not happen then the thread will be shut down. Please refer to the guidelines thread as a starting point.

Moderator

jamesm5744

I don't think that's a burden that troubles you too much somehow or other...

jonniebgood1

jamesm5744 wrote: »

I don't think that's a burden that troubles you too much somehow or other...

well heres another burden then. Infraction for ignoring the request I made. The purpose of my request is to allow a discussion on Rose Dugdale. Posts such as the one infracted are a means to preventing a discussion on this woman.

jamesm5744

ejmaztec wrote: »

Because not everyone accepts that they were freedom fighters, that can only ever be an opinion, not an historical fact.

Well were they or were they not fighting an oppressive, aggressive regime which ultimate aim was to control and rule?
Did this nation in question not carry out similar atrocities against many many peoples of the world and continue to do so to this day?

I'd say the brave people who fought against this tyranny have earned the right to be called freedom fighters wouldn't you??

jamesm5744

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

well heres another burden then. Infraction for ignoring the request I made. The purpose of my request is to allow a discussion on Rose Dugdale. Posts such as the one infracted are a means to preventing a discussion on this woman.

Some moderator you are?!
You don't agree with me so then you deny discussion on the issue?

Sad carry on indeed, if you look back on the previous comments it was smart arsed people who antagonised me in the first place, go 'infract' them...

jonniebgood1

jamesm5744 wrote: »

Some moderator you are?!
You don't agree with me so then you deny discussion on the issue?

Sad carry on indeed, if you look back on the previous comments it was smart arsed people who antagonised me in the first place, go 'infract' them...

You were asked to adhere to forum charter & guidelines.
You refuse to do this.
You will have a short ban. Please use some gumption if you wish to return here in future.

Moderator

jonniebgood1

OK- Rose Dugdale was involved in an art heist in 1974. That would be a fact.
Is there a justification for this and what is it?

I understand that fighting for a cause you believe in is admirable and I don't think anyone would deny that. But for a proper discussion all the facts should be reviewed.

The Scientician

ejmaztec wrote: »

Should this be Dugdale or am I missing something?

Could have sworn I wrote Dugdale but yes you're absolutely correct.

The Scientician

jamesm5744 wrote: »

How could you or anyone else on these threads be arrogant enough to think you have the right to assess this woman's actions??

Eh, part of the actual study of history is assessing people's actions, in context. The documentary lacked a balanced context for her actions. How can you be arrogant enough to think you have the right to tell me I can't have an opinion on something?

Duggan left a well to do British family and an Oxford education to fight against the injustice she and brave people like her saw in Ireland at that time.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that her actions were not self serving.

I said her narrative in the documentary was self-serving.

Somehow pseudo intellectuals like your good self don't feel the need to 'debate' his righteousness but yet always do when it comes to our own history, why is that?

Give me an example of MLK bombing a police station or committing an armed heist and then we can talk.

There is not two sides to this story, there are only the facts which TV3 delivered on a plate. The show is about the brave woman who took up arms against a brutal oppressor, there is no sugar coating it I'm afraid.

TG4 aired the programme, not TV3. Sugar coating is what we got in spades. None of the victims of her actions are given airtime. They don't necessarily have to to be, it's not her trial, but that speaks again to the programme lacking historical context.

I don't need to persuade you, unfortunately at the time there was only one side causing the pain in this conflict. That injustice was in the form of total and utter humiliation and suppression of Irish nationalists, this was British policy, without which the IRA would never existed.

This is ahistorical ideology. By the time Dugdale threw in her lot with the IRA they had caused plenty of pain, much of it counterproductive to their own stated ends. Looking at the actions of the IRA and other physical force republicans in the period purely through the lens of victimhood isn't particularly useful in my opinion. You can't explain nor excuse all their actions as a reaction to British policy.

British foreign policy throughout the centuries has always led to such reactions, the human soul cannot be suppressed or controlled.
I for one am very thankful and grateful to these brave people who fought and died for OUR freedom, you'd do well to remember that...
Not open for 'debate' I'm afraid

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the programme or indeed Dugdale's actions. All history is open to debate, if you don't think so then I don't know why you're posting in this forum.

The Scientician

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

OK- Rose Dugdale was involved in an art heist in 1974. That would be a fact.
Is there a justification for this and what is it?

I don't think there is. The plan was to use the paintings as leverage for getting two of their comrades at arms in imprisoned in Britain transferred to an Irish prison. This wasn't an action that in anyway served the greater cause of Irish freedom, it only served the interests of the gang and their comrades.

Border-Rat

I find TG4 to be a good counter-balance to RTE-Harriss-ism. They did a nice documentary on Warrenpoint a few years back, and let a South Armagh Volunteer narrate and present it, which he was quite good at incidentally.

Fuinseog

glenkeeran wrote: »

A board member of TG4 has said the Irish language station must urgently re-examine the remaining programmes in a series on IRA women for "balance and historical context".
The demand follows the first episode of the taxpayer-funded series Mna an IRA which featured Dr Rose Dugdale, the unrepentant convicted terrorist.
Concubhar O Liathain, who is a member of the TG4 board, said that Mna an IRA is a "serious stain" on the television station's record of achievement.
He has asked TG4 director general Pol O Gallchoir and the chairman of the board Peter Quinn to review the remaining programmes which feature female Republicans Josephine Hayden, Pamela Kane, Martina Anderson, Roseleen Walsh and Rosie McCorley.
Josephine Hayden served five years in prison for possession of weapons; Pamela Kane was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment after a 1990 bank robbery in Enniscorthy; and Martina Anderson was convicted of conspiring to cause explosions in England.
Roseleen Walsh was interned in Armagh Prison from 1973 to 1974 and released without charge.
Rosie McCorley was jailed in 1991 for 66 years for the attempted murder of an army officer and possession of explosives. She was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
"If the first programme is any indication of what's to come, it will be nauseating and heartbreaking for the victims of the IRA and their relatives," Mr O Liathain writes in today's Sunday Independent on page 20.
"Right from the title sequence where Dr Dugdale was described as a 'saighdiuir/ soldier' and a member of Oglaigh na hEireann, Mna an IRA struck the wrong chord.
"How could Dr Dugdale be described as a 'soldier' despite never having enlisted in a real army, bound by international laws and conventions regarding human rights, as opposed to an illegal paramilitary force?
"How could a programme, funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and broadcast on TG4, be allowed to describe the Provisional IRA as Oglaigh na hEireann when the only force on this island to legitimately use that name is our Defence Forces?"
An interview with Dr Dugdale conducted on RTE radio last Wednesday by John Murray to promote the TG4 series was criticised because of the perception that Dr Dugdale was given a soft ride.
In the interview Dr Dugdale dismissed the notion of IRA "atrocities".
In a joint statement, the producers of Mna an IRA, Vanessa Gildea and Martina Durac, told the Sunday Independent: "We stand over the approach taken. As independent viewers, they (the public) are more than equipped. . . to make their minds up about how they feel about the actions and activities of the women.
"It [the series] is motivated by an attempt to understand part of the recent history of our country and why certain people became involved in violent activity -- by hearing their personal stories and finding out what motivated them into such drastic action.
"It is not a current affairs-style probe into their lives and activities and had it been so, a different approach would have been employed."
- JEROME REILLY


This is a report in yesterdays independent... I cant understand certain gentleman or ladies that want to shove our history underneath a carpet. Like it or lump it these women are heros to large percentage of people in this country, on another example the queen has been all over the airwaves during the holidays which is another conterversal broadcast to a certain degree of pepole also.


Whats your views?

you have this from the sindo which does not exactly have a soft spot for the IRA and tends to rant on about them.
I grew up with the broadcasting ban, which was undemocratic.
its no harm to have a it of balance.

TG4 has a variety of interesting programmes. Last night they had a documentary about an American soldier in Afghanistan, which was a flag waver to a certain extent.

they seem to have documentaries where people give their views unchallenged and lets the viewers make up their own minds. with other documentaries you are constantly told what to think.

glenkeeran

Maybe with programmes like this that are very important to the building bridges of our country, there should be a programme afterwards with a host of maybe 6-10 people for every section of the community to have a proper debate... People in this country really have a short memory.
But i will say one thing on a political note is that the Media in this country is ran by British interests.

ejmaztec

glenkeeran wrote: »

Maybe with programmes like this that are very important to the building bridges of our country, there should be a programme afterwards with a host of maybe 6-10 people for every section of the community to have a proper debate... People in this country really have a short memory.
But i will say one thing on a political note is that the Media in this country is ran by British interests.

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that the Irish establishment shared the same opinion as the establishment in London, concerning all of those involved in the troubles since the late 1960s.

I think that unionists and nationalists involved in violence were seen as enemies of both states, and that the mainstream press backed this opinion when reporting on the issues and the incidents that took place.

Border-Rat

ejmaztec wrote: »

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that the Irish establishment shared the same opinion as the establishment in London, concerning all of those involved in the troubles since the late 1960s.

I think that unionists and nationalists involved in violence were seen as enemies of both states, and that the mainstream press backed this opinion when reporting on the issues and the incidents that took place.

The British treated the Unionists as enemies?