Should the 1981 Hungerstrike be Comemorated by the State?

[Block G Raptor]

Just listening to a debate on newstalk as to weather or not the 25th anniversary of the 1981 H-Block hungerstrike should be comemorated in an official capacity by the state. can the mods put up a poll on this as I'd be interested to see how people feel about this 25 years on. I will keep my opinion to myself for now but would like to debate the pro's and cons with
any interested posters if this thread devolopes

[Lim till i die]

I wasn't born at the time but it's my understanding that there was a national day of mourning for Bobby Sand's funeral??

I think it opens quite a can of worms.

In my opinion they should as these were brave, heroic men

But on the other hand can the state really commemerate men who would have refused to recognise it

[The Ref]

I don't think so

The Hunger Strikes were, and still are, an emotive issue. Since then Article 2 & 3 of the Constitution have been deleted in order to appease Unionist fears as part of the Belfast agreement. Honouring the hunger strikes 25 years on will only whip a frenzy up in the Unionist camp that will set back Northern politics 2 years.

I believe that without the hunger strikes we would not have a Belfast agreement and that the sacrifice of these men while being an important part of Irish history the DUP would use an occasion like this to say how “republicans haven’t changed” etc. To the Unionists a Commemoration would be like a red rag to a bull, a bit like an orange order parade going down the Garvahy Road. I believe some day the conditions will be right that a commemoration can happen but not just yet, politics in Northern Ireland have not matured enough.

Just my 2 cent worth

[pete]

Just listening to a debate on newstalk as to weather or not the 25th anniversary of the 1981 H-Block hungerstrike should be comemorated in an official capacity by the state. can the mods put up a poll on this as I'd be interested to see how people feel about this 25 years on.

Can you detail what is being proposed. Which hungerstrikers & how would they be recognised by the state?

[Block G Raptor]

I'm not sure...AFAIK its all 10..I just caught the end of a debate between Dessie Ellis and a Fine Gael TD on news talk where Ellis was calling on the government to hold a commemoration for the hungerstrikers and the Fine gaeler giving the usual Ill informed reasons against ie. They were Murderers/Convicted Criminals etc. when in fact not one of the Hungerstrikers was convicted of Murder and their convictions for the crimes they did commit were handed down by non-jury Diplock Courts. I have always found Thatchers Line of Crime is Crime Is Crime ridiculously Ironic in light that from Arrest to Sentence IRA "terrorists" were dealt with under a completely different legal system than ODC's. ie Interment without trial. unlimited time held without charge.Non-jury Courts and finaly the five demands within the prison. If she wanted to Criminalise the IRA then they should have been tried under the Normal criminal process.No?

[Macy]

No, as what little hope there is of political progress in the north will be blown out of the water. Seriously undermines the arguements about a United Ireland too, particularly following on from the riots earlier in the year, as well.

[ccfcman]

I don't believe they should, they would clearly be made marters and thus the goverment would be showing some form of support towards the IRA and indeed violence in a Northen way.

[BohsPartisan]

Would the men themselves want to be commemorated by this government anyway?
Same for 1916. I don't think James Connolly would have been too impressed with the likes of Bertie eulogising the rising.

[Lim till i die]

Would the men themselves want to be commemorated by this government anyway?
Same for 1916. I don't think James Connolly would have been too impressed with the likes of Bertie eulogising the rising.

Kind of touched on that above

I mean it's my understanding that those hunger strikers would have even refused to recognise this state

It's a tricky issue. I don't really think Unionist views should have to come into our states decisions though. I mean why should we almost deny large parts of our history, is that really progress??

[Macy]

It's a tricky issue. I don't really think Unionist views should have to come into our states decisions though. I mean why should we almost deny large parts of our history, is that really progress??

Not commerating it officially, isn't the same as denying. It hasn't been denied up to now, so why would continuing to have no state commeration change that?
As for Unionist views on our state decisions, well, if people genuinely want a peaceful united Ireland then those views have to be respected.

[First]

Yes they should be commerated, the same as any POW.. Lets remember that these men died defending their principles and beliefs.

All this bull**** about upsetting the Unionists and the creaky political status that remains in Northern Ireland should not stand in the way of remembering and for some embracing our history. The good and the bad side .

Remember that these men were treated to the Ala carte form of justice that this country has endured for centuries.

I don't know if these men would recognise the governmentof today I feel they probably wouldn't, but that is no excuse to brush them under the carpet becase someone might get upset.

[cheifo]

No they def should not.The IRA had no mandate or wide ranging support within the 26 counties and indeed their savage torture and violence against innocent civilians meant their own constituents,Northern nationalists favoured the SDLP during the troubles.There is also controversary whether the men were sacrificed by the Republican leadership to engineer public support.
There should be a truth commission set up for victims of IRA, Loyalist and British forces and subsequently a dignified commemoration which should be non tribal and open to both communities.

[Strabane_Harp]

Kieran Doherty was an elected TD when he died.

so to say he had no mandate is a joke

[BobbySands]

To say that the hunger strikers were in some way used by the republican movement to engender support is totally false. The IRA/Sinn Fein were completely against the hunger strikes on the grounds that it would take from the armed struggle. It was the prisoners themselves who insisted that this was the path they would take. The anti H Block committees were not exclusively drawn from the extremes of republicanism. They included moderate nationalists and humanitarians who would never have dreamed of casting a vote for Sinn Fein. The demands of free association, the right to wear their own clothes, not to do prison work etc were hardly outlandish. These were rights they had enjoyed up to the late seventies when Britain instigated their "criminalisation" policy.

I feel a bit funny adding a view on this as my handle often draws a knee jerk reaction from some of the PD types whenever I chime in on a political discussion.

Incidentally, my constituency elected Kieran Doherty to the Dail and Bobby Sands was was an MP in Fermanagh/South Tyrone, so to suggest the strikers had no mandate is to deny the facts.

[bennocelt]

No they def should not.The IRA had no mandate or wide ranging support within the 26 counties and indeed their savage torture and violence against innocent civilians meant their own constituents,Northern nationalists favoured the SDLP during the troubles.There is also controversary whether the men were sacrificed by the Republican leadership to engineer public support.
There should be a truth commission set up for victims of IRA, Loyalist and British forces and subsequently a dignified commemoration which should be non tribal and open to both communities.

a bit like the guys in 1916 then