From: MCEL...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Slander as Censorship: Case of Irish Activism in USA
SLANDER AS CENSORSHIP
Lacking the sort of 'legal' measures available to them in England and Dublin,
such as Section 31, opponents of Irish freedom in America to resort to another
method of censoring the views of those who favor a united Ireland: slander.
The Elizabeth Gurly Flynn of Irish Northern Aid, New Brunswick, NJ, was
recently faced with a slander barrage on the campus of Rutgers University that
would have left Dr. Goebbels or Joe McCarthy blushing.
It all came to a head around the March 6 program in which Una Gillespie of the
Sinn Fein Women's Department. The program featured Belfast republican and
feminist Gillespie along with Irish Gay and Lesbian Organization (ILGO) activist
Tarloch Mac Naillaish in a program co-sponsored by New Brunswick Irish
Northern Aid, the Rutgers Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Alliance (RULGABA)
and the Rutgers Women's Support and Resource Center (WSRC).
The attacks emanate from two women at Rutgers. One, a Dubliner and Social
Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) supporter who has not been to the North
of Ireland, is involved in women's studies. The other, from Belfast, was
affiliated with the Workers Party (Stickies) and is in the Graduate Program in
the English Department. They are stridently anti-republican and have taken
advantage of their Irish nationality, their institutional position at Rutgers, and
their standing in certain feminist and academic circles, to pass themselves off
as the sole authorities on Ireland in Rutgers. For some time, they had free
reign to malign and misrepresent the situation in Ireland to suit their own
partisan political agenda. The appearance of 'Elizabeth Gurley Flynn', with
their speakers, videos and a recent Bloody Sunday vigil which drew wide press
coverage, effectively ended their monopoly on the debate on Ireland in New
Brunswick.
The campaign of the Two began a year ago when the Dubliner attempted to
disrupt a talk given at Rutgers by Luci Breathnach of the Sinn Fein Women's
Department. Breaking into a question and answer period, she badgered and
insulted the guest. When this bullying failed to intimidate Breathnach, the
organizers or the audience, she stormed out of the program, kicking a chair in
the direction of the podium in the process. The Stickie launched a one-woman
phone campaign in an effort to get people to boycott the event.
While such antics are laughable to INA activists, repeated over time
and delivered in a highly theatrical and dramatic fashion and in carefully
selected venues, they do have the effect of intimidating uncommitted or
marginal people who would rather err on the side of caution and not attend INA
events than be seen as supporting 'terrorists'. Worse, the Two cynically
manipulated their standing in feminist circles and played on legitimate concerns
around the issues of violence against women by framing their dispute with INA
and the Republican Movement in terms of INA and the RM being 'anti-woman'.
In an oft repeated tale, the Two claimed that 'as women' they were 'in fear of
their lives' because of threats from 'Noraid strong arm squads'.
The use of such charges was an obvious attempt to shift the focus of the debate
away from the issue itself, Ireland, and onto whether INA and the RM were a
bunch of women hating terrorists. (The women in 'Elizabeth' and the RM are
pictured as hapless victims, somehow 'duped' by men.)
The subject of feminism and nationalism, the role of women in in the Republican
Movement or on the status of women in Ireland would all be examples of
legitimate topics for discussion and debate. They would be every bit as relevant
as debates on the role of women in the Sandinistas, or the ANC's postion of
women's issues etc. But the Two's actions clearly showed that censorship, not
debate, was their objective.
Percieving the program as a threat to their 'turf', the Two immediately began a
campaign to get the WSRC to withdraw from the program and to cancel the
event. Intimidation was used when the Stickie woman charged into the WSRC on
the evening of March 3rd and badgered the two student peer counselors then on
duty, demanding that they pull out of the program. The next day, they met
with the WRSC staff member directly who was involved with the program
(though not involved with INA in any way.) In a lenghty meeting, they again
demanded that the program be cancelled. The WRSC offered them a place on the
platform to debate Una, but they pre-empted any debate by once again claiming
they had been 'threatened', were in fear for their lives and therefore could not
appear in public.
What came next must raise serious questions as to personal and intellectual
integrity of the Two and their standing in feminist and women's studies
communities. After all the charges and terror-baiting failed, the Stickie woman
alleged that the local INA leader abused his girlfriend. When confronted for
proof by the WRSC staffer (who knew the couple in question and knew the
charge to be slanderous), the Stickie women admitted she had none and had
never even met the couple in question, but that she had heard 'rumors' to that
effect!
At this point, whatever credibility the Two might have had went completely out
the window, not only in the WSRC, but as word spread of the meeting, across
the University in general (although a core of women continue to support the
Two out of a misguided sense of 'sisterhood'). 'Crying wolf' with the charge of
abuse does a disservice not only to those falsely accused, but is also a direct
attack on credibility of the many women who actually suffer rape and abuse.
Many women who are the victims of rape and abuse are reluctant to come
forward with their stories and to press charges against the perpetrators partly
because the victims are not beleived or worse, are though to have brought the
crime on themselves, "blaming the victim". By falsly using the emotive term
'abuse' for political ends, the Two revealed to depths to which they were
prepared to go to block the appearance of Gillespie, a feminist and republican
activist as well as a staff member of the Belfast Rape Crisis Centre.
They then threatened to go to the Rutgers administration directly, but a quick
call to the NJ ACLU brought the promise of a court injunction to stop any such
action.
The program with Gillespie was a success, in spite of a letter that appeared
that day in the Rutgers 'Daily Targum' attacking the program with suggestions
that INA advocates actions like the recent World Trade Center bombing. The
letter was signed by a false name.
Incredibly, after all this, two women answering the description of the Two
attempted to plaster a local bar with anti-INA and anti-Sinn Fein leaflets prior
to an INA musical benefit which took place in New Brunswick on March 19. A
dispute with the bar staff ensued when they were discovered. Various
musicians involved in the benefit were somehow contacted and subjected to late
night calls by a woman leaving only a first name who screamed about INA
terrorists. The battle is by no means over, as an academic associate of the
Dubliner has sworn to prevent INA from ever appearing on campus again.
The names of the Two and their allies are withheld here, but are known to New
Brunswick activists. It is outrageous that they can act as if Rutgers, a state
university, funded by public taxes, is their private play toy. Their attempt to
ban and censor INA or Sinn Fein or any other group whose views on Ireland
are not in line with their own is a gross interference with the free flow of ideas
and the freedom of expression that is essential to any university campus.
The tactics they used have raised concerns in the minds of some that the Two
have lent themselves to a COINTELPRO-type operation against an INA chapter
that has been particularly active in making alliances with progressive groups
and who represents an anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-homophobic trend within
INA. Significantly, the NB-INA chair was the only speaker invited to give a
message of solidarity at a program featuring ex-Black Panter Dhrouba bin-
Wahad which took place the night before Gillespie's appearance.
INA challenges these defenders and apologists of British imperialism to come out
from behind their assumed names, late night phone calls and unsigned leaflets,
to cease their political and personal subterfuge against INA and Sinn Fein, and
to publicly debate us on the issues.
