Getting shrill over Aintree but not a murder

ON SATURDAY last a Government spokesman in Dublin said the IRA disruption of the Aintree Grand National "utterly disgraceful". John Major was "appalled". Tony Blair was "horrified". Bertie Ahern "totally condemned" the disruption. Albert Reynolds said the disruption was "despicable".

The disruption caused great inconvenience and some disappointment to 60,000 race-goers. It was also a cause of disappointment to millions of television viewers on Saturday afternoon. Beyond that, what harm was caused?

Nobody lost their lives, nobody was hurt, horses were spared the ordeal of the race for a few days, the lives of horses were spared for two days two had to be killed after the race on Monday.

Of course, it is unacceptable that any group in society should cause such disruption and inconvenience, but in the scale of harms inflicted this was among the more minor.

Why then the shrill condemnations?

Three weeks ago last Friday, John Slane, a Belfast Catholic, was murdered by a loyalist paramilitary gang. Mr Slane (44) was preparing a bottle of milk for his twin baby daughters in his kitchen when the loyalist gunman broke in and shot him dead.

UDA sources acknowledged it was responsible. It also acknowledged John Slane was an innocent victim and claimed he had been shot by mistake. The target, the sources said, was a local INLA man.

Joe Hendron, Gerry Adams, Reg Empey of the Ulster Unionists and a few others condemned the murder of John Slane. But the Irish Government spokesman did not feel obliged to describe the murder as "utterly disgraceful" nothing at all was said on its behalf. John Major, apparently, was not "appalled". Tony Blair, apparently, was not "horrified". Bertie Ahern did not think it necessary to "utterly condemn" the murder. Albert Reynolds did not find the murder "despicable".

Yes, it is true that the ritualistic stream of condemnation of murders in Northern Ireland is futile and often meaningless. But how could it be that the disruption of a horse race is considered such an outrage and the murder of a Belfast Catholic apparently treated as of no consequence?

On a lesser scale, how is it that the burning of Catholic churches in Northern Ireland also, apparently, is regarded as of lesser consequence than the disruption of a horse race? The arson attacks on the churches have evoked not a whimper of condemnation or even comment from those so upset over the Aintree bomb hoaxes last Saturday afternoon.

ON Saturday afternoon last John Bruton was quoted as asking: "Have the leaders of the republican movement stopped to think how their actions at Aintree will make Irish people all over the world feel this evening?" The question arises: has he stopped to think how Belfast Catholics were feeling about his near-hysterical reaction to the disruption of a horse race and his silence over the murder of an innocent father?

Jack Straw, the British shadow home secretary, said the Aintree disruption put paid to any expectation that Sinn Fein would be allowed to participate in multi-party talks when they resume at Stormont on June 3rd. That in itself is not the end of the world or, for that matter, the end of the Northern Ireland peace process, but if this statement represents the authentic view of the likely next British government, again it suggests skewed values.

If Sinn Fein cannot participate in talks on June 3rd because of the disruption of a horse race, how is it that the continued participation of the Ulster Democratic Party, the UDA's political wing in the multi-party talks, is not even in question following the murder of John Slane by the UDA? Sinn Fein and the IRA, with relish, have posed similar questions in recent days to unmask the hypocrisy and double standards there are in much of the condemnation of IRA activities. But they are not immune from being discomfited themselves, nor from hypocrisy and double standards.

Take the case of Gerry Kelly.

He is a poet, apparently, of some distinction. He was also one of the Sinn Fein negotiators in the talks with Northern Ireland Office officials during the course of 1995. He, along with Martin McGuinness, also took part in the secret talks with British officials in 1992 and 1993. He is the tall, handsome one who stood silently behind Martin McGuinness during television interviews.

It was always a source of wonderment why Gerry Kelly was part of the Sinn Fein delegation at these talks. Yes, he is on the Sinn Fein ardchomhairle, but so too is Mitchel McLaughlin, and Mitchel McLaughlin happens also to be party chairman and was previously Northern chairman. How was it that Mitchel McLaughlin was not part of the Sinn Fein delegation and Gerry Kelly was?

MANY of us concluded that Gerry Kelly was on the delegation because he was close to a hardline faction on the IRA "army council" and that his presence at the negotiations was to monitor what the dovish Martin McGuinness was up to. And if he were to protest that he is not now an IRA member, the question arises: why isn't he, given that he so regularly expresses such admiration for it?

Anyway, it is clear that Gerry Kelly is a pretty authoritative chap when it comes to deciphering what the republican movement is up to and on Sunday week last he made a speech at an Easter commemoration in Dublin.

Implicit in what he said was that if there were to be a commitment to "talks, inclusive of all parties, with everything on the table for discussion", there would be another "unconditional" IRA ceasefire. But explicitly he went on to outline what republicans wanted out of such talks. And a very tame menu it is: no return to Stormont, no return to unionist domination, no return to second-class citizenship. And that's it.

Nothing about the ending of partition, nothing about British withdrawal, or an end of the Northern state. None of that.

Now, if all the republican movement wants is (a) inclusion in multi-party talks and (b) the modest set of demands outlined by Gerry Kelly, how conceivably could this justify the taking of a single human life or the threat to take a single human life?

Isn't it perfectly obvious that if there is an IRA ceasefire, unequivocal and unconditional, and if it were to last for, say, a year or two years, there will be multi-party talks and all of the demands specified by Gerry Kelly will be attainable?

Yes, a year's further delay, or two years' further delay for that matter, would be frustrating and disappointing. But how could such frustration or disappointment justify the taking of human life or the threat to take human life? For that is all that it amounts to now. Nothing else.