“The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, has in his…”

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, has in his report done all his political masters expected from him, and indeed more. Thirteen Irishmen, none of whom even Lord Widgery could Say was armed, were killed in Derry on January 30th by the British Army using British army bullets, but now, the British Government through its legal arm tells the world that the major share of responsibility lies with the Civil Rights Association march organisers.

Lord Widgery concedes that the deaths were unfortunate, but as he wrote, “‘in the circumstances, it is not remarkable that mistakes were _ made and some civilians hit”. When the only valid questions at this stage were whether the paratroopers were taking part in a pre-ordered _ manoeuvre that badly misfired _ they lo: _ Widge Shitin ing either at . ccusatio ere rybody or nobody, Widgery continues this dition of British legal half-truths by using cial gymnastics.

e has indeed served his masters well; the very Led of his report would indicate that it was a mere formality. The only surprise was that _ some people were anticipating the impossible _ —the truth; but where the accused should have been examining his own grave misdemeanours, the murky waters of deception flowed freely. A sample extract from the report will illustrate the aptness of the remark made by Eddie McAteer, of the Nationalist Party that “‘we are lucky he did not find that the 13 had committed suicide”’.

The key paragraph is number 54 which asks “who fired first?” and reads: “I am entirely satisfied that the first firing in the courtyard was directed at the soldiers.”” Why is the good Lord so sure? Read on, “Such a conclusion is not reached by counting heads or by selecting one particular witness as truthful in preference to another. It is a conclusion gradually built up over many days of listening to evidence and watching the demeanour of witnesses under cross-examination.”A_ PX¥2! atic " - ~ + On such a basis as this, does the Lord Chief Justice form his conclusion; elsewhere in his report, he accepts the evidence of an officer wholesale simply because it was after all “the word of an officer and a gentleman”. Lord Widgery himself of course has an upstanding military record himself, and knows about these things; he has found and deterthey handled the demonstration. tronising a manner.

first the facts stare him in the face.

last of its colonies. mined the only criticisms to be levelled against the Army are minor ones concering the way A whole array of various witnesses, press people, passers-by, clerics, and demonstrators, people. with little in common unlike the army witnesses, stated adamantly in Coleraine to the good Lord that no shots were fired or bombs thrown at the paratroopers before they opened fire. Lord Widgery has determined that these civilian witnesses were simply mistaken while “doing their best to be truthful”, as the report states in such a subtle yet so paThose 13 Irishmen are dead with British bullets in them yet Widgery does not say who was responsible in his 35,000 word report, when this was the major motivation in the -armed when they were shot; he stated that in Sition”. And yet Widee: somehow managés to avoid the conclusion of criminal responsibility for these killings. When British justice now stands clearly exposed as merely a matter of expediency, of clearing up the dirty washing left by British policies in the —David Martin The credentials report showed that ' there were delegates from 22 ISC branches, and representatives from 19 other organisations including 3 AIL branches, 2 Trade Union organisations, 2 Students Unions, 2 LPYS branches, Fraternal delegates were present from Belgium and Switzerland from the Ceylon Solidarity Campaign, and from P.D. and the RMG in Ireland. Messages were read from Sweden and Denmark, and also from Cabhair Uladh — Irish Civil Rights, in Dublin.

AIL MEETING At a special delegate meeting held in London on May 2nd the Anti-Internment League decided to broaden the political basis of its demands. The most important points which were agreed were the adoption of ‘Self-determination for the Irish people’ and ‘We oppose British imperialism in Ireland in all its forms and declare our solidarity with the Republican and Socialist organisations who spearhead the resistance in Ireland’.

Proposals from Kensington and Paddington AIL, for ‘Solidarity with all forces fighting British imperialism, including both wings of the IRA’, was successfully amended to remove the last six words, and the meeting also rejected a proposal from ISC that the AIL should holda conference to draw up a new programme based on self-determination which would be unambiguous in its support for the military struggle, and suggesting the formulation ‘Unconditional support for the IRA in its military struggle against British imperialism and the forces of reaction in Ireland’.

The discussion showed up two important confusions in the minds of the majority of the delegates. Firstly, no distinction was made between general support for the organisations involved in the struggle in the North, and specific support for the military struggle of the IRA, and secondly, a conception that the representatives of the Republican organisations present could have a veto on whether the movement in Britain took such a position. Confusion _ was further increased by a speech inwhich Chris Harman of IS suggested that the proposal had no meaning except to justify a ‘spli movement outside the AIL. _ working class away from its prejudices about the Irish struggle. Keith Veness of the ‘Chartist’ drew on personal experience to underline oad the impossibility of dodging this issue, and the favourable response to a principled position within the labour movement. Harman’s witch-hunting speech was refuted by pointing out that ISC was formed before the AIL, and that the ISC was trying.to get a principled basis for a united organisation.

----- pull-quotes -----

remarkable insight into the working of British concluding line: “If the soldiers are wrong