University of Pardubice
Faculty of Arts and Philosophy
Reflection of Northern Ireland’s Conflict in Jim Sheridan’s Film
In the Name of the Father
Bohdan Vysloužil
Bachelor Paper
2013
Prohlašuji:
Tuto práci jsem vypracoval samostatně. Veškeré literární prameny a informace,
které jsem v práci využil, jsou uvedeny v seznamu použité literatury.
Byl jsem seznámen s tím, že se na moji práci vztahují práva a povinnosti
vyplývající ze zákona č. 121/2000 Sb., autorský zákon, zejména se skutečností, že
Univerzita Pardubice má právo na uzavření licenční smlouvy o užití této práce jako
školního díla podle § 60 odst. 1 autorského zákona, a s tím, že pokud dojde k užití této
práce mnou nebo bude poskytnuta licence o užití jinému subjektu, je Univerzita
Pardubice oprávněna ode mne požadovat přiměřený příspěvek na úhradu nákladů,
které na vytvoření díla vynaložila, a to podle okolností až do jejich skutečné výše.
Souhlasím s prezenčním zpřístupněním své práce v Univerzitní knihovně.
V Pardubicích dne 19. 3. 2013
Bohdan Vysloužil
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank to my supervisor, Mgr. Olga Roebuck, M.Litt. Ph.D., for her
guidance, helpful advice and valuable comments.
Abstract
This thesis focuses on Northern Ireland’s conflict and its reflection in Jim Sheridan’s
film In the Name of the Father. The aim of the thesis is to explain the historical and
religious background of the Troubles and to apply these pieces of knowledge to the
analysis of the film. A special emphasis is put on the significance of Great Britain’s
involvement in the conflict. The film is based on real-life stories of the Guildford Four,
which was a group of four people wrongly convicted of terrorist bombings in the
1970s. The film manages to capture the mood of the times and besides recounting the
main storyline, it serves as a study on how the Irish were perceived in England.
Key words: In the Name of the Father, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, the Guildford
Four, injustice, prison
Souhrn
Tato bakalářská práce se zaměřuje na konflikt v Severním Irsku a odraz daného tématu
ve filmu Jima Sheridana In the Name of the Father. Hlavním cílem práce je objasnit
historické a náboženské pozadí severoirského konfliktu a následné využití těchto
poznatků při analyzování daného filmu. Zvláštní důraz je kladen na význam účasti Velké
Británie v severoirském sporu. Film byl natočen podle předlohy skutečných životních
příběhu Guildfordské čtyřky, což byla skupina čtyř lidí chybně usvědčených
z teroristických útoků ze sedmdesátých let 20. století. Ve filmu je věrohodně zachycena
dobová atmosféra a kromě hlavní dějové linie film poukazuje na způsob, jak byli Irové
v Anglii vnímáni.
Klíčová slova: In the Name of the Father, Severní Irsko, Velká Británie, Guildfordská
čtyřka, nespravedlnost, vězení
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................1
2. Origins and Historical Development of the Conflict..........................................3
The English Invasion and the First Occurrence of Protestantism in Ireland
The Rebellion
The Great Famine
The Irish Free State – 1921
3. The Troubles.....................................................................................................7
The Irish in Trouble
Great Britain
Peace Talks
4. The Importance of Religiousness.....................................................................14
Irish Gaelic
Catholicism in Ireland
5. In the Name of the Father...............................................................................16
Jim Sheridan
Belfast as a Warzone
Interrogations and Trial
The Irish in British Prisons
6. In the Name of Injustice..................................................................................29
British Legal System
Injustice
7. Jim Sheridan’s Version....................................................................................33
Sheridan’s Point of View
Historical Inaccuracies
8. Conclusion......................................................................................................36
Resumé..............................................................................................................38
Bibliography.......................................................................................................42
1. Introduction
In terms of contemporary world history Northern Ireland’s conflict might be
considered only of minor significance. In comparison with other conflicts the number
of affected people is rather small and besides Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great
Britain no other countries were directly involved. Even though the conflict affected
only the English speaking west European countries, for several reasons the whole
Ulster problem eventually became a world-wide known issue.
There are three main reasons due to which the Troubles attracted
international attention. Firstly, it was the high level of extreme violence used by the
organizations participating in the conflict and the shockingly high number of civilians
who were killed, injured or severely affected. Secondly, the Troubles were officially
labelled as a religious conflict. Even though the two disunited communities were the
Catholics and Protestants, it had almost nothing to do with the real essence of
religiousness. Both of these denominations are Christian divisions. Christianity
provides a very specific description of morality and the Ten Commandments clearly
state the codes of morally correct behaviour. If the conflict really were of religious
essence, the people involved would have been tightly restricted by the moral values of
Christianity. Thirdly, it was the position of the United Kingdom and its active
participation which brought the whole conflict on an international scale.
The origins of this problem could be traced back to the 12 th century which
makes this conflict one of the longest-lasting issues in Europe. Therefore, to analyse
Northern Ireland’s conflict from any point of view it is necessary to be acquainted with
its historical background and political development. For that reason, the first part of
this thesis is particularly focused on the origins and development of the conflict from
historical and political points of view, mainly focused on the period of the ‘60s – ‘90s,
Great Britain’s politics and direct involvement in the conflict. In this part of the paper
the question of religiousness is also dealt with.
1
The second part is devoted to the film adaptation of Northern Ireland’s conflict
and its reflection in Jim Sheridan’s film In the Name of the Father. The aim of the
practical part of the thesis is to provide an analysis of individual elements and
historical events occurring in the film. Jim Sheridan’s adaptation is based on a true-life
story of two innocent Irishmen from Belfast, a father and his son, who were falsely
accused and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a terrorist bomb attack on
British soldiers and civilians in London. In the film Jim Sheridan shows Great Britain’s
attitude towards terrorism and its means of coping with the tough situation
concerning the Troubles. The main theme of the film is concentrated on the depiction
of the tense atmosphere at the peak of the conflict as well as the impact of Great
Britain’s politics on civilians in terms of injustice and unsubstantiated accusations.
2
2. Origins and Historical Development of the Conflict
The story of England’s involvement in Ireland has its roots in the 12th century.
In his book Jan Frank says that after the Normans had invaded the Irish coast, Ireland
was added to the lands of Henry II, the king of England. (Frank, 2006b, 30) Since the
Norman invasion the Irish were under direct royal control of the kings of England, but
the true origins of the Ulster troubles were to be set several centuries later. As Jan
Frank puts it, at the beginning of the 16th century the Irish held strong resistance
against the English invaders and gradually formed a military unit for the purpose of
regaining full sovereignty. (FRANK, 2006a, 11-12) In order to retain Ireland as an
English dominion, the English army was sent there to re-establish order. In his book T.
W. Moody says that it was the time when King Henry VIII established the Church of
England and his ambitions were to increase his power over Ireland. (MOODY, 1996,
130-131) These incidents raised the first wave of Irish rebellion. As Jan Frank further
explains, to support his position, the king decided to populate Ireland by the English
and Scottish Protestants. During the first decade of the 17th century over 20 000
protestants arrived in Ireland. A considerable number of the locals were banished from
Ulster and their property was confiscated by the newcomers. (FRANK, 2006a, 12)
These colonists settled in the fertile part in the north of the island known as Ulster.
Over centuries the population had grown in number and eventually outnumbered the
Catholics in the area of Ulster. Jan Frank also points out that these newcomers did
gradually become Irish citizens, but they were still loyal to the English crown and the
Protestant Church. (FRANK, 2006b, 48) The newcomers adhered to Protestantism as a
means of expressing their ethnical affiliation. In terms of political dispute, the first half
of the 18th century was a relatively peaceful period. The most important event was to
come in the last decade of the century. According to T. W. Moody, in 1798 the Irish
republicans, encouraged by the American Revolution and the outbreak of the French
Revolution in 1789, launched a campaign to reform the Irish representative system to
obtain more rights and attempted to free themselves from the political supremacy of
England. (MOODY, 1996, 175)
3
In his book Seán Duffy notes that the rebellion was inspired and led by the
Society of United Irishmen, which was an organization composed of Irish republicans.
Even though the Irish republicans were supported by France, the armed rebellion was
bloodily suppressed by the English army. (DUFFY, 2000, 82) In order to stabilise the
Irish political situation and to prevent the country from any other revolt, the English
prime minister restricted all competences of the Irish government. According to T. W.
Moody, as the result of the previous events, in 1800 Ireland officially became a part of
Great Britain and created a new political unit called the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. (MOODY, 1996, 187) The political act of joining Ireland to Great
Britain is known as the Acts of Union. In his book Jan Frank contends that even though
after the processes of unification it was no longer within the remit of the Irish to take
active participation in governing their own country, a restricted number of Irish
representatives were sworn in the British government. (FRANK, 2006b, 76-77) It was
hoped that this act of benevolence in terms of letting the Irish to represent their
interests in the Great Britain’s parliament would suppress the Irish national desire for
becoming a sovereign state. However, such attitude eventually proved to be wrong.
One of the prime motives for the Irish to attain independence was Great
Britain’s indifference towards Ireland during the Great Famine, also known as the
Great Hunger. In the history of Ireland there were several devastating strikes of
famine. The Irish agriculture system was heavily dependent on a large scale potato
growing; therefore any occurrence of crop failure usually resulted in mass starvation.
As David Lloyd observes:
The Irish Famine, which commenced in 1845 with a failure of the potato
crop and recurred over large parts of the country until 1851, was the
greatest demographic catastrophe in European history. At least one
million people died of starvation and a further million left the country,
commencing a trend of massive emigration that continued unabated
until almost the end of the twentieth century. The Famine was thus
directly responsible for the disappearance of at least one quarter of the
population, estimated in the British census of 1841 at 8.1 million.
(LLOYD, 2005, 153)
4
This harrowing and near-death experience significantly affected the perception
of Great Britain’s rule and accelerated the growth of nationalism in Ireland. David
Lloyd also comments that in 1800 Ireland had been integrated into the United
Kingdom, thus it was expected that during the famine Great Britain should have
provided the Irish with food and material help. Despite the fact, that the British
representatives were well aware of the vulnerability of the Irish to such matters,
almost no initiative in helping them was shown. (LLOYD, 2005, 153-154) Most of the
English politicians perceived the famine in Ireland as God’s punishment for being lazy
and rebellious. In his book Ellis Wasson says that to let the Irish starve was to
considerable extent Great Britain’s intention. The British authorities intended to
transform the Irish peasants into wage labourers in the manner of English workers and
the strike of famine came as an ideal opportunity to exercise imperial power over the
Irish. (WASSON, 2010, 182) In the light of these events the unity with Great Britain
proved to be strongly disadvantageous. With its far-reaching consequences the Great
Famine considerably strengthened the desire for national independence in Ireland.
During the second decade of the 20th century Great Britain’s attention was
focused on the First World War. In the meantime the Irish Republicans took advantage
of a Great Britain’s weakened position and organised several rebellions with the aim of
ending the British supremacy over Ireland. The most important revolt since 1798 took
place in Dublin in 1916. During the Easter week the Irish republicans launched an
armed insurrection against the British rule in Ireland. T. W. Moody notes that they
quickly got control of some strategic areas in Dublin and proclaimed independence of
the Irish Republic from the Great Britain’s rule. However, after six days of fighting the
republicans were eventually defeated. The leaders of the rebellion were immediately
executed and hundreds of their supporters were imprisoned. (MOODY, 1996, 237)
Despite these failures, the Irish remained stubbornly determined not to abandon their
long-held dream about becoming an independent nation. According to Jan Frank, as
the result of the executions and suppressions the Irish started to support the only
nationalist party in Ireland called Sinn Féin which closely collaborated with the Irish
Republican Army. In 1919 the IRA formally declared war on Great Britain and its
5
political and military control over Ireland. (FRANK, 2006b, 98-99) During this Irish War
of Independence an extremely high level of violence was used by all participating
organisations as a means of reaching their goals. The worst bloodshed of the war
happened in Dublin in 1920. As Anne Dolan states:
21 November 1920 began with the killing of fourteen men in their flats,
boarding houses and hotel rooms in Dublin. The Irish Republican Army
(IRA) alleged that they were British spies. That afternoon British forces
retaliated by firing on a crowd of supporters at a Gaelic football match
in Croke Park, killing twelve and injuring sixty. The day quickly became
known as Bloody Sunday. Much has been made of the afternoon events.
The shootings in Croke Park have acquired legendary status. (DOLAN,
2006, 789)
By the end of the second decade Great Britain finally realised that it would be
impossible to govern Ireland by force any longer. As T. W. Moody observes,
subsequently Ireland gained independence from Great Britain and in 1922 the Free
Irish State was officially formed. (MOODY, 1996, 241) The declaration of the Republic
of Ireland definitely ended the Irish War of Independence and gave rise to a new
political discord known as the Northern Ireland’s Troubles.
6
3. The Troubles
The political act of being given freedom represented a glorious victory for the
Catholics, but at the same time it was seen as a significant loss for the Protestants of
Ulster. The Protestant community was aware of the threat that the unification of
Ireland would mean political supremacy of the Catholics over Ireland. In his book Jan
Frank explains that as a consequence of the processes of negotiating, the Protestants
of Ulster warned that they would fight rather than to become a part of a Catholicdominated state. In order to hold a truce, the British government persuaded the Irish
nationalists to accept independence for Ireland, except the six counties in the northern
part of the country. (FRANK, 2006a, 36-37) The Protestant community’s fear of being a
minority in a Catholic-governed state proved to be a major stumbling block to the
processes of negotiations over the establishment of the Free Irish State. However, as T.
W. Moody claims, in 1921 London allowed the Northern Irish to govern themselves
without any direct intervention of Great Britain. The British administration hoped that
if the citizens of Ulster were not governed by the English, the Protestants and Catholics
would find a way of living together. (MOODY, 1996, 250-251) Unfortunately, this idea
was proved wrong. According to Jan Frank, in 1921 the Protestants represented 67% of
the population in Ulster. (FRANK, 2006a, 40) These outnumbering figures provided
them with absolute power to keep the Catholics out of the Northern Ireland’s
government and to hold the province under the rule of Great Britain.
Despite the fact that from the very beginning of the formation of Northern
Ireland the disunited communities were maintaining different positions, the Catholics
and Protestants of Ulster managed to coexist peacefully until the post-war period. The
serious troubles began in the late 1960s, when the Catholic community started to lead
several nonviolent campaigns against employment discrimination, education inequality
and living conditions in favour of the Protestant majority. Most of the Catholic
grievances had their roots in the residential segregation typical of Ulster. According to
Doherty and Poole, the people of Ulster practiced residential segregation as a means
of protecting themselves from violence and at the same time it provided them with
7
the sense of unity in a mutually hostile environment. (DOHERTY, POOLE, 1997, 522)
Most of the institutions were divided into two segregated subsystems, one controlled
by Catholics, the other by Protestants. Protestants, traditionally enjoying numerical
superiority over the Catholic community, succeeded in keeping Catholics out of all
important leading positions, including political life. As Kassian Kovalcheck observes,
this was a period of high unemployment and the Catholics of Ulster became deeply
sensitive about the common occurrence of unequal opportunities for employment,
housing and poor living conditions. (KOVALCHECK, 1987, 78) Simply, they wanted to be
equally involved in political and economic life. In addition to the already difficult
situation in employment, during the 1970s Ulster had to face massive unemployment
which came as the result of long-lasting riots and public unrest. As T. W. Moody states,
due to the conflict, no companies were interested in investing their money in the
problematic areas and Ulster underwent a critical period of gradual deindustrialization.
(MOODY, 1996, 274) The consequences of the processes of deindustrialization
dramatically worsened Northern Ireland’s economy, which had already been weak. For
the problematic political and social situation, the Republicans widely blamed the
British government. In his book Seán MacStiofáin describes the British rule in Ulster as:
An oppressive regime, feudal class distinctions, severe unemployment, a
dud economy, an increasingly unstable political set-up, and right-wing
extremist movements, all happening in a neglected colony of decaying
imperial power. (MACSTIOFÁIN, 1975, 115)
From the description, seen from republicans’ point of view, it is obvious that
the political and social background was predisposed to outburst against the grievances
over the issues of inequality. According to Ellis Wasson, the Catholics of Ulster were
positively encouraged by the remarkable success of Afro-American civil right
movements which were happening at the same time in the USA. (WASSON, 2010, 364)
The campaigns for residential equality, led by the Catholic community, were meant to
be carried out in the form of peaceful marches. As Seán Duffy states, in response to
the Catholic activities, their Protestant opponents produced an extremely hostile
atmosphere. The tense situation eventually turned into street riots and gradually
8
developed into communal violence. (DUFFY, 2000, 128) Since the Ulster police force
was unable to cope with the critical situation, the British Army was sent to Ulster to
restore order. In his book Jan Frank says that at first the military intervention of the
British forces in Northern Ireland was perceived as a victory for the Catholics of Ulster.
They hoped that the British forces would protect them from the ongoing violence and
secure peace in the problematic areas. However, the military intervention served the
purpose of supporting the Protestant community. (FRANK, 2006a, 76-77) Eventually, it
turned out to be another act of discrimination of the Catholic minority suffering at the
hands of occupying forces.
In 1972 the constantly increasing level of violence culminated in several
shooting incidents, out of which the most violent event took place in Derry. As T. W.
Moody describes, in the incident on January 30, 1972, thirteen unarmed civil-right
protesters and bystanders were shot by soldiers of the British army. Another man died
later of his wounds. All of them were civilians. (MOODY, 1996, 266) This inadequate
exemplification of power in hands of the British army aroused a strong feeling of
passionate hatred towards Great Britain in Ireland. As T. W. Moody continues, the day
after the massacre in Derry a massive crowd of angry people burnt down the embassy
of Great Britain in Dublin. (MOODY, 1996, 266) The massacre in Derry, known as
Bloody Sunday, is considered to be a distinctive landmark in the development of the
conflict between the Catholic and Protestant communities. In his book Seán
MacStiofáin directly blames Great Britain for the massacre when he says:
The deaths were the inevitable consequence of giving the British
military establishment a say in determining political objectives for the
North. As a result, the British were forced to resort to the most
desperate propaganda effort in the vain hope of explaining away an act
of military repression against the civil population many times more
barbarous than any reported from Czechoslovakia under the Soviet
occupation in 1968. (MACSTIOFÁIN, 1975, 226)
The amount of injustice and brutal violence considerably exceeded the level of
what was bearable. Thus, the Catholics of Ulster decided to make their voices heard
9
and called for help abroad. Jan Frank contends that the Catholic community,
supported by the Republic of Ireland, demanded that the United Nations Organization
take control of the critical situation in Ulster. To cover up their responsibility for killing
civilians, Great Britain prevented the UNO from taking active participation by stating
that the situation was stabilised and under control. (FRANK, 2006a, 93) The farreaching consequences of the Bloody Sunday tragedy gave rise to public support of
paramilitary terrorist organizations on both Catholic and Protestant sides.
During the 1970s there were several attempts to find an optimal solution to the
troubles, none of which proved to be efficient. As T. W. Moody in his book explains,
when it became clear that Ulster was not able to deal with the complicated situation,
the British government commenced direct rule from Westminster over Northern
Ireland. (MOODY, 1996, 267) It was obvious that these desperate measures taken by
the British government were only for interim period and that it was necessary to look
for more acceptable solution. As a possible solution, the concept of power-sharing
administration was introduced. According to Jan Frank, the first attempt to establish a
power-sharing executive was the Sunningdale Agreement signed in 1973. The
agreement was signed by all participants including representatives of both
communities in Ulster, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. (FRANK, 2006a, 105)
Unfortunately, the agreement did not last long. Jan Frank comments that the
Protestant perceived the contract as potential danger to Ulster’s sovereignty and
suspected Great Britain of acting in favour of the Republic of Ireland. (FRANK, 2006a,
106) The Protestants’ constant fear of becoming a minority in a Catholic-governed
state caused that the agreement was met with refusal by the Unionists. As Jan Frank
concludes, the Ulster Workers’ Council organized a general strike and temporarily
paralysed the country. After two weeks of full-scale riots and intimidation the
Sunningdale Agreement collapsed. (FRANK, 2006a, 106) By these events, the
Protestant community made it once again crystal clear that under no circumstances
would they allow the Republic of Ireland to make any political interference in the legal
processes of governing Ulster.
10
For Great Britain the 1970s and 1980s was a period of dramatic decline of the
British economy. In addition to the worsening economic situation the British had to
deal with several other issues. In his book Morgan Kenneth says that the major
problems in Great Britain were the miners’ strikes, racism and massive immigration. At
the same time Wales and Scotland laid claim to their independence. (KENNETH, 1999,
506) By the end of the 1960s Great Britain experienced rising unemployment and was
facing a serious economic crisis. As Morgan Kenneth explains, since Great Britain had
to subsidize the Ulster economy and simultaneously cover the considerable expenses
of the military intervention, the Northern Ireland’s issue became an enormous burden
to British economy. (KENNETH, 1999, 506-507) In order to make ordinary British
citizens aware of the seriousness of the issue concerning the Northern Ireland’s
Troubles, the IRA operated in England. According to Jan Frank, in 1974 the IRA carried
more than fifty bomb attacks in England with the aim of making the English aware that
it was in their own interest that the Ulster issue be solved as soon as possible. (FRANK,
2006a, 111) The most tragic bomb attacks took place in Guildford, Birmingham and
Woolwich. However, such approach did not make the public sympathise with the
terrorists and the IRA suffered public scorn.
During the peak of the Troubles the British authorities had to deal with
accelerating crime rate in connection with terrorist attacks in Great Britain. As a
possible solution to these problems the British authorities introduced a package of
radical measures for investigations and treating potential terrorist suspects. According
to T. W. Moody, one of the measures was the introduction of internment. This
measure gave the investigators right to arrest possible suspects and hold them
prisoners for seven days without being accused. (MOODY, 1996, 266) The primary aim
of the investigation was to eliminate terrorist attacks, but inequality and injustice
occurred even among the investigators. As T. W. Moody explains, the introduction of
internment proved to be absolutely useless. Even though the terrorist attacks were
carried out by catholic and protestant extremists, the British authorities arrested only
the catholic suspects. (MOODY, 1996, 266) As for treating the suspects and prisoners,
the British authorities became known for their brutal methods of interrogation and ill-
11
treatment. To cover up their inability to find the real perpetrators, in many cases the
British authorities sentenced innocent people to imprisonment. Some of the disclosed
cases of falsely accused innocent people are the Guildford Four and the Birmingham
Six. According to John Borland, in both of these cases the British jurisdiction
pronounced a judgement against the accused on the basis of unsubstantiated
accusations. Later it was released that in these cases the British authorities had
intentionally concealed the evidence that proved the accused innocent. (BORLAND
et.al., 1995, 376) Gerry Conlon, one of the victims in the Guildford Fours’ case, wrote
an autobiographical book in which he describes the traumatic prison experience and
the unethical practices of the British authorities. In 1993 the book was adapted into a
film named In the Name of the Father.
By the end of 1970s it became more than obvious that the solution to the
conflict was not going to be solved neither by terrorist attacks nor by armed
intervention of the British forces. According to Cynthia H. Enloe, in 1976 the number of
people killed in a direct connection with the conflict reached three thousand. (ENLOE,
1978, 253-254) Majority of the people of Ulster became tired of the conflict, but at the
same time no one was willing to make any compromises. As Seán Duffy explains, the
Protestants still wanted to stay as part of Great Britain and the Catholics demanded
national unification of Ulster with the Republic of Ireland by democratic and lawful
means. (DUFFY, 2000, 128) A glimmer of light emerged when the British and Irish
governments together made an effort to break the stalemate in the peace talks.
According to Adrian Guelke, in 1985 the Irish and British prime ministers signed the
Anglo-Irish Agreement aimed to end the Northern Ireland’s Troubles. (GUELKE, 1996,
532) The treaty guaranteed that there would be no change in constitutional position of
Ulster, unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Irish republic. As T. W. Moody
notes, the agreement provided Dublin with an official right to represent the interests
of the Catholic community in Ulster. (MOODY, 1996, 280) Even though the political
negotiations between Great Britain and Ireland were in progress, the IRA demanded an
immediate withdrawal of all British troops from Ulster. Jan Frank comments that the
IRA continued in carrying bomb attacks aimed against the British army which often
12
took place outside Ulster, especially in London (FRANK, 2006a, 127). A significant
contribution to the first peace talks occurred when the British and Irish prime ministers
issued a formal declaration about their willingness to reach a permanent truce. In his
article Michael Cox notes that in 1994 the loyalist and republican paramilitary
organizations declared ceasefires. (COX, 1997, 676) Unfortunately, the ceasefire
agreement did not last for long. Only two years later the IRA reneged on the ceasefire
deal. As Jan Frank notes, in February 1996 the IRA carried out a bomb attack on Canary
Wharf in London. (FRANK, 2006a, 195) The attack was considered to be a consequence
of a political stalemate between Great Britain and the Catholic community in Ulster.
According to Andrew Reynolds, immediately after the Canary Wharf bombing, Great
Britain initiated a considerable effort to maintain the uneasy truce among all
participants in the conflict. The effort eventually resulted in concluding the Good
Friday Agreement, signed in 1998 in Belfast. (REYNOLDS, 1999-2000, 6014) This peace
agreement, signed by the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and the representatives of
both communities of Ulster, gave an equal right to the Catholic people in Ulster to take
active participation in governance. The Good Friday Agreement marked a great turning
point in the development of the Northern Ireland’s crisis. As Jan Frank observes, even
though none of the participants succeeded in asserting their claims, at least they
agreed on certain compromises in political and social spheres within the counties
forming Ulster. (FRANK, 2006a, 202- 203) A glorious moment occurred when the IRA
officially declared an end of the guerrilla war against Great Britain. In his book Jan
Frank notes that the declaration in 2005 finally ended the four decades lasting period
of fear, violence and intolerance. Ellis Wasson states that 3700 people lost their lives in
direct relation with the conflict and thousands others were severely affected.
(WASSON, 2010, 366) The territorial dispute over the northern part of Ireland lasted
almost one century and reached no satisfactory solution. The Republic of Ireland and
the Catholic community in Ulster still demand national unification of Ireland, and the
Protestant community stubbornly refuses to break the strategically convenient alliance
with Great Britain. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as
it is in accordance with the majority of the citizens of Ulster.
13
4. The Importance of Religiousness
It is obvious that within the context of the conflict the issue of affiliation with a
particular religious community was of crucial importance. Throughout the Irish history
the people of Ireland were influenced by the English. Especially during the English
supremacy over Ireland, several attempts to violently suppress the Irish sense of
nationhood occurred. In his book E. J. Hobsbawm says that the key features that
characterize a nation are language, common territory, common history and cultural
traits. (HOBSBAWM, 1990, 5) In order to suppress the Irish sense of nationhood, the
British authorities almost succeeded in their deliberate attempt to wipe out the
original Gaelic language in Ireland. As Seán Duffy observes, from the second half of the
18th century the original Irish language was losing ground to English, which came as a
consequence of the restrictions imposed by the British rule. (DUFFY, 2000, 94) Even
though the spoken form of the Irish Gaelic almost disappeared, Gaelic literature
survived. Brendan Kane points out that the defeat of the original Irish language might
have meant the end of old Gaelic Ireland, but it most certainly meant the birth of an
Irish Catholic national community. (KANE, 2008, 1140) As a consequence of not being
allowed to openly identify themselves with the Irish nationality, the people of Ireland
adhered to the Catholic Church which gradually became a completely inseparable part
of the Irish nationalism. As E. J. Hobsbawm states:
Religion is an ancient and well tried method of establishing communion
through common practice and a sort of brotherhood between people
who otherwise have nothing much in common. […] The Irish only came
to be identified with Catholicism when they failed, or perhaps refused,
to follow the English into the Reformation, and massive colonization of
part of their country by Protestant settlers who took away their best
land was not likely to convert them. (HOBSBAWM, 1990, 68-69)
The religious affiliation to Roman Catholicism provided the Irish with a glow of
satisfaction and gave them a strong sense of unity. As L. F. McCaffrey observes, in
contradiction with the Catholic Church and its members, the values and beliefs of
Protestantism often did not correspond with faith of the members of the Protestant
14
Church in Ulster. (MCCAFFREY, 1973, 532) Within the context of being a sizeable
minority, the newcomers identified themselves with Protestantism as a means of
expressing their ethnic affiliation.
When the first Protestants immigrated to the northern part of Ireland, they
found themselves in a position of potential enemies of the local Catholic community.
According to Jan Frank, the newcomers were sent to Ireland in order to represent
English interests; therefore, it was absolutely impossible for them to assimilate to the
Catholic social environment. (FRANK, 2006a, 207) Since the local Catholic community
had already been unified, the newcomers had no other option but to adhere closely to
their own religious denomination, which was represented by the Protestant Church.
From the very beginning the Protestants were forbidden to mix with the Catholic
community. This regulation eventually resulted in rigid division of Northern Ireland’s
cities into individual districts according to religious persuasion of their inhabitants.
According to Ganiel and Dixon, both Catholic and Protestant churches significantly
contributed to creating boundaries between the people of Ulster through preaching
endogamy which later became a distinctive feature depicting the strained relationship
between both communities. (GANIEL, DIXON, 2008, 424) Although the Northern
Ireland’s Troubles were officially labelled as a religious conflict, it had almost nothing
to do with the real essence of believing in God and following the moral principles of
Christianity. Within the context of Northern Ireland’s conflict, the questionable issue of
religiousness takes the form of ethnic affiliation reflecting the cardinal importance of
differentiating between the Catholic and Protestant communities.
15
5. In the Name of the Father
As a native of Ireland, Jim Sheridan in his films addresses problems typical of
contemporary Irish history. Rob Edelman in his article describes Jim Sheridan’s films as
an intriguing mixture of mainstream genre film-making and a simultaneous urge to
shatter these forms by sub textual examination of specifically Irish social and political
issues. (EDELMAN in PENDERGAST, 2000, 919) Jim Sheridan’s scenarios, based on reallife stories as well as fiction, are humanistic and politically committed. According to
Rob Edelman, the characters in Sheridan’s films are usually working class people
determined to surmount seemingly insurmountable obstacles. They are ordinary souls
in extraordinary situations. (EDELMAN in PENDERGAST, 2000, 919) As a writer and
director, Jim Sheridan became known for his screen debut My Left Foot in which he
tells the autobiographical story of Christie Brown, an Irish artist born with cerebral
palsy. After the success of his first film, Sheridan’s increased interest in social and
political issues resulted in making several films dealing with injustice, violence and
feudal class distinction. Since releasing his 1990 film The Field, a story of an ordinary
Irish peasant fighting against injustice by the upper class, Sheridan became a leading
figure in Irish film industry. In his later work Sheridan shifted his focus on Northern
Ireland’s conflict. His films In the Name of the Father and Some Mother’s Son are a
vivid description of Great Britain’s way of dealing with terrorism. Both of these films
are based on real-life stories of ordinary working-class Irish men serving their prison
time in British jails. The 1993 film In the Name of the Father is an adaptation of Gerry
Conlon’s biographical book Proved Innocent: The Story of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford
Four.
The plot of In the Name of the Father revolves around a group of young people
and their family members who were falsely convicted of the Guildford pub bomb
attacks. The story begins in 1974 in Belfast, where Gerry Conlon is shown as a 21 year
old incorrigible troublemaker. Even though Gerry comes from a Catholic family, he
does not sympathize with the IRA. Furthermore, due to his minor crimes he gets into
troubles with the IRA patrols and is advised to leave for London. On the ferry to
England Gerry meets his friend Paul Hill. Gerry accepts an offer to live with a hippie
16
community where he comes across his friend Paddy Armstrong. Unfortunately, the
1970s is a period of the IRA bomb attacks in London. Being natives of Ireland, Gerry
and Paul are forced to leave the community and end up homeless in a park where they
meet Charlie Burke, an Irish senior derelict. While they are talking to Charlie Burke, the
IRA detonates two bombs in two pubs in Guildford. After the bombings, one of the
hippies denounces Gerry and Paul to the police as possible suspects. Since the British
authorities do not have any other clue, Gerry and Paul together with their friends are
arrested. After several days of coercive interrogation abuse Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill,
Paddy Armstrong and Carol Richardson sign statements in which they plead guilty to
being responsible for the bombings. Besides these four people, Gerry’s father and his
aunt’s family are accused of constructing the bombs. After the unfair trial based on
unsubstantiated accusations, all eleven defendants are found guilty and receive long
sentences. However, Giuseppe does not fall into despair and is determined to fight for
an appeal. Gerry is disgusted by the British legal system and refuses to take
participation in Giuseppe’s effort to exonerate their names. Several months later, the
British police arrest Joe McAndrew, the real instigator of the bombings. While he is
being interrogated, he pleads guilty to the Guildford bombings. The British authorities
would have to openly admit their culpability and therefore turn a deaf ear to
McAndrew’s testimony. McAndrew is sentenced to life imprisonment and is sent to
the same facility as Gerry. When they meet up, McAndrew tells Gerry about his having
committed the bombings. Gareth Peirce, a lawyer and human rights fighter who has
been investigating the Conlons’ case, is willing to help Giuseppe with his campaign.
Gerry eventually changes his mind and joins his father in his fight. However, in January
1980 Giuseppe Conlon dies. As a lawyer, Gareth Pierce obtains permission to see
Giuseppe Conlon’s official documents, but by a lucky accident gets access to Gerry
Conlon’s case file. Among these documents she finds a file titled ‘NOT TO BE SHOWN
TO THE DEFENCE’ collated by the same detectives who conducted the interrogations in
1974. This file contains documents proving the Guildford Four innocent. Gareth Pierce
reopens the case and shows this new evidence. After fifteen years of imprisonment
the Guilford Four are completely vindicated and leave the court as free men.
17
Belfast was the centre of the sectarian conflict between the Catholic and
Protestant citizens. Especially in the 1970s the city witnessed some of the worst of the
troubles. Besides the Ulster Police Force and the British army, on both sides there
were illegal paramilitary organisations representing political and social interests of the
two disunited communities. As Cynthia Enloe explains, the policy planers in London,
who ruled Ulster since 1972, heavily relied on the police and military force. However,
Ulster citizens were not convinced that such institution could insure their safety and
therefore created, or strongly supported, unofficial armed communal organisations.
(ENLOE, 1978, 244) The Irish Republican Army, representing the Catholics’ interests,
also functioned as an order controlling authority in the Catholic community. The IRA
would not be able to conduct its guerrilla activities without the help of the locals. In
The Handbook for Volunteers of the Irish Republican Army the republican leaders
clearly describe the attitude towards ordinary citizens as they state:
Successful guerrilla operations involve the people. It is the quality of
their resistance to the enemy and support for the guerrillas which in the
end will be the decisive factor. A guerrilla force will be unable to operate
in an area where the people are hostile to its aims. It must be
remembered that it is the people who will bear the brunt of the
enemy’s retaliatory measures. (The Handbook for Volunteers of the Irish
Republican Army, 1996, 16)
From this description it is obvious that the IRA needed people’s support in
order to carry out its activities. The IRA used various methods for punishment imposed
on their enemies as well as those members of the Catholic community who committed
crimes against their fellow citizens or the IRA ideology. In his book Timothy Shanahan
says that some of the most commonly used punishments were ‘knee-capping’, which
was firing bullets at point-blank range through the back of one’s knees; and
‘crucifixions’, which meant shattering either both elbows or knees with a
sledgehammer. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 136) In the film Gerry Conlon robes houses in the
neighbourhood and steals scrap metal. He has already been given three warnings by
the IRA. When he and his friends are stealing lead from a roof, the British soldiers
18
mistake him for a terrorist sniper and chase him. Consequently, the people spark a riot
in order to make it more difficult for the British patrols to catch them and for the IRA
to buy some time to hide their weapons. During the riot people openly express their
strongly negative attitude to the Brits and when the patrols pass by, people throw
stones and firebombs at them. Gerry and his friends manage to escape the British
soldiers, but are captured by the IRA men who want to punish them for endangering
their guerrilla interests and stealing from their fellow citizens. They are well-known
troublemakers and their causing the riot is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The
people in the neighbourhood expect the IRA to serve justice and while Gerry is being
searched, an elder woman urges the IRA men: “Shoot the bastards! They are always
robbing our houses!” (In the Name of the Father, 1993, 8:00 – 8:13) The guerrillas are
about to knee-cap the three trouble-makers. One of them pulls out a handgun and
points it directly at Gerry’s knee.
THE IRA MAN: This is what I’m gonna give you. Now get your trousers
down. You just ran into the house where we had all that gear and
we almost lost it.
GERRY: I was trying to get away from the Brits!
THE IRA MAN: Cause you were stealing lead again, weren’t you? Get the
strides down now!
GERRY: Why?
THE IRA MAN: Cause you’ll get cloth in the wound and lose your leg,
that’s why.
(1993, 8:42 – 8:50)
Luckily, Gerry’s father Giuseppe comes in time and prevents the guerrillas from
maiming his son. This scene vividly depicts Belfast as a warzone with its own unwritten
rules where the official order-controlling British authorities are seen as the worst and
most dangerous enemy and where law and order is enforced by paramilitary terrorist
organisations. After this incident, Giuseppe realises that Gerry cannot stay in Belfast
any longer and sends him to London.
19
For several reasons Britain was a favourite destination for Irish emigrants. Great
Britain is Ireland’s nearest neighbour and the Irish, unlike other immigrants, did not
have to learn a new language or adjust to foreign culture. As Enda Delaney states,
emigration of the Irish to the British Isles has a centuries-old tradition. Between the
Act of Union (1800) and the foundation of the independent Irish state (1921-2) more
than eight million people emigrated from Ireland to Britain. (DELANEY, 2007, 11) Since
the Irish were white, spoke English and usually came to Britain for a short period of
time, there were no restrictions on entry imposed on the Irish citizens. Enda Delaney
also observes that since the mid-nineteenth century emigration from Ireland was such
a common thing that growing up in Ireland meant preparing oneself to leave it.
(DELANEY, 2007, 12)
Therefore, when Giuseppe makes the decision about sending
Gerry abroad, without much thinking he chooses London and Gerry readily accepts his
father’s verdict. After his arrival in London, instead of living in his aunt’s apartment,
Gerry accepts an offer to live with a community of English hippies where he comes
across his friend from Belfast, Paddy Armstrong. Even in the hippie community which is
supposed to be based on the principle of equality, there are some members who
despise Gerry and Paul for being natives of Ireland. Though Gerry and Paul were born
in Belfast, which makes them British citizens, they are accepted but being looked down
upon.
For some time they all eke out living, enjoy free love and take drugs. This is
exactly what Gerry was looking forward to - not being restricted by his father and the
morals of the Catholic Church. According to Enda Delaney, young Irish citizens living in
England were often tempted not to maintain the morals of their respectable Catholic
country. In Ireland this issue was perceived as a serious problem and such people were
called ‘leakage’, which meant Catholics who failed to maintain strict Irish norms of
religious observance in England. (DELANEY, 2007, 37) In the film, the Conlons are
shown as a profoundly religious Catholic family. When Gerry calls his father from
London, the first question Giuseppe asks is: “You still going to mass?” and Gerry lies
through his teeth when he says:”Aye, every Sunday. Like clockwork.” (1993, 19:40 –
19:55)
20
During the 1960s Great Britain faced massive Caribbean and Asian immigration.
In comparison with other immigrants, the Irish attracted only little attention. Until the
beginning of the 1970s the Irish in England, though usually perceived as a cheap labour
force, were largely accepted. However, as Enda Delaney points out, this degree of
acceptance had always been fairly fragile and in the early 1970s the IRA bombings in
London reinvigorated long-standing enmities and prejudices towards the Irish.
(DELANEY, 2007, 2) The change of attitude towards the natives of Ireland is shown in
the film when shortly after the bombings Gerry and Paul come to the hippie house and
have a loud altercation with Jim, an English member of the commune.
JIM: There they are. It’s the Irish, bringing all their troubles over here
again.
PAUL: Aye, it’s all right when it happens over in Belfast, you fucking
prick! I’ve seen people killed in front of my fucking eyes!
JIM: Go home! Fuck you!
GERRY: I don’t fucking believe this. I’m getting out of here.
(1993, 20:48 – 21:13)
After this dispute, Gerry and Paul decide to leave the community and end up
homeless on a bench in a park. There they meet Charlie Burke, an old derelict who also
happens to be of Irish origin. The scene on the bench shows three Irish men refused by
English society.
In connection with the Troubles directly affecting England, the British
parliament adopted a package of measures for dealing with possible suspects.
According to Birthe Jorgensen, some of the measures were interment without trial,
which allowed condemning anybody to imprisonment on the basis of a signed
confession – no evidence needed, and Prevention of Terrorism Acts, which allowed
holding the accused in custody for seven days without being charged. (JORGENSEN,
1982, 117) The combination of these two measures provided the British authorities
with a tremendous opportunity to solve cases quickly, but not effectively. The British
authorities gradually became known for their brutal methods of treating suspects.
21
In order to make the accused confess, in many cases the investigators used
inadequate and humiliating methods, such as psychological pressure, insults and
physical violence. The 1970s was a period of time when the IRA was attacking military
and civilian targets in England. As Timothy Shanahan explains, since the IRA bombing
campaign deeply struck the British people’s sense of security, the investigators were
under such political and social pressure that in many clueless cases they arrested
people who were apparently innocent and made them confess by heavy usage of third
degree interrogations. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 173) In their book Huff and Killias state that
the chances of forced confession are increased when there is great public pressure to
solve a crime. Such method is described as ‘innocent until proven guilty’. (HUFF,
KILLIAS, 2010, 21) In the film the police officers receive a tip-off about the possible
instigators. Since the investigators do not have any other clue, they regard this
information as a sufficient reason to arrest Paul Hill and Gerry Conlon. As Marc
Mulholland states, besides various forms of physical abuse, many internees were
subjected to psychological torture including hooding, exposure to continuous and loud
noises, sleep deprivation, severely restricted portions of food and drink, and enforced
standing against a wall. (MULHOLLAND, 2002, 96-97) These techniques, in combination
with other methods, had an impressive track record. The British officers were not
unfamiliar with the methods of physical and psychological abuse used for gaining
confessions. Timothy Shanahan points out that these methods had been found
effective in previous British colonial operations. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 179)
Since the investigators were given seven days to ‘work’ with the accused,
almost all of them eventually confessed. However, in the Guildford Four case –
involving Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill, Paddy Armstrong and Carol Richardson – the
investigators had to use more forcible methods. As it is shown in the film, before the
interrogation begins two detectives are seated opposite Gerry and silently stare at him
until he gets nervous. When he breaks the silence and says that he does not know why
he is being held in custody, the two show him pictures of the dead people killed in the
Guildford pub and ask, whether he is proud of the bombings. As the interrogation
proceeds, Gerry is being shouted at and punched. The detectives are obviously not
22
interested in who did it, but want to make Gerry and the others confess that they did
it. However, such methods do not seem to work and the chief inspector points out that
the accused are getting used to the procedures and after seven days they would have
to be released. Therefore, more brutal methods are used. After several days of beating
and insults, they eventually find Gerry’s weak point - his family. During the
interrogation one of the detectives leans over and makes a threat to kill his father. This
threat brings Gerry to the brink of a nervous breakdown and when he is signing the
statement he says in tears: “Right, that’s my fucking name there. You can write what
you like.” (1993, 40:00 - 40:10) Because Paul and Gerry know that they are innocent
and there is no corroborating evidence, they think that their signed confessions will be
of no importance in the trial. When they are being escorted back to their cells, they
meet in the corridor and try to communicate with each other.
GERRY: What’s going on?
PAUL: They stuck a fucking gun in my mouth, so I told them a lot of
bullshit!
GERRY: Why did you give them my fucking name?
PAUL: I’m sorry! It’s fucking mad! It’ll be laughed out of fucking court!
It’ll be laughed out of fucking court!
(1993, 40:15 – 40:31)
The four accused have solid alibis for the evening, therefore they all expect
justice to be served. However, this evidence is not presented at the trial. Despite the
fact that all the accused repudiate the confessions as having been signed under duress,
their signed statements are deemed admissible as sufficient evidence. In fact, there
was a very small chance that the court would take their report about the brutal means
of interrogating seriously. In 1971 several victims of interment protested against the
inhuman treating and third degree methods of interrogation. An internal investigation
was carried out with the conclusion:
We consider that brutality is an inhuman or savage form of cruelty, and
that cruelty implies a disposition to inflict suffering, coupled with
indifference to, or pleasure in, the victim’s pain. [...] So long as it is
supposed that those applying the five techniques did not expressly
enjoyed doing so, application of these techniques did not constitute
brutality, much less torture. (BROWNLIE in SHANAHAN, 2009, 179)
23
In other words, the kind of treatment Gerry and other suspects received was
considered to be appropriate to the crimes they were accused of. However, in public
these methods were always denied. In the film, Inspector Dixon, the man in charge of
the investigations, is questioned by the defence to explain the police brutality.
THE DEFENDER: All of the defendants claim that they were subjected to
physical and mental abuse while in police custody.
DIXON: They were never harmed in any way.
THE DEFENDER: Mr. Conlon says that you pulled him by hair and
squeezed his testicles.
DIXON: I never even spoke to Mr. Conlon.
THE DEFENDER: Mr. Hill says that you sat astride him and put a gun in
his mouth.
DIXON: There was no pressure of any kind.
(1993, 52: 35 - 53:32)
As Gordon Gillespie points out, since the authorities were confronted with
allegations of ill-treatment, the investigators denied any form of torture, but admitted
‘in-depth’ interrogation, which was considered appropriate to dealing with terrorism.
(GILLESPIE, 2002, 61) As it is shown in the film, the detectives are very well aware of
the fact, that the British legal system would acknowledge signed confessions to be
deemed admissible, therefore no evidence of any other kind is needed.
THE DEFENDER: Inspector, in the case of the four main defendants you
have no corroborating evidence of any kind.
DIXON: I have the confessions of four obvious terrorists. What more do
you want?
(1993, 53:36 – 54:05)
Eventually, the jury is persuaded by the prosecution. It is believed that the
decorated police officers would not risk their career and reputation by treating
suspects forcibly, or making threats. The Guildford Four are sentenced to life
imprisonment and the Maguire Seven receive long sentences. As Timothy Shanahan
observes, shortly after the verdicts were announced, Chief Constable Peter Matthews,
who led the investigations, made an official statement announcing that the authorities
were highly delighted with the verdicts. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 176)
24
Due to the centuries-long tradition of the Irish population to immigrate to
Britain, the Irish were considered to be the oldest minority to be found in British
prisons. However, there were significant differences in the perception of the Irish
prisoners before and after the beginning of the Troubles. As John Borland observes,
according to the traditional English music-hall stereotyping, the natives of Ireland in
British prisons were perceived as stupid, drunk and violent Catholics. (BORLAND et.al.,
1995, 387) In the 1970s after the IRA’s bomb attacks in England, being Irish began to
be directly associated with terrorism and meant higher security restrictions. John
Borland points out that the Irish prisoners were more often visited and enjoyed closer
family relationships, but experienced greater supervision and control measures than
non-Irish prisoners. (BORLAND et.al., 1995, 371) In the British prison system the
detainees were distinguished according to their crimes into two main groups, political
and ordinary decent prisoners. Political prisoners - terrorists and those, whom the
British criminal justice had mistaken for terrorist - were held in category A blocks,
which were the highest security facilities for those who were convicted for the most
serious offences. During the Troubles, the Irish serving their sentences in British
prisons had vastly inferior status and very often became victims of deep-rooted
prejudices and bitter hatred. As it is shown in the film, after the interrogation when
Gerry is being taken to his cell, other detainees shout at him and his escort:”Kill that
fucker! You fucking son of an Irish cow! Kick that Irish fucking ass!” (1993, 40:31 41:00)
In the film the differentiation between ordinary decent prisoners and political
prisoners is shown when Gerry and Giuseppe are being admitted to the prison. There
they are given blue denim uniforms with yellow stripes. Gerry explains that the colours
signify that they are in the highest-security class along with rapists and murderers.
Prisoners serving sentences for terrorism were placed at the bottom of the prison
hierarchy. The combination of both being an Irish and convicted terrorist in British
prison society gave the convicts a pariah status. As it is shown in the film, Gerry and
Giuseppe are not allowed to dine in the prison canteen with other convicts and cannot
25
go out in the yard to exercise. They are accepted only by coloured minorities who have
the same status as the Irish.
Since the British authorities strongly suspected all the Irish of terrorism, the
Irish prisoners were under constant supervision. According to John Borland, the prison
officers were instructed to intensively supervise the Irish prisoners and to keep books
in which all their activities and movements around the prison were recorded on a daily
basis. (BORLAND et.al., 1995, 379) The Irish were searched more often and were
subject to regular cell changes. The anti-Irish restrictions were not applied only on the
prisoners, but also on their family members during their visits. Visitors had to have a
clear criminal record and before they were allowed to enter the visit room, they had
been carefully searched. As John Borland points out, the visits took place in a special
high-risk room and at least five police officers were always present. During the visits
their conversation was recorded and any kind of physical contact was strictly
forbidden. Many visitors complained about the prison staff behaviour. It was often
reported that the guards treated the visitors as if they were terrorists. (BORLAND
et.al., 1995, 379) In the film when Giuseppe’s wife comes to visit her husband and son,
she is ushered to her chair. There are three police officers standing behind her and
three behind Gerry and Giuseppe. One stands aside and records their conversation.
When she wants to touch her husband’s hand, one of the police officers sharply
says:”No touching!” She objects that everybody else was allowed to touch and the
officer’s respond is:”The IRA, closed visits. No contact.” (1993, 46:20 – 46:35)
The Irish prisoners enjoyed frequent family visits from Ireland. Besides making
long and expensive journeys, the visitors had to overcome many other obstacles
related to visiting terrorist convicts. Very often the visitors arrived at the prison and
found out that their relative had been moved to another jail. As John Borland explains,
in order to make it impossible for the Irish terrorists to get used to particular prison
and make friends with other Irish prisoners, category A prisoners were transferred
more often than any other prisoners. In the case of one of the Guildford Four there
were 49 transfers during his imprisonment. (BORLAND et.al., 1995, 385) Besides an
attempt to cut off any contact with other members of the Irish brotherhood, another
26
reason for frequent transfers of Irish Republican prisoners was that the authorities
believed to have reason to be suspicious of possible conspiracy. As Lachlan Whalen
explains, such individuation was part of prison authorities’ counterinsurgency strategy
to break individual resistance to the system trough the despair of isolation. (WHALEN,
2007, 173) In the film when Gareth Pierce, Gerry’s lawyer, works on his testimony for
the court of appeal, Gerry is transferred to Scotland to make it impossible for Gareth
to keep in touch with her client. By the end of the 1970s the perception of the Irish
political prisoners in British prisons gradually changed. As John Borland explains, in the
early days of the Troubles it was difficult for the Irish to break out of their initially
ascribed position. Over the decade of imprisonment, some of the prisoners started to
appreciate how the Irish handled themselves and increased doubts were raised about
the validity of some convictions. (BORLAND et.al., 1995, 378) In the film, when Joe
McAndrew, an IRA leader and the real instigator of the Guildford bombings, is put in
the Park Royal Prison, he immediately allies with Gerry. With Joe McAndrew’s arrival
the IRA begins to be seriously interested in the security of its people in the prison,
including other Irish prisoners. As James Dingley explains, life in the prison mini-society
was to certain extent ruled from outside the prison walls. The staff and chosen
prisoners were threatened by members of terrorist organizations in order to secure
services from prisoners or privileges from staff. (DINGLEY, 2009, 239) The IRA terrorists
and ordinary Irish prisoners were ostracised and physically abused by other prisoners,
therefore they used every possible means of securing their own safety. In the film Joe
McAndrew comes to talk to Ronnie Smalls, the most respected English prisoner, to
negotiate the conditions of surviving in the prison.
MCANDREW: Mr. Smalls, can I have a word about 54 Halsley Road?
SMALLS: (to his friends) Take a walk.
MCANDREW: If anything happens to me or Gerry or any other Irish
prisoner, we will have 54 Halsley Road blown to
smithereens with your family in it.
SMALLS: Threaten my family and I’ll cut your fucking head off!
MCANDREW: I don’t make threats. I just carry out orders. I don’t want
to hurt your family.
SMALLS: (to his friends) Paddy is alright. (1993, 01:19:50 - 01:20:44)
27
Such methods of making threats proved to be highly effective. It was generally
known that when it came to threats, the IRA was not to be trifled with. In the film
Smalls takes the threat very seriously. After their conversation, Gerry and other Irish
prisoners are allowed to dine in the canteen and no one stops them from exercising in
the yard.
From this snatch of conversation certain patterns of behaviour based on the
prison hierarchy could be observed. According to the British criminal court, both
McAndrew and Smalls are convicted criminals serving their prison terms. From the
legal point of view, no distinctions are made. However, the prisoners see them from a
totally different angle. McAndrew is a native of Ireland and Smalls is an Englishman.
When McAndrew comes to have a talk, he addresses him “Mr. Smalls”. Smalls, very
well aware of McAndrew’s full name, calls him “Paddy”. According to John Borland, to
refer to the Irish as ‘Micks’ or ‘Paddys’ is a traditional English stereotype of perceiving
the Irish as stupid Catholics and a means of humiliating them. (BORLAND et.al., 1995,
387) The IRA members continued with their fight against the British authorities even in
prisons. James Dingley says that the prison officers were regarded as an appropriate
target for the IRA and many English prison officers received death treat. A common
practice was placing bombs under prison governors’ cars. (DINGLEY, 2009, 238-239)
This bitterly hostile attitude towards the prison guards is shown in the film when Joe
McAndrew organises an attack on the chief officer and during a movie projection sets
the guard alight by an improvised blowtorch. Since Gerry is no terrorist and does not
identify himself with the IRA ideology, he saves the officer’s life by smothering the fire
with a blanket.
28
6. In the Name of Injustice
The Guildford Four was not the only case in which innocent people were
intentionally sentenced to imprisonment. Besides the Four, there were the
Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven. According to Huff and Killias, the Maguire
Seven, including Gerry’s father Giuseppe and their family friend, were accused of being
the IRA’s support network. They were charged with the possession of explosives and
constructing bombs for the IRA. (HUFF, KILLIAS, 2010, 188) In this case the
investigators followed the same pattern of making the suspects confess as in the
Guildford Four case. As Huff and Killias point out, in the Maguire Seven case the
convictions were obtained mainly on the basis of forensic tests that showed traces of
nitro-glycerine. In 1990 in the Court of Appeal, it was revealed that third parties had
intentionally left traces in the house. (HUFF, KILLIAS, 2010, 189) The Maguire Seven
were all found guilty and received long sentences. Patrick Maguire, the youngest
member of the family, was 14 years old when the jury found him guilty and was sent to
jail. As Gordon Gillespie states, the Birmingham Six was a very similar case to the
Guildford Four. Six innocent men who were forced to sign confessions to bombings
they did not commit. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and after sixteen
years of serving their prison terms all of them were vindicated. (GILLESPIE, 2008, 151152) By remarkable coincidence, the Guildford Four (except Carol Richardson) and the
Birmingham Six were all Belfast-born Roman Catholics. Even though in Ulster each
community had its own paramilitary organisation representing interests of its
supporters, the official order-keeping authorities were mainly focused on the
Catholics. As Marc Mulholland observes, 1971-75 was a period of time during which
1981 people were detained; 1874 were Catholic/Republican, while 107 were
Protestant/Loyalist. (MULHOLLAND, 2002, 97) According to these figures it might seem
that the authorities in Ulster were biased in favour of the Protestant majority.
In all three cases the British judicial system heavily relied on the signed
confessions, detectives’ testimony and insufficient forensic evidence. In his book James
Dingley explains that there was less scepticism about the police in the 1970s than
today. He also points out that there was more uncritical acceptance of forensic
29
evidence and it was a common judicial practice to treat intelligence evidence as
definitive. (DINGLEY, 2009, 168)
It is obvious that the British authorities convicted
innocent people because of their desire to appear tough on fighting terrorists and to
demonstrate effectiveness of their methods. As Timothy Shanahan explains, the
Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cases suggested that in the dilemma between
maintaining security and protecting rights, the former took priority to such an extent
that the latter was often entirely disregarded. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 177) As it is shown in
the film, all the defendants passionately proclaim their innocence in front of the jury
and refuse to admit their guilt. In their book on wrongful convictions Huff and Killias
state that in a number of similar cases the defendants suffered the so-called trial
penalty, in which the accused were sentenced more harshly because they were viewed
as refusing to take responsibility through a plea of guilty. (HUFF, KILLIAS, 2010, 21) In
the film, the Guildford Four are charged with murders. When the judge makes his final
judicial decision and sentences the four to life imprisonment, he also expresses his
personal regret that they were not accused of more serious crimes, which would have
meant capital punishment.
THE JUDGE: I feel it is my duty to wonder aloud why you were not
charged with treason to the Crown, a charge that carries a
penalty of death by hanging – a sentence I would have had
no difficulty in passing in this case. I sentence you to life
imprisonment and I instruct that you shall serve a
minimum of thirty years.
(1993, 1:02:05 – 1:02:58)
If the investigators really wanted them to be charged with treason, all they
would have to do was let the accused sign a statement confessing to treason to the
Crown. In the trial when Gerry is asked to explain the reason for his confession to the
Guildford bombing, he answers: “They beat me and then they threatened to kill my
father. They terrorized me for seven days. After that, they threatened to kill my father.
I’d have fucking signed anything after that.” (1993, 54:40 – 55:10) As Graham Gillespie
points out, besides the Guildford bombings, Gerry and Paul were also convicted for the
Woolwich bombing in 1974. (GILLESPIE, 2008, 116) In the film, the police arrest and
30
interrogate Joe McAndrew, who openly confesses to the bombings. Even though he
points out that there are innocent people in prison for something they did not commit,
the police turn a deaf ear to his testimony. As Huff and Killias observe, in the case of
the Guildford Four there was an appeal in 1977. Despite the fact that other IRA
defendants awaiting trial had by then claimed responsibility, the appeal against the
Fours’ conviction failed. (HUFF, KILLIAS, 2010, 188) The three cases were highly
publicised and from the very beginning it was very much doubted, whether the
convicts were the real terrorists. In response to the raised doubts, in 1975 Baron
Gardiner published a report in which he rationalises the possible acceptance of the risk
of such miscarriages of justice.
When times are relatively normal, the needs of an ordered society may
be met by the criminal courts functioning with a high regard for the
Common law’s presumption of innocence and a strict observance of the
rules of evidence and the standards of proof. But when normal
conditions give way to disorder and lawlessness, with extensive
terrorism causing widespread loss of life and limb and the wholesale
destruction of property [...] the very safeguard of law then become the
means by which it may be circumvented.
(O’BOYLE in SHANAHAN, 2009, 177)
In the film the time for justice to be finally served comes, when Gerry’s lawyer,
Gareth Pierce, by lucky coincidence gets access to his police file and obtains the
particular piece of evidence which was kept from the defence and which proves the
Guildford Fours’ innocence. A further appeal is made on the basis of this new
evidence. In the appeal case it is concluded that the police officers manipulated the
evidence in order to incriminate the four. When Gerry walks out of the courtroom as a
vindicated man, in front of the crowd he makes his final speech.
GERRY: I’m an innocent man! I spent fifteen years in prison for
something I didn’t do! I watched my father die in a British prison
for something he didn’t do! And this government still says he’s
guilty. I want to tell them that until my father is proved innocent,
until all the people involved in this case are proved innocent, until
the guilty ones are brought to justice, I will fight on in the name of
the father and of the truth! (1993, 2:01:20 – 2:02:00)
31
However, Gerry’s wishes were not fulfilled. Although the Maguire family and
Giuseppe Conlon were eventually vindicated, those directly responsible for the
unlawful imprisonment of innocent people were never punished. As Timothy
Shanahan concludes, although three ex-detectives were charged with crimes in
connection with the Guildford Four and the Woolwich bombing interrogations and
prosecution, each was acquitted of any wrongdoing. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 174) Despite
the fact that Joe McAndrew openly confessed to the explosions, the British authorities
never brought any other charges in the Guildford case.
32
7. Jim Sheridan’s Version
Even though the film is based on a book describing real events, it is of great
importance to bear in mind that in his biography Gerry Conlon recounts his subjective
experience and the film reflects Jim Sheridan’s personal interpretation of the book. As
a matter of fact, Jim Sheridan’s film adaptation contains several historical inaccuracies.
Most of them occur in the part of the film dealing with imprisonment, which forms a
significant part of the story. In the film, Gerry and Giuseppe are shown as cellmates.
Sheridan puts a considerable emphasis on strengthening the father-son relationship by
showing them as one-cell inmates. However, as Timothy Shanahan points out, even
though Gerry and Giuseppe served some of their prison time in the same jailhouse,
never did they share the same cell. (SHANAHAN, 2009, 175) Another fact worth
mentioning is the way of portraying the main characters; namely Gerry, Giuseppe and
Joe McAndrew. According to Lachlan Whalen, Sheridan in his film intentionally uses
sharply polarized Christian signifiers. On the one hand, the director depicts Giuseppe
as the moral centre of the film and together with Gerry they are given a status of holy
martyrs. On the other hand, Sheridan demonizes Joe McAndrew, who is shown as a
cold-blooded killer and psychopathic anti-Christ. (WHALEN, 2007, 172) Indeed, there
are no flaws in Giuseppe’s character to be spotted. He is a loving husband and father
and deeply religious believer, who reads the Bible and behaves accordingly. Despite
the fact that he is a victim of grave injustice, he remains patient, pacifist and in the
hostile prison environment even develops a friendly relationship with the chief officer.
Gerry, even though also having a status of a martyr, is not such a flawless character. At
the beginning of the film, he describes himself as a petty thief with a long criminal
record. He commits a robbery, takes drugs, enjoys free love and does not maintain
strict norms of religious observance. When Joe McAndrew appears in the film, Gerry
immediately allies with him and is to certain extent influenced by him. On the contrary,
due to his strong Christian morals, Giuseppe categorically refuses to accept
McAndrew’s apology and explanation. When McAndrew comes to Giuseppe to tell him
that he is the real instigator of the Guildford bombing, Giuseppe remains cold and
33
distant. In this part Sheridan creates a scene in which Giuseppe’s morals stand in a
sharp contrast to McAndrew’s political ideology.
MCANDREW: It’s a war. You are one of its innocent victims. I’m sorry
for your trouble.
GIUSEPPE: Don’t be sorry for us. You should be sorry for the people you
killed.
MCANDREW: It was a military target, a soldiers’ pub.
GIUSEPPE: They were innocent people, God’s children.
(1993, 1:17:10 – 1:18:00)
Lachlan Whalen points out that in the film Sheridan presents Giuseppe as a
Christ-figure. (WHALEN, 2007, 179) Undeniably, in Sheridan’s adaptation certain
similarities between Giuseppe and the awaited Christian messiah exist. Same as the
Son of God, Giuseppe is innocent, receives an unfair trial and suffers harsh
punishment. Even though Giuseppe is not crucified, the prison environment ruins his
fragile health and he eventually passes away. Giuseppe dies innocent with the blame
for other people’s sins. For Giuseppe’s death Sheridan indirectly blames the British
authorities, when one of the Afro-Caribbean inmates shouts out of his
window:”Giuseppe is dead, man! They killed Giuseppe!” (1993, 1:44:01 – 1:44:18)
Quite the opposite of Giuseppe’s personal qualities is the portrayal of such an evil
character as Joe McAndrew is. In his book Lachlan Whalen openly questions the
credibility of Sheridan’s depiction of McAndrew’s behaviour. Lachlan Whalen states
that through McAndrew’s character Sheridan attempts to create a Mafioso type of
godfather with a pathological need for bloodshed, rather than a guerrilla fighter.
(WHALEN, 2007, 178) Whalen also points out particular scenes in which McAndrew’s
violent behaviour is grossly exaggerated. The most shocking scene in the film is the
moment when during a film screening McAdrew sets the chief prison officer on fire by
an improvised blowtorch. It is the same officer whom Giuseppe has befriended. Gerry
is the only prisoner who helps to put the fire out, while McAndrew stands aside, his
face wearing a cold expression. Sheridan puts a considerable emphasis on this
incident. As it is mentioned in the film, the officer remained maimed for life. Gerry
bitterly denounces the attack and immediately distances himself from McAndrew.
34
This whole scene supports Lachlan Whalen’s theory that Sheridan intentionally
changes the polarity of the characters to put them in a sharp contrast to each other. As
Lachlan Whalen concludes, even though the IRA considered prison officers appropriate
targets, the brutal attack so powerfully depicted in the film never actually occurred.
(WHALEN, 2007, 182) The reason for pointing out these inaccuracies is to highlight the
fact that even though the film depicts real stories and events, it is of great importance
to remember that in the film Sheridan puts forward his subjective point of view, his
version. Indisputably, the film shows a remarkable insight into the lives of ordinary
Irish people affected by the Troubles, but it should not be taken as a source of
unbiased information.
35
8. Conclusion
It is obvious that Northern Ireland’s conflict has its roots in the imperial
ambitions of the British Empire to assert direct control over Ireland. In terms of
historical development, it is Great Britain who takes the blame for oppressing the
people of Ireland and an overall responsibility for formal establishment of the
Protestant Church of Ireland. Even though Great Britain occupied a dominant role in
the conflict, it was the independent Protestant community that made the crucial
decision and categorically refused to become a part of the Irish Free State. Their
intense fear of being a minority in a Catholic-governed state gave rise to their stubborn
determination to remain an indivisible part of the United Kingdom, which later
resulted in the Troubles. The strong adherence to Catholicism of the Irish population
came as a consequence of Great Britain’s restrictive policies implemented in Ireland
over the period between the 16th and 19th century. Since the Irish sense of nationality
had been suppressed, the Irish adhered to Catholicism as a means of expressing their
national unity. After the arrival of the immigrants from Scotland and England, the
newcomers had no other option but to adhere to Protestantism as a means of
expressing their ethnic affiliation. Later in the 1920s, these ethnic differences proved
to be the most insurmountable obstacle in the processes of forming the Irish Free
State and the same problem gave rise to the Troubles. After three decades of the
ethno-political conflict, the participants came to the conclusion that the only way to
solve the problem was to tolerate each other. Although the lengthy territorial dispute
over the unification of Ireland was officially ended by the ceasefire agreement, none of
the participants succeeded in asserting their claims. The Catholics of Ulster still
demand national unification of Ireland and the Protestants stubbornly refuse to
become a ‘religious’ minority in a Catholic-governed state. The British government
stated that Ulster will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as it is in accordance
with the majority of its citizens. This statement provides the Irish republicans with a
realistic hope that if the Catholics manage to outnumber the Protestants, Ireland will
be unified.
36
The well-publicised cases of miscarriages of justice related to the Troubles
severely damaged the credibility of the British legal system. The most alarming fact
about the cases of unjustly convicted people is that those directly responsible for their
imprisonment were very well aware of the convicts’ innocence. Obviously, the
grievous error was in the whole structure of the legal system which tolerated using
British citizens as scapegoats to cover up the inability of the authorities to fight
terrorism. Guiltless people were condemned to life imprisonment in exchange for the
officers’ desire to appear effective in dealing with terrorists. In these cases, justice has
never been served. By a curious paradox, those police officers who had brutalized the
suspects and made them sign false confessions were eventually proved innocent. By a
bitter irony, Proved Innocent is the name of Gerry Conlon’s book describing his
traumatic experience of being brutalized by the same police officers who were
eventually acquitted of any wrongdoing.
Even though the film is based on a real-life story, it is important to bear in mind
that the sequence of events is observed from a subjective point of view. Besides
recounting the story of grave injustice to guiltless people, the film offers a remarkable
insight into the British prison system and the struggle of existence between the Irish
and English prisoners and serves as an interesting sociological study on how the Irish
were perceived in England during the Troubles.
37
Resumé
Severoirský konflikt byl vyvrcholením dlouhotrvajícího sporu mezi dvěma
znesvářenými náboženskými skupinami na území Ulstru. Vzhledem k vysoké míře
násilí, nálepky sektářského konfliktu a přímé účasti Velké Británie se tomuto sporu
dostalo celosvětové pozornosti. Velkou měrou k propagování tohoto tématu přispěl
přední irský režisér Jim Sheridan, který se ve svých filmech zaměřuje zejména na
problematiku obyčejných lidí postižených severoirským konfliktem.
Tato práce se zabývá rozborem odrazu severoirského konfliktu ve filmu Jima
Sheridana In the Name of the Father. Proto, aby bylo možno porozumět celé
problematice sporu a využít tyto poznatky při rozboru výše zmíněného filmu, je
nezbytně nutné být obeznámen s kořeny celého konfliktu. Z tohoto důvodu je většina
teoretické části práce věnována historii Irska s hlavním zaměřením na období 19601990. V teoretické části je jedna kapitola věnována otázce a významu náboženství
v přímé souvislosti s prostředím Severního Irska.
Ačkoli je severoirský konflikt považován za náboženský spor, s pravou
podstatou křesťanství to téměř nijak nesouvisí. Jádro celého konfliktu spočívá ve
skutečnosti, že Irská republika a menšina Irů katolického vyznání žijící v Severním Irsku
požadují sjednocení celého ostrova. Protestanti, jež mají v severoirské populaci
majoritní zastoupení, se sjednocení zarputile brání a trvají na setrvání Ulstru v unii
s Velkou Británií. Protestanti jsou potomci anglických a skotských přistěhovalců a jejich
hlavní obavou je představa toho, že kdyby došlo ke sjednocení Ulstru s Irskou
republikou, stali by se menšinou v katolíky ovládaném státě. Vzhledem k tomu, že mezi
Irskem a Anglií vždy panovaly napjaté vztahy, severoirští protestanti jsou přesvědčeni,
že by se jako minoritní skupina ve spojeném Irsku stali oběťmi diskriminace.
Kořeny severoirského sporu sahají až do 12. století, kdy za vlády anglického
panovníka Jindřicha II. došlo ke vpádu Normanů do Irska, což uvedlo celou zemi do
několika staletí trvajícího válečného sporu mezi domorodými Iry a anglickými
dobyvateli. Irové se naděje na svobodu nikdy nevzdali a v průběhu staletí nadvlády
38
anglického trůnu nad Irskem odhodlaně bojovali za nezávislost. Počátkem 16. století se
Irové odhodlali opět zcela ovládnout ostrov. Jejich snaha ovšem byla zmařena
anglickými panovníky Jindřichem VIII. a Alžbětou I., kteří přijali protestantismus a
z důvodů posílení vlivu anglického trůnu byli do katolického Irska posíláni kolonisté a
vojáci ze Skotska a Anglie. Tito přistěhovalci se usídlili v úrodné oblasti na severu země
a přijali protestantismus jako formu etnické diferenciace vůči katolicismu. Imigrací
skotských a anglických kolonizátorů do Irska se začaly psát dějiny sporu mezi katolíky a
protestanty, který nakonec vyústil v konflikt v Severním Irsku. Roku 1798 se Irové po
vzoru Francie pokusili o povstání, které ovšem Britové rozdrtili. Začátkem 20. století
během první světové války Irové využili válečného oslabení Velké Británie a následně
roku 1919 vypukla britsko-irská válka o nezávislost. Británie si byla vědoma, že
nadvládu nad Irskem nebylo možné dlouhodobě udržovat násilím a roku 1922 byl Irsku
přidělen status dominia nazývaného Irský svobodný stát. Protestantská menšina na
severu ostrova kategoricky odmítla stát se součástí katolického státu a trvala na unii
s Velkou Británií. Irové nakonec přistoupili na britské podmínky ukončení války a Ulstr
zůstal pod politickou záštitou Spojeného království. Tímto se demografická situace
rapidně změnila ve prospěch protestantů. Protestanti, kteří v rámci celého Irska měli
do té doby pouze menšinové zastoupení, se na území Ulstru stali majoritní skupinou.
V důsledku
tohoto
poměrově
nevyrovnaného
společenského
uskupení
se
protestantům dařilo katolíky držet mimo politicky vlivné pozice, což mělo za následek
diskriminaci katolíku v oblastech zaměstnání, bydlení, hlasovacího práva a vzdělávání.
Koncem šedesátých let 20. století severoirští katolíci začali pořádat demonstrace za
práva ulsterských katolíků, na které opozice reagovala nepřátelskou a represivní
odezvou. Následně roku 1969 propukly etnické pogromy a do Ulstru byly vyslány
britské vojenské jednotky. Následovaly tři dekády politické krize, během které se obě
znesvářené strany dopustily celé řady chyb a křivd spáchaných na nevinných lidech. Na
straně unionistů to byla Irská republiková armáda, která hájila zájmy katolické
menšiny. Tato teroristická organizace nechvalně proslula bombovými útoky jak na
vojenské cíle, tak civilní obyvatelstvo na území Anglie. Bombové útoky měly být
odvetou za zásahy britských vojenských jednotek proti katolíkům v Ulstru. Nejznámější
39
z těchto incidentů byla tzv. „Krvavá neděle“ v Derry roku 1972, kdy příslušníci 1.
Britského parašutistického regimentu usmrtili zastřelením čtrnáct neozbrojených
civilistů protestujících za občanská práva.
V době bombových útoků v Anglii se britské úřady ocitly pod obrovským tlakem
veřejnosti, která se velmi hlasitě domáhala potrestání strůjců teroristických útoků.
Britská policie nebyla v potírání terorismu příliš úspěšná, a proto v celé řadě těchto
případů svoji neschopnost kryla zatýkáním nevinných lidí. Za zmínku stojí uvést
nechvalně proslulá opatření britských zákonodárců umožňující zatčení bez jakýchkoli
důkazů, zakládající se na písemném přiznání obžalovaných, rovněž i držení podezřelých
ve vazbě po dobu sedmi dnů bez sdělení obvinění. Kombinací těchto dvou opatření
spolu s neschopností vypátrat pravé teroristy policejní vyšetřovatelé v mnoha
případech zatkli prokazatelně nevinné lidi, kteří byli následně po dobu sedmi dnů
vystaveni brutálnímu psychickému a fyzickému týrání a odepírání lidských práv za
účelem podepsání přiznání ke zločinům z terorismu. Většina těchto odsouzených
dostala exemplární potrestání v podobě doživotních trestů. Právě toto je dobový
kontext, do kterého je zasazen děj analyzovaného filmu.
In the Name of the Father je filmovou adaptací knihy Gerryho Conlona Proved
Innocent, ve které autor vypráví svou životní zkušenost nevinného člověka
odsouzeného na doživotí za něco, co nespáchal. Děj příběhu je založen na skutečných
událostech a konkrétních lidech. Analytická část této práce se ve velké míře opírá o
historická
fakta
související
s tímto
konkrétním
případem
politováníhodného
selhání britské jurisdikce.
Gerry Conlon představující hlavního hrdinu politického dramatu je spolu
s dalšími obviněn z bombových útoků na restaurace v Guildfordu během kterých v roce
1974 zemřelo pět lidí. Většina filmu je podána jako Gerryho vyprávění
z magnetofonové pásky pro jeho právničku, která se zabývá nesrovnalostmi v případě
odsouzení Guildfordské čtyřky. Ve skutečnosti tyto teroristické akce měla na svědomí
IRA, která v sedmdesátých letech hojně používala bombové útoky v Anglii jako způsob
vedení politického dialogu s britskou vládou. Spolu s Gerrym jsou zatčeni a obviněni tři
40
jeho přátelé. Ačkoli jsou si policejní vyšetřovatelé plně vědomi skutečnosti, že zadržení
jsou nevinní, rozhodnou se z Gerryho a jeho přátel udělat obětní beránky. Po sedmi
dnech výslechů a za použití brutálních donucovacích metod, všichni čtyři podezřelí
podepisují přiznání k terorismu. Kromě Guildfordské čtyky policejní vyšetřovatelé
obvinují z napomáhání teroristům i Gerryho otce a jeho tetu s celou rodinou, kteří jsou
podle jejich společného rodinného příjmení označováni jako Maguirská sedmička.
Námitky ohledně vynucených přiznání nejsou v soudním procesu brány vážně a na
základě podepsaných přiznání jsou všichni odsouzeni k vysokým trestům. Po patnácti
letech ve vězení Gerryho právnička odhaluje důkaz, že celý proces byl zmanipulovaný a
policejní vyšetřovatelé si byli plně vědomi skutečnosti, že poslali do vězení nevinné lidi.
V následném odvolacím řízení jsou předešlé tresty prohlášeny za neplatné a Gerry
spolu s ostatními členy Guildfordské čtyřky odchází od soudu jako svobodní lidé.
Gerryho otec zemřel ve vězení a očištění svého jména se nedožil. Kritikou britské
jurisdikce na konci filmu je poukázání na skutečnost, že vyšetřovatelé zodpovědní za
uvězňování nevinných lidí nebyli nikdy potrestáni.
Kromě hlavní dějové linie je ve filmu poukazováno na několik dalších témat
úzce spjatých s problematikou severoirského konfliktu. Na začátku filmu je vyobrazen
Belfast jako epicentrum severoirského sporu, kde zájmy místní katolické menšiny hájí
teroristické uskupení IRA a na pořádek dohlížející britské vojenské jednotky jsou
vnímány jako úhlavní nepřítel. Většina děje se ovšem odehrává v Anglii. V anglické
společnosti měli Irové vždy velmi specifické postavení a součástí praktické části této
práce je rozbor změny postojů vůči Irům v Anglii v přímé návaznosti na severoirský
konflikt. Film také nabízí velmi zajímavý náhled do života irských vězňů v britských
věznicích. V důsledku teroristických útoků na území Anglie byli všichni Irové – včetně
ulsterských Irů s britským občanstvím – považováni za teroristy a nepřátele Británie.
Tento negativně generalizující postoj vůči Irům se nejvíce projevoval právě v britských
věznicích, kde se Irové běžně stávali oběťmi šikany a ostrakizace. Ačkoli se jedná o
příběh založený na skutečných událostech a k nerespektování lidských práv a
zmanipulovaným soudním procesům v Británii skutečně docházelo, je třeba mít na
paměti, že na sled událostí je ve filmu nahlíženo ze subjektivního úhlu pohledu.
41
Bibliography
Primary sources:
DOLAN, Anne. “Killing and Bloody Sunday, November 1920”. In: The Historical Journal,
Vol. 49, No. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 789-810.
FRANK, Jan. Konflikt v Severním Irsku. 1st Ed. Prague: Triton, 2006a, 222 p. ISBN 807254-735-6.
Handbook for Volunteers of the Irish Republican Army - Notes on Guerrilla Warfare.
Paladin Press, 1996, 33 p.
HOBSBAWM, E.J. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge: Canto, 1990, 207 p.
ISBN 0-521-43961-2.
LLOYD, David. “The Indigent Sublime: Specters of Irish Hunger”. In: Representations,
Vol. 92, No. 1, University of California Press, 2005, pp. 152-187.
MACSTIOFAIN, Seán. Revolutionary in Ireland. Edinburgh: R and R Clark, 1975, 372 p.
ISBN 0-86033-031-1.
SHANAHAN, Timothy. The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of
Terrorism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2009, 245 p. ISBN 978-0-74863529-0.
42
Secondary sources:
BORLAND, John., KING, Roy D., MCDERMOTT, Kathleen. “The Irish in Prison: A Tighter
Nick for ‘the Micks’?”. In: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 3, London:
Wiley-Blackwell, 1995, pp. 371-394.
COX, Michael. “Bringing in the International: The IRA Ceasefire and the End of the Cold
War”. In: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4, London: Wiley, 1997,
pp. 671-693.
DELANEY, Enda. The Irish in Post-War Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007,
232 p. ISBN 978-0-19-927667-7.
DINGLEY, James. Combating Terrorism in Northern Ireland. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009,
321 p. ISBN 0-203-89087-6.
DOHERTY, Paul., POOLE, Michael A. “Ethnic Residential Segregation in Belfast,
Northern Ireland, 1971 -1991”. In: Geographical Review, Vol. 87, No. 4, American
Geographical Society, 1997, pp. 520-536.
DUFFY, Seán. Atlas of Irish History. 2nd Ed. Derbyshire: Gill and Macmillan Ltd, 2000,
144 p. ISBN 0-7171-3093-2.
ELDEMAN, Rob. “Jim Sheridan”. In: International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers 2,
Directors. Ed. PENDERGAST, Tom., PENDERGAST, Sara. 4th edition. Farmington Hills: St.
James Press, 2000, 1329 p. ISBN 1-55862-453-8.
ENLOE, Cynthia O. “Police and Military in Ulster: Peacekeeping or Peace-Subverting
Forces?”. In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, Sage Publications, Ltd; 1978, pp.
243-258.
43
FRANK, Jan. Irsko. Praha: Libri, 2006b, 135 p. ISBN 80-7277-294-5.
GANIEL, Gladis.; DIXON, Paul. “Religion, Pragmatic Fundamentalism and the
Transformation of the Northern Ireland Conflict”. In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol.
45, No. 3, Sage Publications, Ltd; 2008, pp. 419-436.
GILLESPIE, Gordon. Historical Dictionary of the Northern Ireland Conflict. Lanham:
Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2008, 350 p. ISBN-13: 978-0-8108-5583-0.
GUELKE, Adrian. “The United States, Irish Americans and the Northern Ireland Peace
Process”. In: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, London: WileyBlackwell, 1996, pp. 521-536.
HUFF, Ronald.; KILLIAS, Martin. Wrongful Convictions. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 2008, 327 p. ISBN-13: 978-1-59213-645-2.
JORGENSEN, Birthe. “Defending the Terrorists: Queen’s Counsel before the Courts of
Northern Ireland”. In: Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, Cardiff: WileyBlackwell, 1982, pp. 115-126.
KANE, Brendan. “Making the Irish European: Gaelic Honor Politics and its Continental
Context”. In: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4, The University of Chicago Press,
2008, pp. 1139-1166.
KENNETH, Morgan O. et al. Dějiny Británie. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny,1999,
639 p. ISBN 80-7106-347-9.
KOVALCHECK, Kassian A. “Catholic Grievances in Northern Ireland: Appraisal and
Judgement”. In: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 1, London: WileyBlackwell, 1987, pp. 77-87.
44
MCCAFREY, Lawrence J. “Irish Nationalism and Irish Catholicism: A Study in Cultural
Identity”. In: Church History, Vol. 42, No. 4, Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp. 524534.
MOODY, T.W.; MARTIN, F.X.; et al. Dějiny Irska. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny,
1996, 420 p. ISBN 80-7106-151-4.
MULHOLLAND, Marc. The Longest War – Northern Ireland’s Troubled Story. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002, 216 p. ISBN 0–19–280292–5.
REYNOLDS, Andrew. “A Constitutional Pied Piper: The Northern Irish Good Friday
Agreement”. In: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 114, No. 4, The Academy of Political
Science, 1999-2000, pp. 613-637.
WASSON, Ellis. Dějiny moderní Británie. Praha: Grada, 2010, 432 p. ISBN 978-80-2473267-1.
WHALEN, Lachlan. Contemporary Irish Republican Prison Writing. Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2007, 261 p. ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–8193–6.
Film cited:
SHERIDAN, Jim. In the Name of the Father. Ireland, Great Britain: Universal Pictures,
1993. 133 min.
45