Former enemies Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness were the subject of BBC claims (Photo credit should read PAUL FAITH/AFP/Getty Images)

There has, over recent years, been a surge in claims that our societies are imbibing untruths. This idea, that we are living in a “post-truth” world, gave rise to the publication of a rash of books and articles in 2016-2017. But, in fact, such arguments have been going around for years.
In 2005, for example, Peter Oborne published a book called The Rise of Political Lying. During Tony Blair’s premiership such claims were – justifiably or otherwise – routine. Before “post-truth” we had “spin”; before the alleged lies of the current era, we had Alastair Campbell.
But even if we take the most extreme claims about “post-truth” and “spin” we still get nothing akin to an earlier period. It’s one from which many people learned, and which many more could do with understanding: it’s the decay of language that occurred during the Northern Ireland conflict (The Troubles), and both during and after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Amid the flood of current events, one small but significant recent demonstration of this trend is worth remembering.
The BBC recently broadcast the first film in a new series called Spotlight on The Troubles: A Secret History. This particular programme which made the headlines because of one piece of footage in particular.
The BBC was clearly – and perhaps correctly – keen to demonstrate balance. In order to do so, it focused on two leaders, one from each side of the divide. These were the two men who ended up rather implausibly leading the devolved assembly together for a time: Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley.
The programme raised the claim (made by a former British Army officer) that the Protestant leader had personally financed a bomb by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) in County Down in 1969. Ian Paisley’s son, Ian Paisley Jr, responded by saying that the claims were completely untrue and that the BBC was demonstrating bias against his late father and his whole family.
But the ‘balance’ in the film was the more interesting revelation and produced a more curious response. This was the more important – and harder to refute – piece of evidence the BBC had unearthed against Paisley’s nemesis-turned-partner, Martin McGuinness.
There has never been very much dispute that McGuinness was a leader of the Provisional IRA; indeed he admitted as much under oath at Lord Saville’s Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, among other occasions. The IRA was not, of course, a pacifist organisation, and over the course of three decades, carried out thousands of bombings, shootings and other atrocities. Obviously, Martin McGuinness was involved (though there is a dispute over the question of how long) in many such attacks, and it is accepted by all but the most blind or ignorant that his hands were not clean.
Nevertheless, there is something striking about a piece of footage unearthed by the Spotlight team, showing a Provisional IRA gang preparing a car bomb in Derry/Londonderry in 1972. The number plate matches that of a car that exploded half an hour later on Shipquay Street in the city centre, and the footage shows a young Martin McGuinness inspecting the vehicle after the others had finished priming it.
While a fellow former member of the IRA identifies him in the film, even people who did not know McGuinness well could recognise him – in particular his stoop-backed gait. The film also includes footage of McGuinness sitting in a car holding a rifle and revolver while a group of young children are peering through its open window.
As I say, nothing about this should be surprising. But what is, if not surprising then at least notable, is the response from the Republican leader’s family. Like Ian Paisley Jr, McGuinness’s son Fiachra also felt moved to defend his father, and in an act of filial piety issued a photograph of the McGuinness family on social media with the caption “Fought against injustices, Fought for equality for everyone. #Proud“.
And this is, of course, fascinating. In the ordinary run of things, it would be deemed impossible to hold these two ideas simultaneously in just the one head. One may be the sort of person who primes car bombs and then sets them off in the centre of busy cities; or one may be the sort of person who fights tirelessly for equality for everyone. But it is hard to see how setting off bombs in the centre of cities could be part of a tireless campaign to fight for equality for everyone.
This is why no one should see the decay of political language as new, or especially worse now. In fact, I would suggest that truth and language have never been more divergent than they became around the time that terrorists such as Martin McGuinness became the heroes of the post-Good Friday Agreement truce.
For those who lived through the peace process and studied it closely (people such as the writers Jenny McCartney and Ruth Dudley-Edwards) it was a period in which language – and political language in particular – became not just completely meaningless but the opposite of itself.
People who had spent their entire lives maiming and killing people became “men of peace”, and people who criticised them, or even highlighted what these “men of peace” had been up to right up until the day before yesterday, suddenly became “opponents of peace”.
So somebody who had had a relative murdered by Mr McGuinness and his friends was no longer able to criticise their loved one’s killers without themselves being presented as the problem; without themselves being presented as bitter, stuck in the past or motivated by some sinister forces, or in some way “anti-peace”. Unlike the killers — who were “pro-peace”.
This strange inversion of the language continues to this day. Now we live in an era which admires not just “peace” but also “social justice”, and so it is that people who want to reclaim or defend anybody from the recent past know they must present them as having spent their life fighting not just against “injustice” but having fought for “equality”.
It is why, in 2016, the Sinn Fein senator Fintan Warfield argued that the IRA hunger strikers had died for “gay rights”, a claim that Bobby Sands and co would have given you a few strong words about if you had put that to them at the time. But in the 2010s all must be seen in this new luminous rainbow-coloured light.
As I say, political language may have broken down today, but never will it ever be capable of being more degraded than it became in Northern Ireland in recent decades. One of the only places in the world where a tireless campaign of bombing could seriously be portrayed as a tireless campaign for equality and social justice.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Legislation might create legal fictions, but magical thinking can never supplant reality.”
I always loved sci fi author Philip K d–k’s* view on this: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.”
All of this gender identity nonsense will eventually go away. And then we’ll have to deal with the reality that it’s left in its wake: mutilated bodies, damaged psyches, and lifelong medical patients.
*(I had to put the dashes in because Unherd’s obscenity filter won’t let me type the man’s name!)
Right on the money
I hope you are right about it going away. Women have already been raped in prisons and homeless shelters by other “women” and have lost out on athletic prizes to other “female” athletes.
There are already many people who impulsively transitioned at too young an age and have to deal with the medical and social fall out.
Because gender self ID primarily harms women and girls, I fear it will take a very long time to be abolished.
It will go away because all ideologies rooted in a false view of man eventually succumb to reality. However, they can do a lot of damage before (and especially during) the collapse.
Oh that clause. Isn’t that the Sanity Claus, the Marx brothers had problems with (fell foul of it on Facebook and left because Americans don’t seem to understand British humour).
“A key focus was children and the weakening of parental rights. On extending gender recognition to children, the authors were unapologetic: ‘It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.’”
I ‘think’ it was Douglas Murray, last week (?), who suggested the word ‘groomer’ was possibly ‘going to far’ and yet, if we are to take this paragraph at face value, this exactly what the people ‘promoting’ this ideology are. Maybe they aren’t the ‘nonces’ of nightmarish caricature, but that doesn’t necessarily make them any less insidious. What, I ask myself, is different about this form of ‘conversion’ therapy to ‘other’ forms, except that this one fits with the ‘zeitgeist’ of ‘certain’ ‘progressive’ versions, or groups, on ‘the right side of history’ ?
Vorsprung durch technik, the advertising phrase of Audi, seemed to sum up what we thought of German efficiency. What has gone wrong with the sensible Germans? Closing their nuclear reactors to rely on green energy and their Russian friends for oil and gas and now this idiocy. I thought we were heading down paths of idiocy but the Germans seem determined to plunge into the quagmire with far more relish. At least we have held back from self ID so far.
My son from starting school until year 7 loved wearing the odd dress, loved shiny jewellery and if dressing up was on the cards, it was the princess dress all the way.
Now 14 he has zero interest in all of the above, he loves his acting and his music and maybe that was part of the flamboyance, although now he expresses it through Metallica t-shirts and wild electric guitar playing.
With the wrong guidance, he might have been pushed down an awful path, instead we just left him to it (with nobody advising him!) and he just worked out his personality himself. Hallelujah for letting kids just do the kid thing.
I thought that German only had one word ‘Geschlecht’ used for both sex and gender. Was ‘Geschlecht’ the word used in the bill?
I suspect the addition of the word “Identität” — if that is the one used — is the circumlocution you use in German to distinguish between sex and gender.
Interesting clarification given that I am not a German speaker.
My German isn’t very good, but if I have got this one wrong, the people here who are fluent in German are sure to correct my error.
Thanks for your comments, Laura. I was working from pieces in English and German. However, my German goes little further than pleasantries in the check out line so I rely on translations of them. I’ve added a qualifier to the sentence.
The confusion between sex and gender (are they synonymous or are they not synonymous?) is mediated by the English language, but it is a confusion that has permeated into other languages, possibly because much of the original thinking has been in English. However the underlying issue – do we distinguish men and women by biology or psychology – remains.
Oh yes, the underlying issue is the same. I just think that you have been misled by a poor translation, and a better one would have said something like ‘everyone whose officially registered sex doesn’t correspond to their gender’.
If people are obsessed with having their gender recognised in official documents, we could add an additional optional field, gender. (And it had better be optional, or at least allow N/A for those of us who don’t believe we have a gender.) But I suspect that this is not what is at stake, what the people want is to have their sex removed on official documents.
Greetings from Germany! Traditionally, we only have “Geschlecht” for both “gender” and “sex”. However, “gender” has been adopted as an Anglicism and “Geschlechtsidentität” (gender identity) and “biologisches Geschlecht” (biological gender/sex) are now widely used. If this sounds confusing, that’s because it is. Even Butler’s “Gender Trouble” has been translated as “Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter” in German, i.e. the whole sex/gender divide does not really work in German. But what does a cult group care about language?
And to complete the muddle, the words transsexuell (adj) and Transsexuelle (noun) exist in German, presumably as foreign imports.
So they have made two categories from one to enable the ideology. Interesting. Here ‘gender’ crept into academic studies on the back of womens studies which quickly disappeared gradually enabling queer theory. And of course the word ‘sex’ was always overdetermined.
Outside of academia, the language of which can become very aspirational and fashionable, we have
two sexes: male and female
two roles: masculine and feminine. Historically society always managed to juggle those around to fit. Now no one knows what the F is going on.
Should the non binary have puberty blockers? Perhaps they should, in the bigger picture the last thing we need is to breed
Time to load the dishwasher
To describe gender as having crept into academic studies on the back of women’s studies reveals your distrust and disdain. It colours gender as surreptitious and exploitative. Women’s studies have not disappeared and queer theory did not need abandonment of earlier study in order for it to be enabled. I would welcome clarification of how sex is, of course, over-determined..
Two sexes; two roles? By denying the essential contribution gender and sex make to each other and to society, the plane cannot take off because there are too many males on board (obviously larger and heavier).
The non-binary are not subject to your opinion on their desire. There is no personal responsibility or need to breed. It is nobody’s business if I do. All genders who own a dishwasher should share the chore of loading it.
Thank you, Bernd, for that helpful clarification. As far as I am concerned, people have sex, German nouns have gender!
In the US, the Associated Press has issued guidelines prohibiting the use of “biological sex” in news stories; apparently, the use of “biological” is considered offensive by some subset of trans people, so it has to go.
The real question, should this policy be implemented, is when will violence by the oppressed become justified?
How far can the liberal democratic state go to claim our children are its own before that state must be destroyed?
I await Brussels, bowing to their German master – am I allowed to use that word – enshrining this in EU law.
Kraftwerk were singing about the Trans-Europe Express about 50 years ago. I guess they were ahead of their time.
Germany is an extremely misogynistic country, so I’m not surprised they are doing this.
Germany has been referred to as the “brothel of Europe” and is a place where billboards state that “you can buy a woman and a sausage” on your lunch hour.
Males are prioritized in Germany: sex buying is legal, pimping is legal, and the rape laws are ghastly.
This is just another example of male supremacy under the law. Gender self id harms women, especially poor women in shelters and prisons, which is why it is so popular.
Interesting observations. I’m not up on male supremacy as such, but gender self ID has consequences for both sexes.
Based on Stonewall and Mermaids, and their broad support in government, academia and corporates for crushing the right of women in the U.K. – I’d say we’ve got the Germans well beaten on misogyny.
The only hope for the rest of Europe is that this nation where Dr Mengele’s style experiments on children are becoming a part of the legal framework, is going to depopulate itself. The quicker the better.
Resistance is building in Europe too. Here are some links (translations in English are provided), circulated on 9 July:
Chers collègues
Notre Observatoire a initié un Manifeste européen pour une approche objective dans les médias du “changement de sexe/genre” chez les mineurs, qui associe plus de 140 scientifiques et universitaires et / ou professionnels de la santé (médecins somaticiens, psychiatres, psychologues, psychanalystes, infirmiers etc..), enseignants, chefs d’établissement, féministes de France, Belgique, Allemagne, Royaume-Uni, Suisse, Suède, Norvège, Finlande
Il paraît ce matin simultanément dans le Point (France) et dans le Soir (Belgique) ainsi que dans Bild (Allemagne)
Voici le lien du Point
https://www.lepoint.fr/postillon/changement-de-genre-des-mineurs-l-appel-de-personnalites-aux-medias-07-07-2022-2482447_3961.php
Ce Manifeste est aussi une pétition que vous pouvez signer à cette adresse (merci de diffuser ce lien de pétition) :
https://www.mesopinions.com/petition/sante/manifeste-europeen-approche-objective-changement-genre/182346
Il est lisible en trois langues : français, anglais , allemand
If this is an EU thing why is the the UK mentioned? Gosh, are some Continentals now seeking our assistance?
Germany seems to be remarkably susceptible to very bad ideas. It’s seems to be a major theme of their history.
Nasty! Apart from Nazism, what are the other examples that substantiate your claim? I’m from NZ, and on current form (under Jacinda Muddleduck) we’re at least as woke as Germany.
What body were you born with? That’s your sexual identity. Okay you might not identify your ‘self’ with your body, so in that case where does gender identity come into it? The Self has no gender and as for names, some people have names that can be either male or female (don’t you idiots know what subjective means? Names aren’t real, they are created and are labels society uses for official purposes. This is like a Monty Python sketch in language and ideas but unfortunately us adults feel like slapping you round the face with a dead kipper (and I feel more sorry for the dead fish than the live idiots, protesting their rights to be idiots: I am Grunfuttock and demand the right to be Grunfuttock!).
I had no idea the German authorities could be such complete a…h…s. Don’t they have any authoritative and sane opposition there, as we do here, to the toxic and absurd gender identity ideology, which is happily destroying children’s lives (and their bodies), erasing women, and generally enfeebling soclety? Are they all blind over there?
Not blind, but they have created and entrenched an ideologically dominant democracy. Founding fathers initially determined a Parliament with 598 members. One vote for half (299) directly elected, recognisable and accountable. Another vote for the other half providing favoured ideologues (mostly unrecognised) from lists maintained by favoured political parties. That was back in earlier post war days. That legal 598 limits still remains; however, the current Bundestag has 756 members! Still only 299 directly elected and accountable to their electorate, BUT with surprising ideological creep – 457 (not 299) are now coming from Party lists!
How did that happen? Seems that “evening up” and “being fair” has provided mathematical vote counting opportunities to discount those directly elected and accountable candidates in favour of a colossal collection of ideologically accountable members. Threatened with a Parliament in excess of 1000 members next time round a recent review is suggesting? Guess what? Cut down on those directly elected jokers. These are the current murmurs being heard from Berlin.
in the absence of members accountable to their electorate, majority members of the German Bundestag are primarily accountable to a political Party and the ambitions that party may represent from time to time. Not being directly elected, these members are relieved from any constraints from their electorate. The “will of the people” enunciating the “wisdom of crowds” is only reflected through polling. There continues to be some unresolved hazards for democracy in Germany.
Roger… red leader, Hun in the Sun… Angels one Five… bum bandits at 3′ o clock…
Gosh..are you still allowed to say b*m bandits? How brave!
So will they be allowed to reassign their genders at 14 or just choose their identity? Seeing mixed information. Just choosing their identity is absolutely fine, but getting surgery before 18 is wrong.
What has happened to Germany? They just don’t seem to recognize the law of unintended consequences!
(deleted)
Like literature, printing, radio, and mass media, new technology fosters new abilities for people to pursue their interests. The gender debate is an extension of the sexual revolution and is a result of electronic and social media. It requires profound social adjustment and offers new boundaries to our freedom. In order to fully benefit from such initially uncomfortable trends, we must surpass the idea that gender non-conformity is a malady that must be diagnosed and cured. Many will find it impossible to see that gender is more essential than sex and is ever-changing and flowing. These new possibilities are natural and undeniable. They will continue to add diversity and beauty to our lives.
Which is fine as long as the law isn’t changed to allow people with penises access to vulnerable people without them.
Men should not have access to the vulnerable, period. Ban the urinal and free the nipple.