| « The Lady's Not For Turning | RSS Problems » |
Hunger Striker Profile 4: Patsy O'Hara
Conviction: Possession of a hand grenade
Sentence: 8 years
Went Hungry: 22nd March
Suicided: 21st May
Born in Londonderry in 1957, O'Hara joined the INLA and was sentenced to 8 years in January 1980 for possession of a hand grenade.
O'Hara's grandfather enlisted in the army and fought in the battlefields of Europe during World War One, before turning to the paramilitaries and transporting weapons down the River Foyle into Londonderry. O'Hara's grandmother's uncle was in the RIC until it was disbanded in 1921, something which grated on Patsy, whose own grandmother described him as "a wee bit bigoted about my uncle being a policeman."
Follow up:
Having been jailed for his part in a protest in Londonderry in 1968, O'Hara was released in 1975 and it wasn't long before he joined the IRSP/INLA. Within 2 months he was stopped at a checkpoint and arrested.
Claiming the security forces planted a stick of gelignite in the car, he was released after a retrial. He was arrested again in 1976 for possession of a weapon but the charges were withdrawn, and again, this time in Dublin, in 1977 for holding a Garda at gunpoint. Once again, he was released within weeks.
In January 1979 he moved back to Northern Ireland. He had been back in Londonderry only four months when he was arrested, charged with possessing a hand grenade, and later sentenced to his 8 year prison term. Before going on hunger strike against terrorists being treated like other criminals, he wrote "The real criminals are the British imperialists who have thrived on the blood and sweat of generations of Irish men…. I would rather die than rot in this concrete tomb for years to come."
Fortunately for Patsy, he got his wish. After 61 days on hunger strike, he successfully starved to death.
Trackback address for this post
16 comments
Comment from: jaun [Visitor]
what a pity, another young life lost and another young mind destroyed by facism.
these men are to be pitied.
these men are to be pitied.
26 May 2006 @ 17:12
Comment from: fionn [Visitor]
eh, a little bit one-sided, no? a man starved himself to death (a very slow and agonizing death) for his political beliefs ... anyone on "your side" have the guts? or the beliefs?
27 May 2006 @ 11:58
Comment from: dantheman [Visitor]
no guts on the orange side, when taigs move in to their area and approach equal numbers with them they turn tail and run to bang-hor. then claim ethinc cleansing.
unionists only act the lad when the are in the clear majority, otherwise they are gutless cowards. history has proven this. that is why men of conviction scare them.
unionists only act the lad when the are in the clear majority, otherwise they are gutless cowards. history has proven this. that is why men of conviction scare them.
27 May 2006 @ 14:23
Comment from: Anna [Visitor]
Its what every unionist fears, men willing to die for their beliefs, against the repressive and authoritarian nature of Unionism. Well done that man.
27 May 2006 @ 16:27
dantheman
surely, in this case, you mean "men of convictions", of which the hunger strikers had many.
surely, in this case, you mean "men of convictions", of which the hunger strikers had many.
27 May 2006 @ 16:31
Courage of their conviction? Don't make me laugh. They knew the penalties for taking part in illegal armies who were organising murders and bombings when they signed up, and when they were caught, rather than face their sentences like men they bitched and huffed because they felt they had some god-given right to be given special treatment compared to the other criminals. The paramilitaries also had their own selfish reasons for encouraging the strikes - being worried about losing their influence inside the prison following the revocation of special status for those they 'claimed' as their own.
An important point too often overlooked is that these men were not imprisoned because of any political beliefs. They were charged with, convicted of and imprisoned for murders, attempted murders, bombings, posession of weapons (the list goes on).
Fionn - nobody on my side was in prison in the first place. The republican terrorist prisoners and the loyalist terrorist prisoners have more in common with each other than any of them do with me.
"the repressive and authoritarian nature of Unionism"
Funny!
An important point too often overlooked is that these men were not imprisoned because of any political beliefs. They were charged with, convicted of and imprisoned for murders, attempted murders, bombings, posession of weapons (the list goes on).
Fionn - nobody on my side was in prison in the first place. The republican terrorist prisoners and the loyalist terrorist prisoners have more in common with each other than any of them do with me.
"the repressive and authoritarian nature of Unionism"
Funny!
27 May 2006 @ 16:45
Comment from: free derry [Visitor] · http://www.freederry.vze.com
a pity that patsy had to starve himselffor civil rights/ political status for the catholic population here in the north, another killing from margret thatcher still wante for murdering these brave men.
28 May 2006 @ 16:58
Margaret Thatcher didn't kill these men any more than their own families did. And they weren't starving for anything half as noble as civil rights - just an easier ride for dangerous murderous criminals in prison.
28 May 2006 @ 17:09
Comment from: fionn [Visitor]
beano, if they weren't striking for political reasons, how is it that margaret thatcher capitulated, -albeit too late to save lives and avert a propaganda disater for the british government-, and gave murderous criminals political status?
how is a murderous criminal elected to the british parliament, why do 100,000 people attend his funeral? ...is it beacause all catholics/nationalists are also murderous criminals?
murderous criminals are motivated by various reasons -personal gain being the foremost- but politics is never one of them. there is no individual personal gain to be had by attacking an army and it's apparatus. i suppose the palestinians, the anc, the iraqi's ... they are all murderous criminals too? (are we starting to see a pattern here?)
i fail to see how laying down your life, -all you have and all you ever will have- slowly and painfully for the world to see, follows the motive of personal gain.
how is a murderous criminal elected to the british parliament, why do 100,000 people attend his funeral? ...is it beacause all catholics/nationalists are also murderous criminals?
murderous criminals are motivated by various reasons -personal gain being the foremost- but politics is never one of them. there is no individual personal gain to be had by attacking an army and it's apparatus. i suppose the palestinians, the anc, the iraqi's ... they are all murderous criminals too? (are we starting to see a pattern here?)
i fail to see how laying down your life, -all you have and all you ever will have- slowly and painfully for the world to see, follows the motive of personal gain.
29 May 2006 @ 10:06
"how is it that margaret thatcher capitulated, ... and gave murderous criminals political status?"
I'm afraid I can't explain that. A mistake in my view.
"How is a murderous criminal elected to the british parliament, why do 100,000 people attend his funeral?
A combinaion of poor taste, selective memory and propaganda that would have made Pravda look like an impartial record.
"there is no individual personal gain to be had by attacking an army and it's apparatus."
Oh I don't know, the chance to blame all your problems on those big bad oppressive Brits, rather than try and improve your lot yourself? The chance to pretend that your insignificant little life has some meaning? Of course Mr O'Hara had already said he "would rather die than rot in this concrete tomb" so I suppose we can add escaping justice to the list.
And lets stop with the "political" bullshit. The hunger strikers committed actions that would be considered crimes in most developed countries, and were certainly crimes in Northern Ireland. A political prisoner is someone imprisoned for their beliefs. Not a single hunger striker was in prison for thought crimes, rather for crimes that were much more likely to result in deaths.
I'm afraid I can't explain that. A mistake in my view.
"How is a murderous criminal elected to the british parliament, why do 100,000 people attend his funeral?
A combinaion of poor taste, selective memory and propaganda that would have made Pravda look like an impartial record.
"there is no individual personal gain to be had by attacking an army and it's apparatus."
Oh I don't know, the chance to blame all your problems on those big bad oppressive Brits, rather than try and improve your lot yourself? The chance to pretend that your insignificant little life has some meaning? Of course Mr O'Hara had already said he "would rather die than rot in this concrete tomb" so I suppose we can add escaping justice to the list.
And lets stop with the "political" bullshit. The hunger strikers committed actions that would be considered crimes in most developed countries, and were certainly crimes in Northern Ireland. A political prisoner is someone imprisoned for their beliefs. Not a single hunger striker was in prison for thought crimes, rather for crimes that were much more likely to result in deaths.
29 May 2006 @ 10:32
Comment from: Paul [Visitor] · http://www.nimagyar.blogspot.com
"a pity that patsy had to starve himselffor civil rights/ political status for the catholic population here in the north, another killing from margret thatcher still wante for murdering these brave men"
You've contradicted yourself there Free Derry.
"had to starve himself to death" v "another killing from Margaret Thatcher".
You can;t have it both ways. Nobody forced O'Hara, Sands etc to kill themselves. It was their own responsibility.
And I thought one of the tenets behind Irish Repubicanism, often bleated by the self-styled inheritors of Wolfe Tone, is that your cause is purely a non-sectarian one.
Which makes this statement rather strange:
" pity that patsy had to starve himselffor civil rights/ political status for the catholic population here in the north"
Was he and the rest of his cronies in the IRA/INLA fighting only for the "rights" of "Catholic" nationalists?
You've contradicted yourself there Free Derry.
"had to starve himself to death" v "another killing from Margaret Thatcher".
You can;t have it both ways. Nobody forced O'Hara, Sands etc to kill themselves. It was their own responsibility.
And I thought one of the tenets behind Irish Repubicanism, often bleated by the self-styled inheritors of Wolfe Tone, is that your cause is purely a non-sectarian one.
Which makes this statement rather strange:
" pity that patsy had to starve himselffor civil rights/ political status for the catholic population here in the north"
Was he and the rest of his cronies in the IRA/INLA fighting only for the "rights" of "Catholic" nationalists?
29 May 2006 @ 12:16
Comment from: jaun [Visitor]
free derry wernt so big when the cyc rolled in.
what was it 200 to 20 ?
who won?
what was it 200 to 20 ?
who won?
31 May 2006 @ 14:45
And that has what to do with the topic?
31 May 2006 @ 16:04
Comment from: paul kelly [Visitor]
I am still staggered that a man could starve himself to death on the basis of ANY political belief. I remember well the early eighties and the context of the hunger strikes. I find it hard to appreciate any admiration for Thatcher - an ignorant and (despite the sycophantic portrayals) untalented leader. It is easy to be bloody minded. Less easy to die on account of bloody mindedness. And a man like Patsy O'Hara and the others who made a stance against that old bastard and her "follow my leader cabinet", are rightly lionised for their contributution to the republican cause. I dont have an issue with you having a different opinion but dont, under any circumstance make light of a man like Patsy - you don't have that right.
07 Jul 2006 @ 22:20
The man didn't have the courage of his convictions. He took the coward's way out.
He and his friends wanted special treatment because they thought they were better than the other thieves and killers. They weren't. There's no making light of that.
The world is a better place without him. There's no making light of anything. The fact is he would rather die than face justice. The IRA used the Catholic people as pawns and he was just one of the ringleaders.
He and his friends wanted special treatment because they thought they were better than the other thieves and killers. They weren't. There's no making light of that.
The world is a better place without him. There's no making light of anything. The fact is he would rather die than face justice. The IRA used the Catholic people as pawns and he was just one of the ringleaders.
08 Jul 2006 @ 02:02
By the way, he took the choice to starve himself. The fact that Thatcher stood firm in letting him make that choice is a testament to her in comparison to modern day pussies like Blair who would no doubt cave at the first sign of media pressure. That takes more balls than any cowardly hunger striker will ever have.
08 Jul 2006 @ 02:03
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
