Named After a Bomber: Fury as GAA Youth Event Honours IRA Terror Chief
Imagine the outcry if a youth football tournament in England were named after one of the London Bridge terrorists. Or if a community sports facility in Manchester bore the name of the Arena bomber. It would rightly be condemned as grotesque, inflammatory, and utterly incompatible with the values of a decent society.
And yet in Northern Ireland, we are expected — once again — to swallow the farce of honouring IRA terrorists under the guise of “commemoration.” The latest insult comes in the form of a GAA youth tournament named after Joe Cahill, one of the founding figures of the Provisional IRA, whose record includes gun-running from Libya and lifelong justification of armed violence.
Cahill was no benign historical figure. He was a convicted terrorist whose career spanned decades of bloodshed. He was unapologetic about the IRA’s campaign of bombings and killings, which left thousands dead and many more lives shattered. Naming a youth competition after such a man is not just insensitive — it is obscene.
Worse still, this act of glorification is happening at a time when the UK Government is preparing to pour £50 million of taxpayer money into the redevelopment of Casement Park — the GAA’s flagship stadium in Belfast. While the minister responsible, has claimed sport should “bring people together,” she notably refused to comment on whether such glorifications undermine the very spirit of unity this funding is meant to promote.
Let me say what she would not: they absolutely do.
Public money should never be used to prop up organisations that celebrate terrorism. It sends a damaging signal to victims, to wider society, and to young people learning history through the prism of sport. How can we say we are building a shared future when one section of that future is lionising men who tried to destroy the very notion of peaceful democracy?
This is not about cultural expression or historical memory — it is about rewriting the past to sanctify those who waged war against the people of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant. It is about embedding the message that political violence is not only excusable but honourable, provided the cause is wrapped in the tricolour.
For years now, Sinn Féin has walked this morally repugnant line — from honouring hunger strikers to naming playgrounds and GAA events after known terrorists. It is part of a calculated political strategy: to normalise the abnormal, to cloak murder in martyrdom, and to push their narrative unchallenged into the mainstream.
Enough is enough.
We cannot continue to tiptoe around these issues for fear of upsetting the “process.” A peace process built on lies, distortion, and the celebration of killers is no peace at all. It is appeasement — and it corrodes the soul of our society.
If the GAA wants to be a truly inclusive sporting body, it must show leadership. That means rejecting the impulse to lionise gunmen, no matter how prominent they were within republican folklore. It means standing with the victims of terror — not the architects of it.
And if the UK Government wants to maintain credibility, it must stop pretending that these issues are separate from its financial support. You cannot fund an organisation with one hand and ignore its moral failures with the other. £50 million buys responsibility, not silence.
This isn’t about denying anyone’s history — it’s about refusing to glorify a history of hate. Reconciliation demands honesty. It demands moral courage. And it demands that we honour those who built, not those who bombed.
Until that happens, gestures like the Joe Cahill tournament will not promote community spirit. They will mock it.
Join our free subscriber list [and pass it on to anyone who might benefit.]
Government Silences Chagossians Again with Shameful Treaty, Says Baroness Foster
No Self-Determination, No Return, No Dignity: MP Slams Chagos Islands Deal
On Monday I was due to speak in the Commons debate on the Government’s surrender of the Chagos Islands. Despite leaving Belfast in plenty of time, late planes, trains, and tubes meant I arrived three minutes into the debate. Government whips refused to allow me to speak – unsurprising given I would have opposed this shameful treaty.
I had intended to highlight the disgraceful treatment of Chagossians living in the UK. As a parliamentary advisor to the Friends of the British Overseas Territories, I have met many proud Chagossians. Bernadette Dugasse told me she had never been Mauritian and never would be. Misley Mandarin, who served in our armed forces, described the pitiful Government engagement – a couple of Zoom calls – before signing away his homeland. He is rightly challenging the treaty in court.
Frankie Bontemps wants three things: self-determination, the right to return, and dignity – all denied by this Government as they trample Chagossian hopes, just as Labour did in the 1960s.
This was a political decision, not a legal one. The only mention of Chagossians is a Trust Fund they will not benefit from. The treaty should be dropped solely because of their disgraceful treatment.
Join our free subscriber list [and pass it on to anyone who might benefit.]
No Way, José! Gibraltarians Slam Spanish Passport Seduction – By Baroness Arlene Foster of Aghadrumsee
No Thanks, No Way, José – Gibraltar’s Sovereignty is Not Up for Seduction” – By Arlene Foster
The latest musings from the Spanish press, suggesting once again that the people of Gibraltar might be “tempted” by the offer of Spanish passports and EU membership, are not just patronising—they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of identity, loyalty, and democratic choice.
This renewed call from sectors within Spain to “seduce” Gibraltar with the allure of dual nationality and EU perks has a familiar ring. In 2016, then-Spanish foreign minister José Manuel García-Margallo floated a similar joint sovereignty proposal. Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo famously retorted, “No way, José!” at the United Nations, a phrase that has echoed through the years with enduring clarity.
The editorial from Europa Sur acknowledges that this overture was previously seen as an “attempt to undermine the sovereignty and identity of the Llanitos.” That admission is telling. Identity cannot be bartered with passports or economic carrots. It is not a transactional matter, and certainly not one to be manipulated by external interests under the guise of generosity.
As a unionist from Northern Ireland, I see echoes here of the constitutional debate we have long navigated. Identity in contested or dual-sovereignty spaces is not amenable to simple solutions or bureaucratic neatness. In Northern Ireland, we understand the deep roots of allegiance—to Britain, to Ireland, to both or to neither—and the importance of respecting the democratic will of the people. Our peace and political stability have come from recognising that sovereignty cannot be imposed or reinterpreted without consent.
Gibraltar, like Northern Ireland, lives at a crossroads of identities and geographies. But what unites us is a shared history of self-determination and resilience in the face of external pressure. Just as unionists in Northern Ireland will not be cajoled into abandoning the Union because of economic forecasts or passport policies, neither will Gibraltarians trade their sovereignty for the convenience of rejoining the EU.
What makes this latest Spanish proposal especially galling is its cloaking in the language of seduction and kindness. “It’s not confrontational,” claims the editorial, “it’s seduction.” But the soft sell is no less intrusive than the hard line. Whether framed as diplomacy or seduction, the aim remains the same: to change Gibraltar’s status without the people’s desire to do so.
It is also naïve to suggest that offering Spanish nationality could be free of political repercussion. Sovereignty is not merely a technical arrangement; it is deeply felt, fiercely defended, and woven into the everyday lives of people. No amount of dual citizenship or EU convenience will persuade a people who have stood firm for their right to self-determination.
Moreover, the premise that Gibraltarians are somehow missing out due to their Britishness is both arrogant and misleading. Britain’s global reach, Gibraltar’s economic vitality, and their shared legal and political systems have long served the Rock well. Yes, Brexit has introduced complexity, but it has not altered the bedrock of identity.
In Northern Ireland, we have learned that identity is not just personal—it is political, historical, and deeply embedded in the land. Any attempt to alter it by stealth or seduction only fuels division. Instead, we should champion stability, respect the democratic will of communities like Gibraltar, and resist efforts to exploit post-Brexit uncertainty as an opportunity for constitutional change.
The people of Gibraltar have answered this question many times. The reply remains unchanged. Whether it’s “thanks, but no thanks,” or “no way, José,” the message is clear: they are British, and they will decide their future—not Spain, not editorials, and certainly not as the result of political seduction dressed up as generosity.
Let us hear them and respect them.
Kneecap Think Terrorism Is a Laugh – It Isn’t By Baroness Arlene Foster – By Baroness Arlene Foster of Aghadrumsee
I’ve lived rent-free in the heads of the so-called rap group Kneecap for years. I’ve been in their lyrics, on their posters – even strapped to a cartoon rocket alongside the former prime minister Boris Johnson on one poster – But this isn’t satire. It’s sick.
Kneecap aren’t rebels. They’re not witty, daring, or subversive. They’re fanboys for terrorism. Their act is a love letter to the Provisional IRA – and now, it seems, to Hamas and Hezbollah too.
That’s not speculation. That’s why counter-terrorism police are investigating. These lads have posed with literature linked to terror groups, made references glorifying extremist violence, and wrapped it all in “it’s just a joke, mate” branding. It’s not a joke to those who lived through the horrors they idolise.
Let’s be clear: free speech means you’re allowed to offend. But it doesn’t mean you can step over the line into incitement. And it certainly doesn’t mean you can glamorise terrorism without people calling it out. Kneecap have gone from being controversial to being dangerous.
Their name – a direct reference to a brutal punishment used by paramilitaries across Northern Ireland – tells you everything. It’s not an edgy pun. It’s a nod to fear, control and violence. Their whole identity is draped in mock-Provo chic: balaclavas, pseudo-military gear, songs that flirt with glorifying attacks. They don’t even pretend otherwise.
And when called out? Their recent “apology” wasn’t just late – it was laughably limited. They said sorry to the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, both murdered by lone extremists. But there was no apology to the families of MPs murdered by the very movement they glorify.
No mention of Airey Neave, killed by a car bomb in the Commons car park in 1979.
No mention of Reverend Robert Bradford, gunned down at a constituency surgery in 1981.
No mention of Sir Anthony Berry, killed in the Brighton bombing in 1984.
Those families got no apology. Why? Because in Kneecap’s world, some victims count – and others don’t.
This is why MPs are absolutely right to warn festivals and venues. Promoters need to be careful. If Kneecap were championing neo-Nazis, they wouldn’t be booked. If they joked about Taliban roadside bombs, they’d be cancelled overnight. So why does republican terror get a pass?
Young people are being sold a sanitised version of violence. Kneecap’s aesthetic is rebellion, but their message is poison. It’s not edgy – it’s extremist. It’s not protest – it’s propaganda.
Kneecap aren’t pushing boundaries. They’re dragging us back into the darkest corners of our past. The public need to stop clapping.