Person 1: Another Wednesday, another wave of moral indignation against Gerry Adams and republicans in general.
Person 2: What, Pope Francis has excommunicated him?
Person 1: No, the Belfast Telegraph today has given voice to those who think the IRA were a bunch of criminals.
Person 2: And were they?
Person 1: Certainly, if you go by Kenny Donaldson, who speaks for the Innocent Victims United and Jeffrey Donaldson who speaks for the DUP.
Person 2: Impressive sources
Person 1: Indeed.
Person 2: And what did they say?
Person 1: Mr Donaldson – Mr Kenny Donaldson, that is (I don’t think they’re related) says that Mr Adams is a liar when he says he doesn’t see the IRA as criminals: “It throws to the side any view that there’s a genuine intention to actually deal with the past and the suffering that was created by the republican movement.”
Person 2: And what does Mr Jeffrey Donaldson say?
Person 1: Mr Jeffrey says that Mr Adams is wrong both legally and morally – that the IRA was a criminal organisation – and he’s morally wrong because anyone involved in paramilitarism is morally wrong.
Person 2: Pretty conclusive, then. The IRA were criminals and Gerry Adams is lying when he says he doesn’t believe they were criminals. Although…
Person 1: Although what?
Person 2: What about the hunger strikers?
Person 1: What about them?
Person 2: Wasn’t that why they went on hunger strike? Because they insisted that they were political prisoners, not criminals?
Person 1: Well yes, but…
Person 2: And ten of them died rather than concede that they were criminals.
Person 1: True enough.
Person 2: And how many republican paramilitaries were imprisoned during the Troubles?
Person 1: I’m not sure – I heard a figure of around 25,000
Person: 2: So how do you explain this mass out-break of criminality?
Person 1: I don’t follow.
Person 2: Well if you look at the figures, there was a sudden huge swell in the numbers imprisoned during the Troubles, a swell that wasn’t there before and hasn’t been there since.
Person 1: So?
Person 2: So what was the explanation for this sudden mass outbreak of criminality?
Person 1: Because they didn’t see themselves as criminals?
Person 2: Indeed.
Person 1: And Gerry Adams, having been in prison himself, would take a similar view?
Person 2: I would have thought so.
Person 1: Mmm. So Adams is actually being condemned for speaking what he believes is true.
Person 2: That’s how it looks. By the way, is it true that Patrick Pearse broke the law?
Person 1: Eh?
Person 2: Or James Connolly or Thomas Clarke or the other 1916 people – did they break the law?
Person 1: Well …Yes, I suppose they did.
Person 2: And that fellah the Taoiseach has a painting of in his office – whatshisname – Michael Collins?
Person 1: Well he definitely did.
Person 2: Which means the state to the south of us is going to commemorate/celebrate a bunch of criminals a few months from now.
Person 1: Well if you …I’m sorry, it hurts my head trying to make sense of this for you. Maybe better to ask Mr Donaldson.
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: Mr Jeffrey. He’s got a nice soft voice.
Person 2: By the way – is there an election coming soon?
Person 1: Sorry – here’s my bus. Cheers.
Liberty liberty what crimes we commit in your name.
Everybody who reads this blog fully understands that you will always proclaim that the IRA were not criminals but mere plucky freedom fighters fighting against the evil unionists and the horrible British Empire.
Sadly facts sort of disprove that argument in a big way. One has to wonder what part of smuggling will get rid of the nasty British?
BTW what crime did Bobby Sands commit which lead him to be jailed did he did chain himself to a railing and take part in peaceful protest or did he bomb Balmoral Furniture Company? Mmmm I wonder what part of that would get rid of the nasty british empire
Bobby Sands and his ilk were no better than common criminals and deserved to be treated as common criminals. I wonder if you would be so fulsome of the movement if they had injured or killed innocent family members of yours?
Neill old bean – cool your jets. I simply attempted to outline the case that is made for viewing the IRA as non-criminals, in the normal sense of that word. That they killed people, there is no doubt. But then so have so many others, and have had statues erected to them. Did the IRA (or others) see themselves as criminals? No. The hunger strikers pretty conclusively showed that. Is it a surprise GA doesn’t consider the IRA criminals? Not in the least. So this indignation that has blown up is clearly for other purposes. I wonder what those would be?
Jude to do you see them as criminals or freedom fighters?
Bobby.sands.was.a.hero.the.ira.were.not.criminals.pal.
Hard.to.argue.with.that.jim.
Jude it’s very easy to argue with that statement still bad luck with trying to legitimise the IRA
Well, neill, I only have your word for that – I suspect you’d find it pretty difficult. As to ‘trying to legitmise the IRA’ etc.and reference your terrorism/freedom fighter question. (i) Terrorism is a methodology, not a philosophy; (ii) To borrow a hackneyed saying, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter – Nelson Mandela being probably the best known example. I know you’re keen on boxing people into little compartments so you can neatly label and then stop thinking, but ‘legitimise the IRA’ is a meaningless term used by people who want to tell themselves it was all the IRA’s fault, all that killing and mayhem. I take a wider view of it than that – and regret every drop of blood that was spilled. What appals me is the narrow insistence that there were goodies and baddies, and why don’t you ‘fess up and admit it was the IRA wot dun it. That’s a recipe for at best marking time and at worst future disaster.
“Jude to do you see them as criminals or freedom fighters?”
They are men and women same as any other in working class unionist communities, who facing oppression which was brought upon them by militant unionism, the UVF declared war on the IRA in 1966 who were on the verge of disbandment egged on by Ian Paisley .
They are brave and heroic individuals who took on one of worlds most powerful armies after being dragged into a bloody and dirty conflict that no-one should be gloating over the way unionists do.
Oh Neill you really are being very naïve! This is the way it works . If you set fire to a furniture business because you have a penchant for arson, or because you have some grudge against the business, then you are a criminal. If you do the same thing in pursuit of an all-Ireland Socialist Republic, you are a hero/freedom fighter and a candidate for secular sainthood, whose every utterance, no matter how banal, is treated as the equivalent of holy scripture. The application of the magical term “Republican” to your actions, like the scattering of fairy dust, allows you to get away with anything (destruction, murder/maiming), as well as allowing you to wallow in the kind of sanctimonious after-glow, unknown to us moral bankrupts who didn’t engage in any of this activity during the “Troubles.”
I hesitate to say this, Willie, but that’s more a vent than a view. You know what you say is not the case, so why say it? Anyway, nollaig shona duit – Happy Christmas.
“like the scattering of fairy dust, allows you to get away with anything”
Oh Willie, how flamboyant you are.
Talking about moral bankrupts and getting away with anything, God only knows how you feel about the destruction inflicted in Iraq and the middle east where whole cities where levelled, with the population still in their homes when the bombs fell.
“Everybody who reads this blog fully understands that you will always proclaim that the IRA were not criminals but mere plucky freedom fighters fighting against the evil unionists and the horrible British Empire.”
The IRA were most certainly not criminals neill, they were combatants in a bloody conflict that stemmed from the undemocratic enforcement of foreign occupation which continues to this day. The behaviour of unionism made conflict inevitable, the british army were ill prepared to handle a situation that should have been nipped in the bud long before, but england could not care less how Catholics were treated here until it was too late while the southern state turned a blind eye.
It is the british state I hold responsible for allowing the conflict to develop in the first place.
Is the british squaddie who killed men, women and children in Iraq and other conflicts also criminals?
There is an absolute abundance of evidence to prove beyond any doubt that the British Empire was indeed horrible as you suggest. Many would be of the opinion that it still is.
“Sadly facts sort of disprove that argument in a big way.”
Really neill, have a look at this timeline of the recent troubles and point out to us all how the IRA started the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process
“Bobby Sands and his ilk were no better than common criminals and deserved to be treated as common criminals.”
Maggies thoughts exactly neill, and why one day there will indeed be a shrine to Bobby Sands.
Oh Neill, here we go again. A Unionist voter and a poppy wearer accusing others of being criminals. The hypocrisy reaches shocking levels but of course nationalists/Catholics here have grown use to it.
“Sadly facts sort of disprove that argument in a big way. One has to wonder what part of smuggling will get rid of the nasty British?”
Which “facts” would they be Neill? please do enlighten us. And before you embark on a lecture of the incidents the IRA was involved in just remember the acts the British Army committed (and are still committing) worldwide and yet you still wear your poppy with pride. Or are you going to legitimize those actions? Or is your logic simply: If them’uns do it against us then that’s bad but if we do it then that’s OK. A Willie Frazer argument.
“Bobby Sands and his ilk were no better than common criminals and deserved to be treated as common criminals. I wonder if you would be so fulsome of the movement if they had injured or killed innocent family members of yours?”
I’m sorry Neill but that’s your opinion and tens of millions of people worldwide would disagree with you. There’s streets and memorials to Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers all over the World: in Canada, Italy, France, Australia, Cuba, the United States, etc. The Indian Parliament stood up for a minutes silence when Bobby Sands passed away and even Nelson Mandela said Bobby Sands was his hero. Very strange “criminals”… Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers were heroes in my opinion. They were fighting against an unjust, sectarian state that should never have existed in the first place and only came into being under threats of mass violence from Unionism and actual anti-Catholic pogroms (wouldn’t that be what you call terrorism, Neill?…) and threats of “a great and terrible war” by the British Prime Minister himself, in other words: mass murder of Irish civilians.
Would you still support the British Army if they murdered members of your family Neill? Would you still be wearing that poppy of yours with such pride if your family were incinerated in Dresden during WW2? Or raped, castrated and tortured like the Mau Mau people were by British soldiers in Kenya? Or if they were deliberately murdered on Bloody Sunday when out protesting against internment? Internment which the vast majority interned were Catholics and very few Protestants were interned even though the UVF/UDA were just as active as the IRA, if not more active?
You should know by now Neill that your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of Unionism wont be tolerated. No one takes your labelling of people seriously. Your entitled to your opinion, just like I am but its about time people like you realize you live in the year 2015, not 1915. The Protestant Ascendancy is over, get with the times.
I think we can be fairly sure that po-faces don’t do irony. Now, if you had mentioned that both the little corporal and non- deppitty Dodds are on the british privy council ( yes,they do examine toilets as part of their brief) and have an output in the overseeing of the deradicalisation of the tinted types in colonies of yesteryear, then the question of criminal culpability could indeed be discussed.
No doubt many criminals do not see themselves as criminals. They are perfectly entitled to do so as is Gerry Adams.
Fortunately society decides on what are considered crimes and not individuals.
‘Society’ – now there’s a word. Could you explain to us the constituent parts of that particular entity, gio?
We’ll see what history decides, Gio. Others were called criminals 99 years ago.
“No doubt many criminals do not see themselves as criminals. They are perfectly entitled to do so as is Gerry Adams.
Fortunately society decides on what are considered crimes and not individuals.”
So if society chooses to commemorate the IRA and not consider them criminals, would you be ok with that gio?
“No doubt many criminals do not see themselves as criminals”
That’s true Gio, the British Army and British Government being just two examples.
“Fortunately society decides on what are considered crimes and not individuals”
Well if that’s the case then the IRA and the Hunger Strikers are not criminals, there’s streets/memorials named after Bobby Sands all over the World, in the United States, Cuba, Iran, Italy, France, Spain, etc a reflection that those societies have judged they are not criminals.
Though i believe, ultimately, the morality of a persons/organisations campaign is what decides if they are criminals or not. If a society alone decides who is a criminal and who is not then if the Nazi’s had won WW2 then you can be certain society would say Hitler and the Nazi’s were NOT criminal but heroes, much the same way many regard Winston Churchill as a “hero” today, even though Churchill gassed Kurdish people, deployed ruthless tactics which were criminal then and criminal today to subdue native peoples desire for Independence, he was also a racist, etc.
A criminal is a person who commits a crime. A crime is an unlawful act, determined by the laws of the state.
Whether an individual recognizes that sate or not is irrelevant in deciding if they are criminal or not.
They may not be in their own view or in the view of badly informed people thousands of miles away but that is irrelevant.
Committing an unlawful act, or a crime, is of course not necessarily the same as committing a moral wrong, as I assume we all understand.
One could consider oneself justified (as IRA/UVF/British Army all undoubtedly do) and still be a criminal.
So Peter Robinson is a criminal. As was Ian Paisley. Right, gio?
Top class whataboutery Jude.
But yes as they committed criminal acts they were criminals.
Of course they may not have seen themselves as criminals either.
If ‘whataboutery’ means giving the big picture – yep, I stand convicted.
“One could consider oneself justified (as IRA/UVF/British Army all undoubtedly do) and still be a criminal.”
Are you calling the british army and all of the squaddies who have murdered in Iraq criminals gio?
So the British government is criminal I think you have lost all track of reason.
I think you may be a bit confused! It is not society that decides on what is considered crimes but the regime which is In charge at that time.
The terms society and regime are interchangeable of course if you are 100% supportive of the regime and all its behaviours!
Sorry, that was responding to Gio!
Pointis, yes obviously the administation (or regime as it sounds more sinister) creates the laws as part of the contract we in society have with them.
If you do not accept the laws of society then of course you do not see yourself as a criminal when you break them and you are entitled to that view.
You would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law which is the point.
“You would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law which is the point.”
So what do you do when the people breaking the law are the same arbitrators and administrators of the law, who are abusing their position to get away with murder, bombings and political oppression?
I don’t know jessica.
Shoot their family? Bomb some civilians?
Torture and kill anyone who might know them and bury the bodies in a bog?
Would that help?
“So what do you do when the people breaking the law are the same arbitrators and administrators of the law, who are abusing their position to get away with murder, bombings and political oppression?”
I don’t know jessica.
Shoot their family? Bomb some civilians?
Torture and kill anyone who might know them and bury the bodies in a bog?
Would that help?”
Not sure what point you are trying to make exactly gio, but let me say this to you.
Ireland is renowned throughout the world for its bravery and resolve to stand firm in the face of state oppression, though we do have our cowards among us.
For now, let us two be glad we can from the safety of our homes, express our differences through the technology available to us, but just for a moment also bear a thought for those people who as did our ancestors, face state oppression, to be shot, hung or bombed in their homes and in their own lands, by a foreign oppressive state.
For those that such a question has real meaning, for which the answer will have life long traumatic repercussions and soul destroying impact as it did for our own people, who’s memory you insult to make such a derogatory remark.
Thankfully our days of oppression are over, so to get the answer you require, you would need to ask the question where the response would have more relevance to today, where the same oppression still occurs?
Once you have done that and looked them in their eyes, perhaps then we will be on the same page or even the same book.
Even Ghandi accepted the right to take arms against state oppression and called failure to do so cowardice.
Did Gandhi recommend the slaughter of the innocent?
“Did Gandhi recommend the slaughter of the innocent?”
Lets stick to the evidence gio and there is plenty to prove that the British state recommended, authorised and assisted in the implementation of just that.
The slaughter of (as deliberately specified in the instruction given to loyalists via their handlers), innocent Catholics which was intended to turn the community against the IRA.
jessica
For all your fine words about truth and justice you have a blind spot about the brave IRA.
I know well what loyalists and state forces did here during our conflict and I do not consider them acts of bravery, do you?
When it comes to the IRA you see them as brave soldiers yet you do not deny the many innocent lives they took.
Were those acts of bravery do you think? Was Enniskillen the act of brave soldiers?
Or is it good enough that they were no worse than loyalists?
“jessica
For all your fine words about truth and justice you have a blind spot about the brave IRA.
I know well what loyalists and state forces did here during our conflict and I do not consider them acts of bravery, do you?
When it comes to the IRA you see them as brave soldiers yet you do not deny the many innocent lives they took.
Were those acts of bravery do you think? Was Enniskillen the act of brave soldiers?
Or is it good enough that they were no worse than loyalists?”
I don’t think you can go through the individual events in any conflict to assess the bravery of the individuals in relation to the acts involved?
That is usually an argument put forward to support a point of view.
Joining any conflict can require courage, but desperation is also a key motivator.
Many Muslim suicide bombers have done so out of sheer desperation and helplessness when seeing their homelands destroyed by superior forces.
That is why it is foolish for Britain or the US to consider such aggression overseas as making their homeland more secure.
Conflict is never justified and the acts involved are often terrible and regrettable including those you mentioned.
There is retribution and reconciliation, but you cannot have both.
jessica
You say joining any conflict can take courage. That may be true though stupidity may also be sufficient.
Gandhi who you mention earlier did accept that taking up arms could sometimes be permissible. But he was clear that it was an option for those who lacked sufficient courage to pursue non violent means. In other words he would have believed the Civil Rights movement were more courageous than the IRA.
Would you agree?
If only they had truly had the courage to make the sacrifice they are so often given credit for (while those they sacrificed are swiftly passed over). If they had all gone on hunger strike from the beginning at a rate of one a month say then they would have been the only ones to lose their lives. No government could have ignored such a sacrifice in the eyes of the world media for long,certainly not for 30 years.
That would have brought us at least as far as we are now without the loss of so many lives and the IRA would have earned the admiration of people everywhere for their sacrifice
Perhaps a strategy Gandhi would have approved.
“You say joining any conflict can take courage. That may be true though stupidity may also be sufficient.”
stupidity is allowing conflict to start in the first place. What happens next is not in anyone’s control.
“Gandhi who you mention earlier did accept that taking up arms could sometimes be permissible. But he was clear that it was an option for those who lacked sufficient courage to pursue non violent means. In other words he would have believed the Civil Rights movement were more courageous than the IRA.
Would you agree?”
I don’t think he would have said permissible, but he did say clearly that in the face of extreme state aggression, he considered failure to take up arms as cowardice. I personally think that is a little harsh, but as he has actually faced oppression first hand I would not be in a position to disagree.
Deciding what would be best from reading history in a book with hindsight is one thing, deciding when facing it in real life is another thing altogether.
I think the question you are looking for is, was there any way we could have avoided conflict and resolved things peacefully if it weren’t for the IRA and did they make things worse?
Unfortunately, in my own opinion, the Civil Rights movement could not have prevented the loyalist attacks and police led pogroms from drastically reducing the catholic population and if it wasn’t for the IRA defending those communities, who knows what might have happened. To assume things would have been better I think is wrong and it simply cannot be proven. As I was but an infant at the time, perhaps some of our older readers could give better insight from that period.
From having witnessed army incursions and being involved in riots as a child, I can only imagine that those communities were crying out for protection from any source. The Irish army could not help, the police were who they needed protecting from, the British army were sent over to help, but loyalists simply did not stop attacking even with the British army there, and only the IRA did help which led to the army attacking the IRA and hence the conflict became unavoidable.
You have a confused and dehumanised view of the IRA which I suppose is understandable post conflict with all of the media propaganda.
They are human beings with friends and families, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.
They are good kind people, no different from British troops returning to their families after a tour of duty.
They did not start the conflict, did not want it, and were never in control of it.
They already have the admiration from the people that matter to them myself included.
Perhaps you could consider this, if the IRA caused the conflict and brought such suffering to its people, then why do so many people in those communities support and admire them?
Do you really believe there is a man with a stick in a back room telling everyone what to do and they all jump as the media would have us believe?
I would never belittle any of the terrible acts carried out during the conflict, but when you see an IRA man get a clip around the ear from his wife, it is hard not to smile.
jessica
That is sentimental nonsense I’m afraid. The IRA left a trail of victims in their kindly wake. All for nothing.
You did not address my suggestion that it would have been better for everyone if they had sacrificed themselves instead of sacrificing so many others.
You did not answer my question as to Gandhi’s view that violence was the option for those lacking the courage to pursue non violent means.
You say they were never in control of it as though they had no choice but to keep on bombing and shooting for 30 long years.
Yet they always had choices, just as the majority who lived through it chose not to go out and kill their neighbours.
“jessica
That is sentimental nonsense I’m afraid. The IRA left a trail of victims in their kindly wake. All for nothing.
You did not address my suggestion that it would have been better for everyone if they had sacrificed themselves instead of sacrificing so many others.
You did not answer my question as to Gandhi’s view that violence was the option for those lacking the courage to pursue non violent means.
You say they were never in control of it as though they had no choice but to keep on bombing and shooting for 30 long years.
Yet they always had choices, just as the majority who lived through it chose not to go out and kill their neighbours.”
Yes, gio, just like it would have been better for everyone also, had the British army, shamed of the countless atrocities over the centuries, committed ritual Harakiri and unionism followed the scriptures they so vehemently promote, been prepared to tolerate their catholic neighbours and choose to live in peaceful co existence.
I have made my choice to support what the IRA did during the conflict, warts and all. It is my opinion there was no other way and while both the IRA and British army agreed stalemate in the 1980s and that both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were discussing the roadmap to peace secretly with the british state before John Hume got involved and brought it to public attention that peace was an option, it took a long time to establish trust to make happen.
If you believe there was an alternative, why don’t you tell us how the peace process would have developed had the IRA surrendered, please refer to other conflicts where there has been a clear victor as I have in my contributions.
In my opinion, it was imperative that the IRA were not seen to have been defeated. Once again, I think I have proven the conflict was not started by the IRA and they cannot be held solely responsible for all of the evil that conflict brings which is what you are doing gio.
Why do you attribute blame for the conflict on the IRA?
While the IRA were not defeated, there is an on-going attempt to portray that they are still active and media supported attempts by british and irish state intelligence agencies to attempt to defeat a non existent IRA through the use of state agents inflicting crime and criminality.
The gardai commissioner noirin o’sullivan did not agree with the british state analysis that the IRA was running Sinn Fein and confirmed it was not the case in the republic before being forced to make a wishy washy acceptance that the irish state were on the same page and accepted the british intelligence analysis which was hogwash.
At this point, I am not sure who is worse, the irish state or the british state, but I see you are well sucked in gio.
The truth will come out gio, and fine gael will never recover from it.
jessica
If you have made your choice that is fair enough. You are unlikely to change your mind. You will constantly meet with challenge from people who saw the brutality of the IRA as wrong and futile.
I have not, as you try to suggest, attributed blame to any one party for the ‘troubles’ but the PIRA certainly prolonged it to no avail.
If only they had real courage they might have followed the example of the people of Czechoslovakia for example and pursued non violent means.
Sadly it is easier to lash out violently than take the hard road of non violence.
Recent events with Slab Murphy only highlight my view that the generation that waged war and eventually stopped waging war have no more to offer us.
Whether you think they were brave heroes or brutal killers it is surely time for them to disappear.
I’m struck by this recurrent theme of yours – the senior republicans should quit the stage. Surely that’s a matter for them and those who support them?
What exactly do you mean gio by “the generation that waged war and eventually stopped waging war have no more to offer us”?
What do you mean they have no more to offer and who exactly is authorised to decide when someone has nothing more to offer?
And who exactly are you referring to?
You say “the generation”, do you mean everyone below a certain age and is it northern Ireland only or further afield?
What age bracket have you decided that has nothing more to offer?
And what do suggest we do with those you have declared have nothing more to offer gio?
Hang them? Firing squad perhaps as suggested by some on the media? Lock them away? Or simply criminalise them all, exclude them from work and deny them basic human rights as with Slab Murphy who I notice is facing the brunt of your ire?
Jude
I am surely entitled to express an opinion?
SF is part of my government here in the north. Theymay well soon be part of government in the south.
Who runs Sinn Fein therefore has a bearing on my life.
Furthermore I think they would be a stronger party and I get the impression that the next generation find the lingering of the old soldiers rather frustrating.
As I have said before I think this is true for the Unionist parties too.
You certainly are entitled to express an opinion, gio, and I’m happy to see you do so here. At the same time, I tend to recall you repeatedly urging the retirement of senior SF people, esp one GA. I’m sure you’ve mentioned unionists too but I don’t off-hand recall when. But again I’d say, isn’t that a matter for the party they lead, rather than those outside the party? It has echoes of the constant calls for the retirement of Cardinal Brady by people who weren’t themselves Catholics but felt called on to tell the Catholic Church who should lead it. I’ve always had my own thoughts about Ian Paisley, and I would feel entitled to criticise him, but I wouldn’t feel entitled to tell the DUP to change their leader. Anyway, I’m a bit worried at the thought you may be fretting into the night about the need to make SF a stronger party :)…
Jude, I don’t believe it would make a difference if they did step down.
This is a fake argument.
The conflict is over and politics has moved on substantially, yet it is no accident that the conflict will not be allowed to go away by both state or their media, that every opportunity, every wrong word ever spoken past or present will be used to maintain the perception that the IRA still exist and are still a threat and will have a bearing on our lives.
This is the deliberate strategy, to bombard the people until their patience and frustration runs out.
Another strategy is to keep the focus on British interests. The benefits of unification will not even be discussed, the only carrot will be dangled over London and lets ignore the economy collapsing around us, a health service in tatters island wide, businesses closing over high energy costs, all things that could benefit fro unification, but lets not talk about that and focus instead on the historic features of buildings in Belfast.
The actions of Fine Gael are having a more significant and negative bearing on my life than the leadership of any party or even the actions of any unionist party.
They are attempting to disenfranchise northern nationalists from their own country.
I could never accept British rule in Ireland, but I am not sure I would want to be ruled by this Irish state either.
That may be exactly the reaction Fine Gael want though.
Jude
You did not pick up on my point that they are a part of my government. Who leads them either up front or behind the scenes makes an impact on my life.
I would like to make Sinn Fein a party that I would be comfortable voting for.
In pure policy terms they are not far from my own world view.
But their inability to break away from their violent roots is a problem and I suspect I am far from the only voter who feels like that.
But maybe they are happy with the number of voters they have eh?
“You did not pick up on my point that they are a part of my government.”
When we say our country, our government etc… it usually means the one in which you live and who’s laws you abide by.
It does not mean we all individually have the right to dictate what that country or government or party should be. Do we not all have different views?
Why do you feel that your views more important than others?
I do not want British rule in Ireland, but I can accept the GFA terms that unification should be democratic and through exclusively peaceful means.
If unionist parties give up their ideology, I too would find them more acceptable and would lend them my vote, but it doesn’t work that way. Unionists are entitled to their own beliefs whether others agree or not. That is what democracy is about is it not?
jessica
I am fairly sure you know what I mean by that generation.
Broadly speaking those who led Unionism and those who led Republicanism through that period need to stand aside, All those who were involved in violence need to retire to their armchairs and tell heroic stories to their grandchildren.
This is nearly 2016 , 18 years from the Good Friday Agreement.It is time to give the next generation a go.
I do not propose doing anything with the remnant of those years, I just want them to go away.
Slab Murphy and his kind are certainly entitled to their human rights. Which is more than the victims of the S Armagh Brigade ever received, I am sure you would agree?
Or do you just tut fondly when you see them get a clip round the ear from their wives, the scallywags!
Those who committed crimes from whatever grouping they belonged to, who never told the truth about those crimes should expect some justice ideally, but realistically that is unlikely so I would hope at least that some light would be shed on what they did.
Is that not what you want too? The truth?
You are quite the little dictator gio.
Hitler had similar views I am sure, why not blonde haired, blue eyed politicians only eh and keep the tradition alive with everyone else standing aside.
At least you just want them to “go away”, for now anyway.
There are other countries who support democracy where the choice of who you can vote for is dictated and freedom of choice is supressed. Lets not make Ireland one of them gio.
Some of us have had enough of people being made to “go away”, its time to move on
Even in the post-RC Free Southern Stateen, Esteemed Blogmeister, Christmas is still the season to be jolly. That is, to be jolly well gluttonous. And nobody does the g-word better than us insatiable lot down here, south of the Black Sow’s Dyke.
No surprise then that the FSS is also known as the new OTToman Empah, the OTT in there standing for Over The Top. This year’s gift that continues to keep on giving is a spud called Slab. A spud garnished with garlic a la gadams. The garlic that is truly compulsory.
Indeed, C.A.B. v. Slab is already threatening to last longer than the infamous legal case involving Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which dragged on for aeons in Old God’s Tyme. While C.A.B. stands for Criminal Assets Bureau the case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce first featured in ‘Bleak House’, Christmas not being complete without the Dickensian touch.
London of course was the city of Dickens and it was to that city, coincidentally, (the D-man was a great lad for the old coincidence), that the Fine Gael spin doctorate repaired for suitable prescriptions for the forthcoming General Election in the FSS. Oddly enough, the Blueshirts from the offshore Tory Island fetched up on the doorstep of the media surgery of the True blue Tories on Harley Street, in the wake of the Mainland General Election.
There, where they took their instructions on points of strategy in Head Quarters, ranging from brainwashing to skullduggery.
Hardly had they pushed their tushes back into the seats of their plush flush toilets in Bleak House, Kildare Street than they, the Blueshirt Spin Doctors, their rumps began to dump on the lumpen chumps of SF. Their trump cards in this elevating enterprise were their ever dependable clients in the hackitariat who wasted no time in getting down to brass tacks.
Cue the game of Pass the Parcel from Pat Kenny to Marian Finucane to Cathal Mac Coille to Matt Cooper to Ivan Yeats to Aine Lawlor etc etc etc and all that delirium of the craven from RTE to The Unionist Times to the Irish Dependent and back again in a commodious vicus of recirculation to Pat Kenny and so, so on.
The game of Pass the Parcel with this difference: instead of removing a layer of packaging each receiver gets to add a layer. Thereby ensuring that the Harley Street template of keeping the focus (aka the old ‘ocus pocus, guv) on the (gulp) lair of the ‘target’, in the argot of the honorary spin doctorate.
Unfortunately for those crooked denizens in Bleak House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2 it would appear that the health warning which appears in the Dickensian edition was somehow overlooked in their headlong rush to begrudgement.
That would be the warning specifically pertaining to the character named Mr. Krook. He was the rag, bone and bottle merchant who doubled as a collector of papers. His entire diet consisted of cheap gin.
(Would it be straining credulity if one surmised the papers thus collected were unsold and give away copies of the contemporary version of The Unionist Times and The Irish Dependent? Perhaps it might, though it must be remembered that there is no more efficacious fuel than cheap gin with which to diss the Shinners / Fenians).
Mr. Krook, alas, succumbed to a most unusual malaise:
-The first thing they noticed was the smell –like someone frying rancid meat. The two gentlemen sat in their flat in central London, awaiting their midnight appointment with the old, alcoholic Mr. Krook who lived downstairs. As they chatted uneasily, ominous sights and sounds kept distracting them. Black soot swirled through the room. A pungent yellow grease stained the window. And that smell !’.
It were the Spontaneous Combustion wot done it for the old geezer, m’lud. (The old geezer was indelibly played by Johnny Vegas in the superb BBC production).
Sadly, we have already had our first instance of Spontaneous Combustion (curious how this S.C. shares a similar set of initials with Senior Counsels, of which the Blue Blood Blueshirt Party is not precisely devoid).
This occurred when a reporter from the Patio and Pate Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk FM buttonholed MF (Martin Ferris, Sinn Fein TD ) in Tralee. Wanting to know in a hectoring tone of voice whether the TD now regretted collecting Pearse McAuley* after the latter had been released from prison.
The answer did not run to script:
-Actually, I was requested by the Department of Justice to do so.
Collapse of reporter in an untidy mess of foul-smelling and sooty sludge.
*The reason why PMcA was lassooed into the C.A.B. v Slab case is the same one why G.Adams was also roped into the case. Indeed, anyone who ever attended a football game, travelled on the same bus (double decker as well as single decker), walked down O’Connell Street, etc etc etc with the Slab whose charisma continues to flabbergast and threatens to be everlasting, is liable to be buttonholed.
This story promises to have a lengthy dose of the runs.
Oh Perkin – you are the master. And “Cue the game of Pass the Parcel from Pat Kenny to Marian Finucane to Cathal Mac Coille to Matt Cooper to Ivan Yeats to Aine Lawlor etc etc etc and all that delirium of the craven from RTE to The Unionist Times to the Irish Dependent and back again in a commodious vicus of recirculation to Pat Kenny and so, so on” sums the media scene up nicely…
GMMA, a Mhaistir Ionuin Blog.
You’re not too bad yourself, a chara.
Btw, should have mentioned that Martin Ferris is a TD for North Kerry. There must be days when he’d prefer to be in North Korea.
One understands the media there is less rabid and adolescent than the hackpack of homogeneous newshounds down here in the Free Southern Stateen.
British society has always looked upon Irish people who dont conform to British law as criminals. The fact that they make all the laws is irrelevant. The greatest crime of all is to disposess people and steal their land and then criminalise them when they want it back.
I agree with fosrach “British society has always looked upon Irish people who dont conform to British law as criminals”
But would add “British society has always looked upon people who dont conform politically to British law (trades unionists, suffraggettes, anarchists, conscientious objectors, etc) as criminals.
criminalization of republicans only divides political opinion in ireland – not in Great britain
The issue is why it is arising now. Elections, anybody?
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/irish-republicans-ordinary-decent-criminals-or-political-prisoners/
No the issue comes with Republicans trying to rewrite history and try to make the IRA into something they were not.
That’s fine, neill. You clearly don’t intend to do any fresh thinking. It’s your prerogative. A pity, though.
Hi Jude …I’m just glad that neill is actually responding a little more and isn’t simply sloganising as in the past..That’s all good and a step in the right direction down the road to reasoned argument as opposed to not- so- snappy- one-liners. As you imply , Jude, to argue out a point of view does not necessarily mean you might support the actions of any one of the groupings involved in the conflict of ideas here,In fact you might only be putting up a point toget a little discussion going…. just as reading a book about Hitler, Churchill or Stalin doesn’t mean you support their points of view.
Neill has a very tight vision of how things developed in Ireland and seems closed to other insights or historical facts unless they should somehow prove his case {whatever that might actually be}. There are many points of view to consider ,but let’s face some hard facts. On a world scale it was Britain who went into all those countries where conflict developed and sowed the seeds for the crop that grew.Britain was the invader . It happened in every place they set foot in . They were there to steal.The tactic of the past was to treat anyone who wasn’t an Englishman as an inferior being. Sure they gave many good things to those countries they invaded, because they were busy empire -building, but they also used, and abused too in the process.They stole treasures hand over fist which are still being argued about to this day .The main thing they stole was land.They set themselves up as the law of the land and even in their own homeland they had no problem abusing their own citizens and sending them across the world…as far away as Australia, for the most petty reasons..These were not people with any great love of their fellow citizens.They created mayhem in Africa , India and Ireland …countries which they basically “planted” against the will of the people in them, whom they disenfranchised. It’s no real wonder that they would see anyone kicking against their rule as a criminal. They made their own rules and laws , after all ! It’s no wonder that the people being abused didn’t see themselves in the same light. Why would he see himself as a criminal when he knew the history of his place in the whole charade?
The same kind of thing happened when the sailors of the British Navy rebelled against their masters at Spithead and Nore in the mutinies of 1797 . These were ordinary sailors, striking for better conditions , but the Admiralty saw them as common criminals simply for demanding some decency and better working conditions.
Society was separated all right . Those with the loot made the laws. Those without ,were under their boot.. . Mutiny was the kind of crime where you could be tarred and hung up in a metal cage to sway in the wind until the flesh rotted from your bones or the birds dined on your flesh..
That was the kind of thing meted out to their own people{or the “Great Unwashed” if you prefer] ..so it’s no great leap to imagine what their laws meant to the heathen Irish or the “tinted folk” further afield, as fiosrach would have it.That’s why we ended up with republics in America and France after all. People rebelled against them. I suppose everyone in those countries are criminals too , eh?
The problem is paddykool it has nothing to do with the English. It has and always will be about Unionism vs Nationalism do deny that denies fact.
The IRA tried to force us into a United Ireland and to be honest that is why I have a problem showing Republicans any sense of generosity .Equally I understand why nationalism has a problem with unionism in regards to parades and loyalist terrorists.
Therefore if I started saying the loyalists terrorists were fighting to keep us safe from Nationalist murder gangs and the dangers of a united Ireland instead of describing them as criminals I suspect many on here would be outraged.
Does that explain my position?
Hi Neill, this comment, frankly, shows a dreadful misunderstanding of Irish history.
You are entitled to your opinion, indeed, it is your Constitutional right, like all Irish people but, uninformed opinions are, rightly, subject to challenge so you must expect this.
Nollaig sona duit.
“The problem is paddykool it has nothing to do with the English. It has and always will be about Unionism vs Nationalism do deny that denies fact.
The IRA tried to force us into a United Ireland and to be honest that is why I have a problem showing Republicans any sense of generosity .Equally I understand why nationalism has a problem with unionism in regards to parades and loyalist terrorists.
Therefore if I started saying the loyalists terrorists were fighting to keep us safe from Nationalist murder gangs and the dangers of a united Ireland instead of describing them as criminals I suspect many on here would be outraged.
Does that explain my position?”
I appreciate your honesty in this neill, and I respect you for taking the time to explain your position.
My own opinion is it was much more complex than that and very much involved the english who could have prevented the conflict from starting here in the first place.
You feel that the IRA started the troubles to force you into a united ireland and that is perfectly understandable, though you have ignored what actually started the conflict in the first place. Why don’t you research it for yourself and decide whether you feel then English could have doe more to prevent it in the first place?
I don’t have any problem with loyalists and I would not refer to them as terrorists or criminals. They were combatants in a horrible conflict, were directed by the british state and for the first half of the conflict received direct assistance from RUC and british army resources. They have been treated appallingly by their own political leadership and by the british state who are well aware of what happened here but do not want their reputation tarnished by the truth.
Most loyalists did believe they were fighting to protect their communities. Have you ever spoken to any loyalists actually involved in the conflict and asked them what they were fighting for?
“The problem is paddykool it has nothing to do with the English. It has and always will be about Unionism vs Nationalism do deny that denies fact”
If you seriously believe that Neill then you don’t fully understand the issues here in this part of Ireland. True there is serious issues between Unionism and Nationalism dating back to the Plantations, do you know about the Plantations Neill? That’s when Unionists committed genocide, theft and ethnic cleansing. How dare those native Catholic Irish want their lands back, want to practice their religion, the cheek of them….
“The IRA tried to force us into a United Ireland and to be honest that is why I have a problem showing Republicans any sense of generosity .Equally I understand why nationalism has a problem with unionism in regards to parades and loyalist terrorists.”
Just in regards to parades and Loyalist terrorists Neill? You forgot to mention Unionism trying to force all of Ireland to stay within the British Empire and to keep a Protestant hierarchy over a vast majority Catholic nation but hey, that’s not worth pointing out….then when Northern Ireland was created (which Edward Carson didn’t agree with) Unionism wanted to do the same thing on a smaller scale, aka “A Protestant State for a Protestant People”, hence discrimination against Catholics, rampant state sectarianism, gerrymandering of elections, etc all of this often lead by Protestant extremist preacher crackpots like Ian Paisley Snr, who were voted in as MP’s.
“Therefore if I started saying the loyalists terrorists were fighting to keep us safe from Nationalist murder gangs and the dangers of a united Ireland instead of describing them as criminals I suspect many on here would be outraged”
Many, MANY Unionist politicians spoke/speak like you do Neill. One minute they are calling Loyalists terrorists then the next they are having tea and biscuits with them. We know Unionist politicians, just like the UDR, British Army, RUC, etc all sympathized (and more) with Loyalist paramilitaries and turned the blind eye or avoided condemnation whenever they could. The fact Peter Robinson and DUP members carried UDA members coffins speak for itself and many DUP members even today go to UDA/UVF memorials. The Catholic community aren’t fools. Gusty Spence himself admitted he was paid by the Unionist government to start a “sectarian war”, that’s the same Unionist government that gets votes from Protestants/Unionists, the same ones you call the IRA “terrorists” for fighting against.
“The problem is paddykool it has nothing to do with the English. It has and always will be about Unionism vs Nationalism do{to} deny that denies fact.”
You might believe that neill , but it can never be the whole story, given that England always held the ultimate reins of power and manipulated every move and every situation to suit their own agenda. In that respect ,unionism could be seen as a tool by England to retain a foothold in Ireland which began back in a time when they worried that Ireland could easily become a backdoor for their then French enemies and where their navy was seen as a “wooden wall”. Things have developed since then but I can assure you that therre would never have been a PIRA if more sensible heads in the British military hadn’t encouraged its existence . That the Civil Rights movement was never really about a revolutionary republican agenda should be considered too . Unionist response to basic social rights was to attack that movement with physical force, remember.After that all hell broke loose.There were many foolish moves made by an English Establishment who really had no idea how different Ireland was to somewhere like Yorkshire.
You expect me to do some fresh thinking that could easily apply to you in relation to Unionism still I won’t hold my breath
OK neill – I’ve conceded that the IRA and republicans did some sectarian and cruel deeds during the conflict. Given that the ‘security’ forces are paid to uphold the law, would you acknowledge that they performed sectarian and cruel deeds, and not just against republicans: civil rights marchers, innocent people as well. I’m waiting, neill – it’s chilly out here. Raise your voice when you speak in case I miss it.
I have said many times the army and the police did things that were terrible and the people who did it escaped justice.
However do I believe the army and the police were as bad as the IRA absolutely not. The IRA were accountable to nobody and did as they wished when they wanted. In my opinion it’s a ridiculous argument to compare a police force to a terrorist group and let’s be honest about this we know why Republicans hate the RUC because they were fairly efficenct in dealing with them and preventing murder.
Jude why can’t you say that all bombings and killings that took place here were wrong instead of being selective?
Ok Neill – I’m in a Xmas eve rush but I’ve always a mini-second for you…
I have no problem with your last question – all the bombings and killings here were cruel and should never have happened. The loss of one life, never mind 3,000+, is a stain on humanity in this tormented corner. I wouldn’t equate the RUC etc with the IRA either: the RUC etc were paid to protect us, so their taking of life is even more vile. ‘In dealing with them’ – ah now neill. A look at the history of the RUC (and maybe the PSNI, considering the present kerfuffle) will tell you that their means of ‘dealing with’ people frequently meant beating them to death – Sammy Devenney being a prime example.
“No the issue comes with Republicans trying to rewrite history and try to make the IRA into something they were not.”
What is the History here exactly Neill? Where does it start? Does it start at 1916? or 1912? when Edward Carson and Unionism issues threats of mass violence if democracy came to Ireland? Or does it begin with the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Ulster Plantation in the 1600’s? Or is that “Republicans rewriting history”? lol
Neill, Unionists will just have to accept the fact any narrative of the troubles that does not agree with yours is not “rewriting the past”. In reality if anyone is trying to rewrite the past its Unionism. Unionism tries to say the RUC were an “impartial” police force, working towards the common good. The reality is the RUC was a sectarian police force, full of Orange Order members and officers either in Loyalist terror groups or who sympathize with them. That’s just one example and there’s tons of evidence to prove it.
Clearly a slow news day if they think Gerry Adams saying the IRA weren’t criminals is news
State killings have been carried out with impunity and few army, intelligence, RUC or UDR personnel were ever charged or disciplined for their activities. There are many who are contemptuous and pay lip service to a culture of Human Rights given the plethora of appalling vistas visited on the Irish people for generations. The words of Toirdhealbhach Mac Suibhne, the democratically elected Mayor of Cork 1879 – 1920 remain relevant to the present day.
“It is not those who can inflict the most, but those that can suffer the most who will conquer.”
His death after 74 days on hunger strike on the 25 October 1920 brought the Irish struggle to international attention. Nehru and Gandhi were admirers of Mac Suibhne’s work. Ho Chí Minh said of Mac Suibhne,
“A nation that has such citizens will never surrender.”
There is no time like the present to re-examine the morality and legality of the actions of the Unionist Government prior to 1968 and the legacy of the RUC since 1968. Ariel Dorfmann, in ‘Death of a Maiden’ posed the question,
“How do you reach the truth if lying has become a habit?”
Ok expose it all then let everybody come out and be honest from the IRA the Army and the Loyalists.
The question is would you be happy with the results when members of the British Army gets sent down with the Deputy first minister?
“Ok expose it all then let everybody come out and be honest from the IRA the Army and the Loyalists. The question is would you be happy with the results when members of the British Army gets sent down with the Deputy first minister?”
Yes neill, without any hesitation, no one should be above the law, but the evidence already being denied goes much higher, through police chief constables and politicians.
Are you finally realising that reconciliation will not happen without this?
“Ok expose it all then let everybody come out and be honest from the IRA the Army and the Loyalists.”
Perhaps, though it is unlikely to happen, Neill.
Better still, let’s try and end the division between us – a division that wasn’t created by Republicans or Unionists (though they both have undoubtedly contributed to it).
I wonder who created that division, Neill? That will end someday – why not start now?
Hello, Neill, my name is Ceannaire and I’m the same as you. I live on this island also. Pleased to meet you, despite our different outlooks.
I prefer to advocate Human Rights for all and the impartial administration of justice. There are a number of options available for discussion, however, Britannia continues to waive the rules by rejecting international drivers for meaningful progress and change.
Nice reference lolar.
“A nation that has such citizens will never surrender.”
It is unfortunate that our people have had to give so much for so little in return.
Yes, curious Jeff was never a criminal, albeit he was certainly associated with such, the You’ll do rightly regiment had it’s fair share of law breakers who shot young men in the backs as they presented no threat whatever to anyone, heading home after a night out, or those ‘you’ll do rightly’s’ who sexually abused children and whose crimes have been covered up by the RUC, their one time colleagues, now PSnI; one might question wee Jeff’s video watching but, I doubt it was criminal, although he might have been a little disingenuous in how he related it.