As unionism continues to pretzel itself into more and more convoluted political shapes and cavorts around the Stormont playground in ever-decreasing circles , it might be timely to have a good look at their track record and their place in history. It was brought to mind when I was reading about Jeremy Corbyn and how ,to his supporters , he appears to have been on the “right side of history” on many past occasions. That is …the right side of history if you happen to be on the side of the oppressed and their historical troubles, or the ordinary working -man.He may not choose to dress as a Topshop window dummy, with matching tie and socks.He might not believe in gods or even monarchies and therefore find the idea of singing an anthem invoking god’s salvation of a gracious queen to be be an near- absurd idea .He has been in places of history, at the right side of the debate ,in the right moment of time, though.
Where has unionism and its supporters been when this story is written in the fullness of time. What will children read in the future . I remember being given a book for Christmas in the early 1960’s called “Heroes of the Twentieth Century”. It was written by Ian Fellowes Gordon and was filled with stories of “great” men and women who had made their mark in the first sixty years of the century. Featured were stories about Gandhi and India , JFK’s wartime adventures on Patrol Torpedo Boat 109, Hilary and Tenzing’s conquest of Everest in 1953, Marie Curie’s work with radium and polonium isotopes….all presented in a fat ,Boy’s Adventure format between hard covers, complete with photographs and line drawings depicting the heroes derring-do. Beside obvious heroes such as Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn, FD Roosevelt and Albert Schweitzer there were included {in retrospect} some dubious choices such as Mao Tse-Tung and Winston Churchill. Like JFK their stories curdled somewhat in the fullness of knowledge and time. The cover featured a picture of the Robert Falcon Scott ,standing in the snow. I later saw John Mills immortalise “Scott of the Antarctic” in a stirring old black and white film; the kind of thing that was a staple on Sunday afternoon television.
Now there’s a thing to tussle with. This stuff has crossed my mind before but I’ve never really fully focused on it .Just look beyond the constricted politics of unionism and loyalism’s very narrow focus and you find out very quickly that a unionist party ,by it’s very nature always seems to be both right -wing and very conservative in its political outlook .At it’s extremes it panders to some fascist elements but by general consensus loyalists and unionists vote for politicians who never seem to have any affinity with socialist or left -wing policies or even the welfare of the ordinary working -man,or the oppressed , anywhere in the world. Neither do they seem to have supported anyone who has been confronted with the brutality of an oppressive regime or who has suffered . How can that be when they are supported by those same kind of working men? Is it that these same ordinary men also see the entire world in those same narrow terms and are still manipulated to vote for a party or parties that really haven’t got their best interests at heart? Of course there’s the old saw that one man’s fighter for freedom is another man’s terrorist. That’s probably the dictum they’ve carried throughout their dealings with the countries of the world.
Somehow unionism and loyalism’s natural bedfellows have been those who have stood on the wrong side of the historical record down through the years and in full view of the television audiences for this past fifty -odd years .They will never feature alongside those other heroes of the twentieth century whose story has since been written. There was South Africa for starters. That was a big one.
Where were they when Nelson Mandela was gaoled by the apartheid regime in South Africa? Were they out demonstrating for his release, alongside the likes of Jeremy Corbyn on the side of the ANC .?No , they were on the wrong side of history on that score. Not one of them had read “Cry the Beloved Country” .None of their representatives were ever going to be invited to Nelson’s 90th birthday party when he was finally released and the mad apartheid regime was dismantled. You might think they thought that being a racist was quite alright, might you not? This is a man who received the Nobel Prize for Peace and changed the course of history. Somehow you can’t see any of loyalism’s stalwarts standing alongside Michelle Obama ,Lewis Hamilton, Will Smith and any number of thousands of admirers of the man throughout the planet. There were no Specials fans there. No Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen fans, no Bob Marley aficionados either . No…”Free Nelson Mandela!” being sung at the top of their lungs there… . You really have to ask yourself what they didn’t “get” that everyone else did. Did they ever realise they had chosen the wrong side of the debate, even on purely moral grounds? I don’t think they actually know how wrong they were. There’s a skewed morality there.
Where were they when the likes of Jeremy Corbyn was campaigning to bring Margaret Thatcher’s brutal friend the Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet , to justice ? She allied herself with this be-medalled brute ,who professed himself a friend of Britain. Well Pinochet was later arrested in London in 1998 for crimes against humanity .Before that he was responsible for 1,200 and 3,200 people being killed. He had up to 80,000 people interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the years he was in government. By the time of his death he still had hundreds of human rights abuse cases ,pending. Where were those unionist and loyalist voices of support for those oppressed people? Pinochet’s friend Margaret Thatcher had no great track record when it came to death either. No Red Wedge fans …no Paul Weller or Simply Red fans either. I suppose they were all busy listening to Willie McCrea. It really is hard to know.
Corbyn was also a friend of the gay community from way back ,supporting Gay Rights while the Tories called anyone left -wing who supported gay rights the “Loony Left”. Given the DUP and the Ulster Unionists track record on gay issues , you can be sure that none of them supported their fellow gay citizens quest for equality . If anything they have actively opposed them at every move to the point of homophobia. For that reason alone they were on the wrong side of history at every point .Within the past year we have had the debacle of the “Gay Cake” row for only one example and Norneverland, alone, still remains the last redoubt in these islands for the homophobes who refuse to give all their citizens the same basic rights and respect. There a problem with “morality” there too.
Where was unionism’s support for the working men when Thatcher ‘s Tories attacked the mining communities in the UK? Jeremy Corbyn fully supported the miners and the NUM during the Miners’ Strike ,while the government carried out a policy of destruction which is still felt as bitterly in those wrecked communities.
When it came to anything remotely to do with the Irish question or miscarriages of justice by the British Government , unionism blindly believed that the government and the security forces could do no wrong , especially if it meant imprisoning anyone from an “Irish” or nationalist background. As far as they were concerned , the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were guilty , basically because they weren’t unionists. That seemed to be enough. There was no campaign from unionism to have these innocent men freed. They might as well have never existed. They would rather believe the lies that had kept these men in prison for some fifteen years rather than believe that the government and the security forces had lied to them. Unionism has been consistent in this kind of behaviour over the years.
Every time you look at an issue which concerns injustice ,common sense thinking ,should it be to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, talking with Sinn Fein or anyone else to resolve problems, the campaign for Palestinian rights or even the flying of flags in the same way as in the UK , unionism has been found wanting. It’s hard to imagine a unionist being a CND member either or giving support to a campaign against the spending and financial waste of untold £billions on nuclear weapons, which if they were ever used by anyone , anywhere ,would spell the end of the planet.{It makes sense that even if they were used by only one nation against another , the damage would affect all of us}. Corbyn has always , throughout the years, been there, fighting against that waste …fighting for the oppressed and the working -classes who will be used as the cannon-fodder to fight their economic wars. The ones who are gulled by tales of “patriotism”, when it’s always about the money.
Instead, within unionism we have politicians who would build fences along the border , given half a chance .
I suppose it should be no surprise that Corbyn’s assumption to the leadership of the Labour Party has not been greeted with cheering in the ranks of unionism . You have to wonder why all those people who vote for those parties feel that way in every case. Can they all be racists ? Can they all be bigots? Can they all be homophobes? it’s almost unbelievable to imagine a scenario like that but they have never shown any other face ..
When it comes to stories ,should a revised and updated version of that “Heroes of the Twentieth Century” be written , who do they think will be featured alongside the likes of Nelson Mandela. It certainly will not be unionism’s old boss Ian Paisley or his erstwhile buddy Peter Robinson. I can’t remember one heroic instance in any of their chequered histrionic careers. They just seem to have a knack and a record of choosing the wrong side of the argument to be on and appearing on the wrong side of history at every turn….


why didnt he resign when his party sent the cannon fodder to the latest wars,as for mandela .
Huh? ….and yes ,billy, what is it you are trying to explain exactly?
mandela being held as some sort of role model,till he got a sniff of the money and left the squalor.
billy …call me silly but what is your point, here? Are you saying that righteousness lives deep down in the squalor and that we should all get on down to the slums and make with the good li’l chillun…? Is that what you’re saying ?
Just one point in an otherwise thought-provoking piece-why do you conflate people who do not agree with “same-sex” marriage with homophobia? People of great integrity believe sincerely that marriage can only be understood as the sacred union between a man and a woman which is open to giving life. One does not have to be a DUP supporter to hold this principled and thoroughly reasonable position.
I have no problem with you having that opinion Gearoid. I have a problem with it being stuffed down everyone’s throat.You , for example might understand that marriage is a “sacred union” . That’s an opinion..Some might see it as a simple social contract.It really depends on what goes on between the individual’s ears. Not everyone believes in god, for example ,but a marriage can have a secular symbolism every bit as worthy as some esoteric sacred rite .it can be socially important for families and friends to enjoy that communal feeling that a marriage service brings.It is , of course, good civic sense to encourage stable unions between individuals of whatever sex to further stabilise society . Not all of them of whatever sex are fecund of course , or indeed marry to have children .Some seek a companionable relationship, possibly anchored in both their religious beliefs{or none} but also with a certain social and legal heft to it.Some marriages are arranged , after all and love might have little to do with it…sacred love or not.It’s worth thinking about.
This idea that people of Faith are busy forcing their traditional view of marriage down “everyone’s throat” is such a parody of the truth that one wonders where to begin to expose that lie. The reality is that it seems that western governments, judiciaries and civic authorities are intent on the penalization and jailing of people who do not agree with their radical legal re-definition of this timeless institution.
It is more than just an “opinion” as practically every civilization across the globe for the last two millennia have recognized the natural order that is represented by the union between a man and woman which is open to creation. There are anthropological, social, sexual as well as religious truths which underpin this unique relationship which seemed apparent to everyone up until very recent times.
Gearoid, ….you can speak of “faith” in lower case or in higher case , as you do with a capital letter”F”, but it still remains no more than an opinion.By it’s very nature “faith” is anything but a fact .You might say that to have faith in something means that you believe in a concept beyond any rationale or logical reasoning ….basically …”a leap of faith”…if you like.There is not a lot of point arguing about “faith” .People of the modern world believe anything they care to …even to the point of persecution … generally and there are thousands of weird and wonderful things believed by human beings throughout the world and throughout the history of the world.It doesn’t mean they are true but sometimes they can be used as useful tools to bind cultures together .Mayans believed that they had to feed the sun with blood to keep it moving across the skies and made blood -sacrifices to that effect. That sense of sacrifice to the heavens is woven through many belief systems , based on “faith”.That doesn’t mean they are true .Modern -day Christians still use an old execution apparatus , the cross{or crucifix} as a symbol of the blood sacrifice they believe one man made to a god.In other circumstances that belief may have been represented by a hangman’s noose or an electric chair.
The nature of society now is that there are equality laws that are gradually embedded to rectify holes in the logic of society .That is why women have gradually sought equality with men in society and the workplace .They don’t want to be better than their husbands and their brothers .They want to be treated fairly and equally .You could say the same applies to the old saw “No blacks , no Irish, no foreigners ….no homosexuals.”.I’m afraid when the logic of civil rights for all comes up against the unravelling illogic of a “faith”, you’ll find that the “faith” argument might be fine between your ears, inside your own head and in the privacy of your own home , but it will not hold water anywhere else. Again , I say , these are your own children , your own families and your own people whom you are holding back basic human rights from…these are not some strange creatures from some other galaxy..It will not stack up forever.Norneverland is the only hiding place for weird opinions like that in this modern Britain and Ireland.
Faith can be argued from a coherent and logical basis even though it deals with the transcendent which goes beyond our material world. It covers territory which science does not have the competency to handle e.g existential reasons why mankind exists, possibility of life after death, nature of good v evil, creative force behind the universe etc. Christianity is certainly based on the hope of the cross which might sound contradictory to you, Paddy, but it was a triumph by the Son of our Creator over sin and death. It was the ultimate sacrifice made by God in giving up His only begotten Son so that we may have life. So Christianity is not about propitiating endless sacrifices to appease a whimsical and cruel deity/deities but a religion of selfless love in action based on the life of Christ.
True equality does not ignore the complementary differences between the sexes which come to fulfillment in the blessed union of a man and a woman. This is not to ignore or insult anyone who has a same-sex attraction but a statement which reflects the natural order of things. I can understand the overwhelming emotion which can drive campaigns to allow gay people to marry and it is usually a case of the heart ruling without rational thinking. We are all the product, straight or gay,of the marital relationship between a man and a woman, in the majority of cases. Thus there is something natural and in the order of things about biological parents bringing up their offspring in a blessed union called marriage.
Gearoid, sadly I find the DUP to be an excellent barometer of unenlightened thought. If you find yourself on the same side of the argument, I respectfully suggest that you need a swift and brutal reassessment of your world view. Only my opinion though.
I have to agree with Gearoid! A person can hold true to their own strongly held beliefs and disagree with issues like same sex marriage but that does not make them a bigot or a fascist or a right winger,
I consider myself to be a republican, left of centre, and an anti imperialist and yet there are many issues on which I have my own sincerely held opinions that make some so called liberals tar you as a bigot or a homophobe neither of which I am.
Yes Belfastdan and Gearoid. I understand that . I covered it at length elsewhere .It’s true that republics like France and the USA did not produce an entirely new species of human beings .No matter the political machinations or governing set-up, the great white ape will still squabble about the same old stuff. I fail to see a moral case for not allowing two human beings of whatever sex not to have the very same human , civic and civil rights as their neighbours.I say this simply because my neighbour’s son had to go to England to wed his partner.The wedding party, to which I was invited ,took place after they returned to Norneverland . They couldn’t marry here in this enlightened land.I have to say it was very much like any other evening wedding reception i had ever been to in the past.What I can’t understand is why some make such a big deal about it and don’t want it to happen when it is obviously a very stabilising thing for society and any couple to do.I have to say too that this lad’s grandfather was a very staunch republican, for what it is worth, and was murdered by a loyalist gang some thirty years ago .I know that is not a relevant point but it is certainly a footnote in this story.I have to say that anyone arguing this point about marriage from a “moral” standpoint is standing on a very shakey ledge ….Morality ? …where?
This lazy attempt to conflate people of Faith who believe in the widely accepted view of marriage with the DUP in terms of being their natural supporters, seems to be typical of the unthinking of those of the liberal left on matters like this. I don’t think that I need to carry out your recommendation and perhaps it is you who requires such a radical reassessment of viewpoint.
Marriage is what it is in terms of definition as global civilizations have properly understood it for thousands of years. It is based on the truth that the union between a man and a woman is based on the natural order in terms of psychological, emotional and physical complementariness. which is vital to common good and society’s demographic health Studies repeatedly show that children do best in a family raised by their married, biological parents. So it is more than a big deal to attempt to redefine this..
“I have a problem with it being stuffed down everyone’s throat.”
paddykool, it’s ironic you use that phrase, I find that describes the gay agenda to a tee.
It seems to me that if someone doesn’t embrace homosexuality it today’s world, they are accused of homophobia.
There is nothing wrong in two men loving each other. A brother can love a brother, an Uncle can love a nephew, or simply the love of your fellow man. But to sexualize that love is not appropriate in any circumstances.
Yeah Jim ..i had that phrase out when i immediately knew that some sharp-eyed reader would pick it up like a magpie…. In some respects that a fair point….but …the homosexual is only attempting to balance the book here.He or she is being denied what everyone else expects as a given right by dint of their sexuality. These are not some exotic creatures we are talking about .These are your brothers and sisters…your friends and your neighbours.They are not asking you to suddenly be like them and have the same sexual preferences or lifestyle. Indeed , your sexuality is hardly your choice at all, really.It’s a pretty random event in your making. Giving someone the same rights as you have isn’t going to change your life in any way , but by withholding a basic right which everyone else expects , you are setting yourself up for a conflict and you’d better think deeply about what you consider socially moral or not. The gay rights issue is really about all our rights. Again , Jim , who are you to say how two human beings of consensual age should love each other. it’s not as if we know what happens in anyone’s bedroom or what they might or might not get up between the sheets . You’ll live your entire life and you’ll never really know anything about your neighbours’ sex-life or lack therof. Does it matter to you ?It doesn’t give me much pausefor thought.I just want a level playing field. That would be the end of the argument.
what gets me is the “prohibition for everybody” attitude with regards to sexual matters.
No allowances are made for differing views, life-styles etc.
for example – If a law comes in to allow same-sex marriage nobody is forced into a same sex marriage . The gay person can decide if s/he wants to get married, just like any hetero can.
Same with an abortion law – no woman anywhere would ever be forced into having an abortion but every woman could access one if it was needed.
…see my answer to Jim, ben…
You must have an indefatigable brain Harry. How do you have time for your bee’s ? Anyway, good read.
Ta, moser, glad you enjoyed my efforts …keep an eye on those stray apostrophes ,mind ..there are a few loose ones flying about the place . Anyway , mate .I’ve reached the bottom of the creative pail ,just now and am off for a few days RnR to refresh that old crumbling brain..!!!
Another excellent piece Harry, I think Unionists are taught to believe in a hierarchy of worthiness, in other words they are told to accept their lot as poor or working class, that`s why the man from the `big house` always goes to the front of the parade, that`s why they look up to titled people and that`s why they support the British monarchy, as long as it is Protestant of course. My mother always told me I was as good as anyone else but not better and vice versa. The supremacist mentality of groups like the Orange and Black instill that feeling of superiority, ridiculous though it may be. That`s why Unionists still support the eleven plus even though it has such an adverse effect on their poor, they just think that`s where they should be, down at the bottom of the pile although still higher up the list than the dreaded Catholics. To their mind set, Nelson Mandela will always be a black Provo.
That’s an interesting take on things AJ…so you reckon that the working class unionist man or woman are brought up to be masochists with no self -esteem other than being gulled into thinking that they are somehow in a better social place than Catholic people ? That’s interesting . Do you reckon they are put through a course of hypno-therapy and school-aversion- therapy to help them deal with this illusion and make sure they never learn what a hole they are in? I suppose it might explain why we are in the situation we find ourselves , instead of of having a united social class across the board fighting for a better life.it’s that old divide the working -class thing again ,to keep them weaker than their natural Tory betters, eh?
Harry a very thought provoking and excellent piece of journalism ,It’s obviously not a religious factor that makes Unionism tend to lean to the extreme far right…..is it a psychologically ingrained reaction to the realization that you know that you have occupied someones space ,and that you have no intention of giving ground until the inevitable happens ?… that if you were to admit this intrusion then this would be perceived as weakness ….admitting wrong ! You have to counteract this by demonizing and vilifying the indigenous population….fellow and equal human beings . This was the attitude of the Boers , That indigenous population only wanted equality…peace… a chance to live a fulfilled and fruitful life …It happened there….it will happen here and it will happen in Palestine
“what gets me is the “prohibition for everybody” attitude with regards to sexual matters.
No allowances are made for differing views, life-styles etc.”
So Ben you’re all in favor of pedophilia, or even bestiality, ( Zoophilia ) if that is someone’s preference?
That’s a low blow ther Jim .That’s the kind of thing that got Ken Maginnis into deeo doodoo a while back .I hope you are not equating homosexuals with beastiality, zoophilia or paedophilia…? You’re not are you ? That would be like equating deep -sea diving with big game hunting ….there is no connection whatsoever but you really need to get your mind off that track.You could be talking about your son, daughter or grandchild here . I have two nephews who are gay and they are perfectly ordinary people in every way.Their sexuality wouldn’t make them a bank robber either …never mind a paedophile .
paddykool;
I was replying to the statement ben madigan made.
Nothing low about it!
However your attitude is typical of today’s world.
Everyone has an opinion as long as it is the same as everyone else.
You may consider homosexuality normal, but I don’t!
And that is my opinion!
Enough said , then , Jim.I’m sure ben will respond in his own way.We’ll never be on the same page on this one.I’ve too many friends who see themselves as perfectly normal human-beings …and i have to agree with them.
Harry (paddykool)
I gave my honest personal opinion on homosexuality; I made it without malice.
I did not intent to hurt anyone least of all your friends.
I have never harmed homosexuals, either physically, or any other way.
I tolerate them, but I can never accept their life style.
I’m sorry if this offends you and by extension, your friends.
So please accept my apology, as no offence was intended.
Jim – am coming back here after a hellish week at work. So sorry i am late in replying to your comments.
I just want to say you don’t have to accept “their” sexuality – you just have to live your own sexuality and let other people live theirs in peace and quiet.
Live and let live and maybe you will take a little step beyond “tolerating” some people.
I am confident you agree that different types of men are attracted to different types of women – some like blondes, others prefer brunettes. Some like tall girls, others go for the petite types.
Some men prefer men and some women prefer women and some people like both. That’s just another fact of life. Neither you nor I can change their inclinations/preferences. And life’s too short to waste energy railing about what can’t be changed!!
furthermore, I am convinced that goes on between 2 adults should be of no concern to anyone except the couple in question –
Your mates’ choice of wives/girlfriends/partners should be no concern of yours. I think you’ll agree it’s none of your business who they set up house with.
And who you choose to spend your life with is your business and your partner’s. Nobody else’s.
Just try extending these widely accepted ideas to everybody in society – not just heteros – and see what happens.
The sky won’t fall in!!
You won’t get tossed into hell or prison!!
You might even make some new acquaintances that might become friends!
But remember – it’s up to you
Best for now
Ben
Well Ben thanks for the lecture;
You start off with this little gem:
“I just want to say you don’t have to accept “their” sexuality – you just have to live your own sexuality and let other people live theirs in peace and quiet.
Live and let live and maybe you will take a little step beyond “tolerating” some people.”
Then you go on to admonish me for having a personal opinion at all.
Also your analogies are ludicrous e.g.;
“I am confident you agree that different types of men are attracted to different types of women – some like blondes, others prefer brunettes. Some like tall girls, others go for the petite types.
Some men prefer men and some women prefer women and some people like both. That’s just another fact of life.”
There is absolutely no correlation between a man and a woman having a sexual relationship and two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship.
So Ben we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.
However I will leave you with this suggest, maybe you should practice a little tolerance towards those with different views and beliefs
This is my last word on this so have a nice day.