So many matters for discussion today, so little time. So let me start with the one that created the most ripples in the airwaves yesterday: my discussion on the BBC’s TalkBack with David McNarry. The subject was Martin McGuinness’s comment the previous day that some unionists seem to have a psychological block with reconciliation.
William Crawley asked David McNarry for his views first. He declared himself outraged, that McGuinness had insulted unionists, and he should apologise and/or resign. I was then asked my views on McGuinness’s statement and I said that David had just exemplified the problem: watch-words like “No Surrender”, “Not an inch” and “What we have we hold” are guiding lights for at least (and I’d stress ‘at least’) some unionists. Probably for historical reasons, they are a people who feel themselves under siege, and when you’re in that condition, you can’t afford to think of making gestures of friendship or reconciliation to those you see as your attackers.
The debate went on like that, with most callers, I would say, seeing things as I saw them – reconciliation has been so far a one-way street. But then the subject of the Rev Mervyn Gibson came up and the fact that he had said he’d favour dropping the ban on Orangemen attending Catholic services. I was tempted to say I found that concession laughable but instead I said that Mervyn headed an anti-Catholic organization that held between 2,000 and 4,000 marches every year.
At that point David exploded. He leaned towards me and said I had insulted him, he demanded an apology. My response was “Oh dear” but explained that I wasn’t going to apologise. At which point David rose to his feet, announced he wasn’t hanging around to hear things like this. William Crawley urged him to resume his seat, but it was useless. David was going, but not before he’d informed me that I was “a rebel”, “a nonentity” and he wouldn’t have any dealings with me ever again. (At least that’s how I recall it. I’ll try to put up the programme so you can hear for yourself.)
The News Letter has an article on the schmozzle this morning, where David reiterates his views on Martin McGuinness’s statement and on me. (I was invited to contact the News Letter reporter to give my point of view, but alas I was out all evening until approaching 11.00 pm, so by the time I got the invitation on voice mail it was probably too late. Besides, I’d just as soon give my side here. Better quality of reader. (Oh, OK – inferior quality of reader.) Anyway, in the article David explains another factor that drove him to leave: “I saw a look on his [i.e., my] face that I didn’t like.”
Two things remain to be said. Well, actually, far more than two, but I’ll limit myself to two. One was the use of the epithet “Rebel”. When have you last heard someone called that? I don’t remember it ever being used, other than in “Up the Rebels!” which is always said in a jocose way. Could David have been using the term in some sort of dog-whistle way, I wonder?
The second thing is David’s final words in the News Letter article: “As to Jude Collins, I have never met him before in my life and I don’t particularly want to meet him again. He came across to me as someone who thinks all unionists are bad people.”.
Actually, David, there are some unionists (that term again!) that I respect more than I do some republicans. And when you say “I have never met him before in my life”, that’s – how can I say this – an unfortunate misunderstanding, a misspoken statement, a lapse in memory, an untruth. Or that harsher term, a lie. I was on a UTV discussion panel with David a couple of years ago. I quite liked him then, and was struck by his ability to switch on and get stuck in, once the cameras started rolling. It’d appear he’s abandoned that happy warrior stance now.
Anyway, here’s the link to the programme. You can judge for yourself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08314ch
I did not listen to the original programme as I find that most BBC talk shows are Belfast people talking to Belfast people in the hope and expectation that the rest of us will listen.
I don’t know of any Unionist who takes David McNarry very seriously, but they like him at the BBC because he will be guaranteed to say things which get people “excitable” and phone in.
There are many Unionists out there with interesting things to say. They rarely get heard in our media, either on the BBC or in the Newsletter because they dont fit the stereotype. These are the voices we need to hear, but rarely do.
Jude,in some circles the antiquated term “rebel” is used as a catch all term for “themuns”.About a year ago I had reason to call at a business whose employees would be mainly Unionist.Another customer was conversing with an employee and had not seen me enter the warehouse.The customer asked”are you anything to X”?,to which the employee replied-“aye a cousin” -“Hows he gettin on?” – “Dunno,he’s shacked up with a rebel from Bellaghy!”.It would be safe to assume that the “rebel” in question did not see “active service” at all and was merely baptised in the wrong church.
Mr. McNarry really didn’t cover himself in glory.
He’s an objectionable man who enjoys saying objectionable things for effect.
He nearly choked himself and those of us listening with his faux outrage.
In terms of what you did to set him off, I wouldn’t worry. You said nothing that can’t be substantiated, quite easily actually, from within Unionism and the Orange Order itself.
Mr. McNarry and his fellow travelers are products of and relics of the protestant supremacist hegemonic past of Northern Ireland; yesterdays men struggling to cope with the realisation that they aren’t ‘The People’ anymore. They can’t look at the present, or worse the future, because demonstrably they don’t have the internal coping mechanisms to rationalise and face the reality of an ever-greening Northern Ireland. Their neurosis for a century was driven by the spectre of a United Ireland. However they are wrapped in fear now because they are beginning to realise that their future, short of the UI exigency, will be to live in a Irish/Catholic/Nationalist dominated Northern Ireland. Holistically from their perspective they are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
If he’s “shacked up” I would hope hes seeing active service of an ecumenical nature..
Jude, I hope this won’t have a lasting effect on you or cause you not to be a rebel any more. But that look! It would sour milk. What about a tasteful face veil? You obviously have a massive chip on your shoulder. I wonder where you got it?
How bizarre! It would appear that David doesn’t like ‘rebels’ who speak out of turn.
Well that was quite entertaining.
I have to say neither party came out very well and it all seemed rather petty.
As usual these things seem to provide more heat than light.
I suppose ‘rebel’ could be quite insulting but on the other hand it could be taken as a compliment.
Anyway it gave me a laugh.
Gio,
it was indeed entertaining but I think that you are being a bit unfair to Jude by saying that neither party came out very well. I thought that Jude remained calm and expressed himself quite well. On the other hand Mr McNarry came across as a cantankerous old man. Kind of odd that he claimed that Jude is stuck in the past when that is the impression that he gives of himself.
I think that most Irish people would be quite ok to be considered as a rebel
Nuacht
Jude did remain calm and in the direct exchange he came off least bad.
Where he did not shine,in my opinion, was in answer to William Crawley on a couple of points. I am going from memory so I might be mistaken!
Firstly regarding the meeting of Martin McGuinness and the Queen and what he thought would be the equivalent for unionists (and also failing to acknowledge that it was just as big a deal for the Queen as for Martin) and secondly I felt he dodged the point about Gerry’s infamous trojan horse for breaking the bastards.
On the other hand,David McNarry was very poor and his dodging of the issue over Orange members attending Catholic ceremonies was pathetic.
“and also failing to acknowledge that it was just as big a deal for the Queen as for Martin”
Republicans, notably Martin McGuinness, have acknowledged immediately after meeting Queen Elizabeth how hard it would be for her, especially in regard to Mountbatten being killed by the IRA. McGuinness also said it was difficult for him to meet her given what her soldiers got up to in Ireland both during the Troubles and before.
McGuinness praised Queen Elizabeth’s stance and even said she has done more than political Unionism to enhance peace and reconciliation. That’s when he first revealed that not a single Unionist politician praised his act of meeting Queen Elizabeth (he’s met her at least 3 times now) and very few (if any) have shook his hand in public. Queen Elizabeth has done that many times now and even spoke Irish.
” I felt he dodged the point about Gerry’s infamous trojan horse for breaking the bastards”
Gerry was referring to certain Unionist politicians, not all Unionists. I’m sure he had the like of Greggory Campbell in mind, Michelle Gildernew even called Gregory a “ball*cks” and, as far as I know, refused to apologize when poor Gregory demanded one.
Gerry was in a public event at the time and a frustrated member of the audience spoke of how political Unionism was refusing to progress and reciprocate republican outreaches. That’s when Gerry said “Equality, that’s what will break the b*stards, its Equality”. Obviously the only people Equality can “break” is those who oppose Equality. If you don’t oppose Equality then no one has anything to fear from Gerry’s words.
Ryan
You have missed my point.
In the case of the meeting with the queen I was referring to Jude’s reaction not Martin’s.
McGuinness is very positive in his approach to reconciliation and despite the hints occasionally dropped around here I don’t think there is any hidden reason for that.
Regarding the Gerry incident you overlook (ignore ) the reference to the trojan horse which is particularly relevant in discussing why Unionists might fear tricks and ruses.
Again I thought Jude did not deal with the point well and that is why in my view his performance was not great and he was probably lucky that McNarry actually made him look good in comparison.
“Regarding the Gerry incident you overlook (ignore ) the reference to the trojan horse which is particularly relevant in discussing why Unionists might fear tricks and ruses.”
Gio, I’m not overlooking or ignoring anything. Gerry shouldn’t have worded it the way he did but I know what he was referring to. You seem to be forgetting when the DUP went into government that they said they would “wage a battle a day” against Republicans. How do you think republicans felt about that? Plus, the DUP made clear this was against ALL republicans, not some. Indeed Arlene even referred to Nationalists when she called us “rogues”.
As I said before, Gerry was referring to those Unionists who reject equality when he mentioned a “Trojan Horse”, not all Unionists. Of course these Unionists, not all, are waging a war against equality, even Martin McGuinness referred to it when he said recently “there’s Unionists who hate anything Irish”. Of course SF are going to battle politically against these particular Unionists, the likes of Gregory Campbell, Jamie Bryson, etc who foolishly think that times can go back to the likes of the 1950’s or 60’s. As I said previously if your not against equality then you have nothing to fear from Gerry’s comments, why would you?….even Gerry himself said “What is there to fear from Equality?”. Only those who oppose Equality would fear it….
Ryan, I have never claimed every single person from a unionist community are bad people or should leave.
But it is a fact that Unionism is the ideology behind the sectarian division of Ireland. It is the minority rule and anti catholic, anti Irish sentiment. It has led to polarised communities and political leadership prepared to push its people to kill and attack even a peaceful civil rights march, who brought its people onto the street en masse to attack catholic homes and even when the british army were here to protect them, they pushed them into a choice and eventually started a bloody awful conflict.
Like it or not, that is what unionism is to the majority on this island and to the majority of the planet who know or care enough about Ireland.
And whether anyone likes it or not, they WILL have to acknowledge these FACTS.
When they do, I will be more than happy to put it behind us and move on. But while we have people coming on this site, quite happy to declare themselves a unionist, so long as we don’t associate its past deeds with them. That is not on.
It is no different from nazis today saying the same ideology is ok, hitler was another generation ago, lets just ignore those bits.
Well I am not prepared to accept it.
Especially while their elected representatives, even when facing entering the phase of a permanent electoral minority behave as bad as ever.
They encourage people to be anti irish and if they cannot stomach it when they are in a minority, as I say, good riddance. Unionism is not even preparing their people for the inevitable.
The point you are missing is, if they refuse to change, the feelings and anger I am expressing will become the majority in both parts of this island.
Ryan
You say:
”
Gerry shouldn’t have worded it the way he did but I know what he was referring to”
Unfortunately he did word it that way and it gave force to the unionist idea that Republicans are all about tricks and ruses.
My point is not about the rights and wrongs of Gerry’s comments though, it is about how Jude dealt with (or failed to deal with) them on the debate,if we can call it that.
He invited us to judge it for ourselves and I am explaining why Jude did not shine in my view even though McNarry was worse.
I disagree with Ryan, I have no problem with how Gerry worded it.
It is an accurate reflection of the growing feelings within the community he represents over the refusal of the elitist unionist parties to embrace equality and lead their people responsibly.
If unionist representatives feel Sinn Feins reaching out and even after all this time, are still all about tricks and ruses then they are either as thick as 2 short planks or living in the bigoted hope that something will happen to change the situation in their favour and it is only going to do long term damage to themselves.
Sinn Fein are simply preparing the ground work for the inevitable and focussing on bettering the economic situation as much as possible at least within the economic constraints of partition. At the same time, there is a ground swell and growing resentment of unionist attitudes, their refusal to acknowledge their own past, to embrace reconciliation and the establishment led vilification of one side in a conflict while ignoring the past actions of the unionist leaders who started the conflict.
Sinn Fein in refusing to get drawn into the same level of vitriol at political level is resulting in even greater frustration within their grass roots support base and with people like myself who simply have had as much as they can tolerate of unionist refusal to take responsibility in a post conflict context.
You can do what you like with that, but it is the truth.
You cannot persuade those who are so determined not to be persuaded.
It is folly to even try.
I did point out before that you ‘rebel’ against a legitimate government but you ‘rise up’ against an occupier. Hence the Easter Rising.
Well Jude …where do we go with this one? It’s really all just grist to the old mill.I’ve followed Mr Mc Narry’s adventures down through the years and he’s always been a bit of a gnarly curmudgeon…it’s that old passive-aggressive thing every time. Beneath the apparent bonhomie is still that ancient hatred.It’s a certainty that inside his head there is still a seige going on.Luckily he’ll be long gone (for his own sake) when that last wave of rebellion finally sweeps over the ramparts.You would imagine that having seen how the figures are stacking up that in only a matter of time the “rebels” will have to do nothing other than exert their wishes at the ballot box to execute change ….if that is what they eventually want to do.Mr McNarry still feels that Sinn fein’s mandate should not have allowed them a place in government , so what did he want exactly?….some kind of unionist dictatorship, maybe? It’s awonderful kind of democrat that he is, alright.
I do believe he is now beginning to lose the run of himself completely and a time will come when the invites will dry up.I was listening to the piece while driving in the car and I roared with laughter at the thunderous ragin’ fury of the old buffer. It was like prime Paisley in his heyday.He never sees the whole picture ,even when it is carefully explained. He doesn’t want to see the whole picture and like many others feels that talking about a thing will make it all too real. One other mad commentator , on the phone-in , when reminded that the conflict had actually ended a generation ago and that unionism had made little rapprochment , compared with the hands-across -the -water of nationalism, since then , snapped “That was only yesterday!”….I suppose the twentieth century hasn’t ended yet, either ,inside his head. Twenty years and he hasn’t caught up yet!!The bottom line is that any other political ideal other than “unionism”, is seen as non-political and as ever , a threat .
There are more uses of the greeting ‘My Liege!’, Esteemed Blogmeister, in the collected works of the Bard of Avon than one could possibly hope to shake a spear at in a day’s deerstalking.
One of the most celebrated references occurs in Henry V, the patriotic play:
-God’s will, my liege, would you and I alone, without more help, could fight this royal battle.
One was reminded of this line while reading today’s posting and listening to the recording. The baggage which David McNarry opts to, erm, carry into battle (verbal, of course) is the designer b. marked ‘M.S.’ which are the initials for ‘Moral Superiority’.
One knows this because the politico-media Jackaxis in the Free Southern Stateen are fellow-carriers of the same designer baggage when it comes to the bother in Norneverland.
This is based on the Mayoist’s conviction that moral power comes out of the barrel of a pun and is derived from the heaven-sent events on the streets of Dublin in the years immediately prior to his taking his seat in the Doll House in 1975.
This conviction was undoubtedly born of his boyhood addiction to Cowboy and Indian fillums in which the Colt 45 was known as The Great Persuader and also as:
-The Gun that won the West.
On December 1, 1972 the ‘Littlejohns’, remnants of the Sherwood Foresters of 1916, rocked up to the side streets of Dublin, first to do a rekkie and then to whack Sackville Place with no-warning car bombs.
-The Dummyrun that won the West Briton.
That night the Doll House reacted to this Colt from the Blue by railroading through the Special Emergency Powers (SEP) legislation to combat the (gasp) piranhas of the PIRA. In retrospect this might yet well become known in time as the SEP Splatter legislation but one wouldn’t wouldn’t want to back on it.
Up to till then, the morally inferior Doll House had been in a dithery mood, as evidenced by the popularity of the Tammy Wynette hit there at the time:
-Last night all alone in a ballroom, met a guy with a drink in his hand
He had bay blue eyes, coal black hair, and a smile that a girl understands.
And I was almost persuaded to strip myself of my pride
And I was almost persuaded to push my conscience aside.
After the post-rekkie wreckage the Almost was toast.
The way it’s told nowadays in the Official Narrative, it might well have been an effete chapter from:
-Persuasion by Jane Austen.
The 71 and 72 love-bombings proved to be but the prologue to the swelling act of 1974 when the animal husbandry of the disarming charmers from Farm Glennane scored an even bigger hit than a hit of some twenty years before:
-Arms have I, strong as the oak, for this occasion
Lips have I, to kiss thee too, in Friendly Persuasion.
The imaginative blend of Pat Boone and Daniel Boone in this instance was the ultimate act to win Doll House over to giving the thumbs up to the peaceful policy of boots on the ground in tandem with Boots on the High Street.
A sort of Colt 45 tracing its DNA back to King Billy’s white horse in or around 1690.
ROARING MEGAPHONES
The feudal caboodle has oodles of liegets
Loyal inferiors who lord it over rebel eejits
For them yon Lundy
Is akin to Ted Bundy
Time to coin a new term, like ,erm, siegets?
To conclude: the behavior of your verbal rival, EB, recalls Williams as much as William: Kenneth Williams as well as William Shakespeare. Old Ken was one of the star turns in the great (gulp) McNarry On Series and his stand-out whine-line still remains:
-Infamy ! Infamy ! They all have it Infamy !
A rebel isn’t too bad. Imagine if he’d called you a rogue or a renegade, Jude !
McNarry reminds me of that other great Tyrone thinker Ken Maginnis. Peas in a pod.
“McNarry reminds me of that other great Tyrone thinker Ken Maginnis. Peas in a pod.”
Maginnis basically admitted to handing the names of men over to Thatcher in a late night phone call to be murdered. He still hasn’t been questioned or arrested over this admission on a spotlight programme……
Jude, I listened to the item on the programme and think you acquitted yourself well. What I found interesting was the called who basically called out David McNarry as being a liar over denying a statement he had allegedly made on another radio/TV broadcast to the effect that Catholics in the North should give up their Irish Passports and accept British ones. I don’t think the caller expected Mr McNarry to deny making the statement as I think he wanted to question him on it.
The man went as far as asking William Crawley to check his twitter feed as he had sent a link to a podcast/ recording of the programme. William asked the caller when he had sent the tweet with the link to which he answered that he had sent it a short time ago. William dismissed the caller saying that he had not received it yet but as twitter users know it is instantaneous.
Could it be a possibly be that David left prudently before any possibility of the twitter link being verified and possibly being caught out telling porkies on a live radio broadcast?
I didn’t listen to the remainder of the show but I do believe that William Crawley has a duty to confirm or deny the veracity of information which was allegedly sent to him during his broadcast.
‘William Crawley has a duty . . .’
But you shouldn’t forget that Crawley is a Mount Vernon unionist, and while you can take the man out of Mount Vernon, he continually proves you can’t take Mount Vernon out of the man.
e.g. – In all his former commonwealth TV programmes, everything is Ulster Scots – has he ever met an Irish Catholic on his travels? His interviews don’t indicate so!
Sherdy
Are you accusing Crawley of bias?
I haven’t seen any evidence of it but I am interested to see what you’ve got.
Gio, read on from E.g.
Jude, how embarrassing for him. He represents a brand of unionist who are incapable of having a rational debate.
…I’m sure you have boosted talkback’s ratings yet again.
So many cognitive biases to choose from… so little…
Gio, as I recall ( I stand corrected ) GA basically said that “equal rights” will break Unionism, ie: break unionist opposition to real equality. The saddest thing surely, is that unionism has to be broken at all and that an equality agenda will act as the necessary battering ram, is a little embarrassing. Faux outrage at the ‘bastard’ term is just flannel.
Unionism really does seem to see “equality” as some kind of threat. I was thinking off the top of my head about the Civil Rights Movement or the recent Gay Cake row.What is their real problem with a “one-size fits all” style of law-making. Imagine having to go out on the streets and demonstrate just to be on an equal basis with everyone else.It’s patently absurd, but Martin Luther King was shot dead and Civil Rights demonstrators were hammered off the streets in America and here. What kind of people think that this is right? What part of the word “equality” do they not understand?
what kind of people think that this is right.what part of equality do they not understand……
quite a few going by the civil rights of women being denied having an abortion if they want,the place and the windbags running it are still living in the 1920s.
On this i agree ,billy.
Abortion is not a “civil right” and no-one with any shred of moral decency would deem i so as it is an abominable procedure with directly destroys an innocent life in the womb.
Please, PK, if you could state, precisely, the ways in which Nationalists in NI are, currently, denied any rights available to Unionists, I’d bet interested to read your comments.
I never mentioned “nationalists” anywhere , PF, but I certainly know who the DUP supported when the Ashers Bakery broke the law recently and it wasn’t those with an equality agenda..
So, PK, you have already backed off from the term ‘Unionists’. What will you retract next?
This is exactly what I’m getting at by my comments below, and you know it.
In addition, the ambiguous statement, “Unionism really does seem to see “equality” as some kind of threat.”, is written in the context on this thread and in the context of the wider website, which is one which relates to Unionism’s attitude.
You know that too.
I can only conclude that the lack of precision is deliberate.
So you’re saying that the DUP are not unionists, PF? I thought it was understood that they represented more unionists than anyone else.Who votes for them, if not unionists?Are we talking about their attitude to equality or not? Did they not support the Ashers when they broke the equalitylaw ? What could be more plain than that? Was the former leader of the DUP , the Rev. Ian Paisley not the very person who literally opposed “civil rights”… right out there on the streets ? It must have been his stand-in I saw there at the barricades with his bully boys with their blackthorn sticks… Did he also not create a movement based on the hounding of homosexuals in our community and scream “Save Ulster from Sodomy” ,when the law had already been altered and agreed in the other parts of the UK? As far as I can see , unionism has a hard time keeping up with the rest of society.Open yout eyes PF and try not defending the indefensible for once.
PK
I’m afraid your allegations are easy to refute – extremely so.
Step by step.
I quote:
PK – “Unionism really does seem to see “equality” as some kind of threat.”
You use of the word ‘Unionism’ was unqualified and indiscriminate. It is a favoured tactic (‘tactic’ was a carefully chosen word), of many (‘many’ was a carefully chosen word) contributors to this site.
When I challenged you, and referring to ‘Nationalists’ (Unionists and Nationalists, and the supposed lack of reconciliation by Unionists being the main subject matter of the article by Jude) you said you didn’t mention ‘Nationalists’ and continued to cite the DUP and equal marriage.
I replied – PF – “So, PK, you have already backed off from the term ‘Unionists’.”
Which is demonstrably true. You changed your term of choice from ‘Unionism’ to the ‘DUP’.
My statement stands as correct.
Then you try to shift again – PK – “So you’re saying that the DUP are not unionists, PF?”
Which is a ridiculous statement; however, it is also an attempt to cite the DUP as representing “more unionists than anyone else.” as relevant to the point.
It is not, however, irrelevant to the point – because even if true, it doesn’t equate to “Unionism”.
My statement stands as correct.
Now, to the matter of, as you said, “equality”.
Let’s stick the matter of equal marriage.
The Catholic Church represent a lot of Catholics.
If I were to say (note the “if”) Catholicism has a… (sorry, seems to – useful word is seems) Catholicism seems to have a problem with “equality”, that would be an unqualified and indiscriminate allegation including Catholics who happened to disagree with others on the question of equal marriage.
And we can consider another example, that of abortion rights.
I could say that “Nationalism seems to have a problem with “equality”; the SDLP voted against changes to abortion.
Would this be a fair statement?
Clearly, no. Are the SDLP, ‘Nationalism”? Clearly not.
My challenge stands as true and and rational.
Many commentators to this website use the terms ‘Unionism’ and ‘Unionists’ in an unqualified and indiscriminate way.
Perhaps it is deliberate.
My eyes are wide open, PK.
And I can see clearly.
PK
And I’ve just noticed this:
“Open yout eyes PF and try not defending the indefensible for once.”
Would you care to record here, for all to see (quotes would be good), where I have previously, defended the indefensible.
Or was that just another poor turn of phrase?
Surely equality should be extended to people of Faith who believe with great integrity that marriage consists of the union between a man and a woman. They should be able to live out this belief in their private and public(business) affairs with no legal threat hanging over them by the zealous police of Political Correctness.
Gearoid
That’s exactly my point.
Unionists, Catholics, Nationalists… and whatever other section of our society ought to receive the same respect.
Nothing more to add, PK?
My apologies for my tardiness in some of my response, but i’m afraid that i also have a life beyond this screen and sometimes I am scribbling away at my own pieces.
I suppose we’ll have to accept, for the public historical record ,that unionist parties who gain some kind of power ,represent some half of the general voting population of “unionists” and nationalist parties represent approximately the other half of that same population of “nationalists”..they are the public faces…..That’s only representing those who care to vote, of course, so we’ll also have to accept that too.. As well as that there’s probably a lot of people out there who do not give a fig either way and have no opinion at all about anything ,or simply can’t be bothered because they do not feel that their views are represented at all by the available choices on offer. They might literally have no -one to vote for or vote for those available simply because they do not wish to spoil their vote or feel powerless.
In that context the DUP is seen as representing the majority of unionism, who favour a union with Britain and the Sinn Fein party are seen as representing the majority of nationalism which appears to favour, at the moment , a real republic instead of a monarchy based on a German /Greek family .That is what each of those parties is selling. That still doesn’t cover all those who might not favour any of those two options .Both options can be argued as perfectly sound political pathways.Beyond that there are the civic mores and the civic laws and of course there is religious belief too. It has to be borne in mind that not everyone has religious belief.
When I use “unionism” I use it in the context of what the DUP represents to the world as their public face , because they are the ones with that platform which has been given to them by “unionists” who voted.Currently when I use the word “nationalism”, I am usually speaking of Sinn Fein which obviously comprises the majority of people who have changed from their Socialist Democratic base with the SDLP and are now voting for a republic and a republican party agenda instead .That is the choice they have made and it is a viable political ideal for them. Nobody forced them to vote in that way , but it is obviously what they want to see happening because that is what is being sold.They have changed their minds and are now “republicans”….for now. My personal view would be for a united country which i think might work if handled properly .I do not, for example , want a Catholic Ireland , just as i never wanted a Protestant Northern Ireland . I wanrt a country where religion is a private passion for the individual .I want a place where there is respect for a set of civic laws which protect every citizen(not subject) equally , but I don’t want a place where someone’s religious belief can dictate a law for someone with no such belief.That is why the Ashers case is important .It was shown that their religious belief has broken an idea of civic equality. That was the irrefutable verdict and i believe it was arrived at in a very logical and thoughtful way.
I can still stand by my allegation that Unionism has a problem with equality on those terms…and without any hope of refutation, simply because the examples of its representatives siding with the law-breakers are part of the common record . If you can show me some examples which involve any other parties I will read them very carefully.Right or wrong , I want to see the examples without favour .As far as i am concerned, if “nationalism” , as ultimately represented by Sinn Fein currently or by the SDLP in the past, proffers similar views of “equality” as supported by the DUP , for example, which I think are wrong or distasteful …or simply blatently unfair to a specific group (as is the case with the gay community and would be the same if they were proposed for a different race or colour) I will beat it with the very same stick.That kind of “equality” simply doesn’t stand up and is indefensible.
As for “Catholicism” and “Protestantism” ….they are belief systems based on Christian theology which stretch back some 2000 years, to a very unenlightened time, which also has its own set of origin stories in otherold eastern belief- systems, long before before the Common Era. These belief systems will always confront problems of logic and have been doing so since the Age of Enlightenment when it was discovered that the earth was not the centre of the universe but was a tiny planet orbiting one of a billion suns. That is to be expected , given how much was unknown when these sytems were founded by people without any such information.
Freddie
Calling Unionists bastards may not be a big deal in the grand scheme of things but he also talked about the trojan horse.
Now this debate is around the notion that unionists view SF tactics as full of tricks and ruses, so it is hardly irrelevant to point out that Gerry was referencing possibly the most famous ruse in history..
He may have afterwards tried to retract but the damage was done and suspicions were confirmed. Jude failed to see that or if he did see it then he failed to acknowledge it.
On the positive side I have a lot of time for Martin McGuinness, a man who seems more interested in the future than the past and I am glad to see he is solidly in the letsgetalongerist camp.
Unionists, blah; blah, unionists; anti-equality; blah, unionists; unionists, unionists, blah, bigots, blah, blah, blah; unionists; did anyone say, bigotists; unionists, blah, orange; you started it; you started it, unionists; blah; honestly we said nothing about, blah, blah, unionists…slight on Newsletter readers, blah, blah, unionists; at least, unionists; anti, blah; reconciliation, blah; unionists, unionists, unionists.
Unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists, unionists; unionists, unionists, unionists.
Wolf!
Tourette’s…..?…Yes? ….No?
Not on my part.
But your comment was almost funny. Pity it fell short.
And as it’s Advent:
We’re making a list, we’re checking it twice…
Ad hominem
Ad nauseam
Appeal to fear
Appeal to prejudice
Demonising
Euphemism
hyperbole
Guilt by association
Vagueness
Labeling
we’re gonna find out who’s naughty or nice…
I didn’t know it was you Jude that David was angry at. I came across the headlines and basically didn’t read on about what he was angry about. I’m not a listener to William Crawley either, I’m more of a Stevie Nolan fan (My comments often appear on the Nolan TV show) but I think I should give William an ear in the mornings too while I eat my cornflakes and banana.
“He declared himself outraged, that McGuinness had insulted unionists, and he should apologise and/or resign”
A typical Unionist politicians response. I haven’t listened to the debate yet but I’m sure David didn’t actually consider if Martin had a point or not. Instead the “Siege Mentality” kicked in, the cry of “We’re under attack! get across the moat and drop the portcullis!” sounded in David’s head.
I don’t think most Unionists realize that criticism can be healthy and it can be constructive for the person being criticized. That’s how I view it anyway. If you constantly view criticism as an “attack” then you do have a psychological problem.
“Probably for historical reasons, they are a people who feel themselves under siege, and when you’re in that condition, you can’t afford to think of making gestures of friendship or reconciliation to those you see as your attackers”
But do Unionists ask themselves WHY they feel that they are under siege? Of course they aren’t under siege but yet they may feel that they are. It all ascends from the Plantation of Ulster, which was simply mass theft of land and ethnic cleansing of the Irish. So, in reality, it should be me and many other Irish Catholics that feel under siege but we don’t today, we certainly did during the troubles and that was not surprising, given the actions of the British State.
In my opinion, this Unionist mentality of feeling “Under Siege” reminds me of a cheating husband on the Jeremy Kyle Show accusing his wife of cheating because he is guilty of it. I think some Unionists feel under siege because they know they have done a lot of historical wrongs, ranging from the Plantations right up to the Troubles. Now they are judging Irish Catholics by their own standards and feel this is going to happen against them in a sort of “revenge”. Hence the “We’re being Attacked” or “Under Siege” mentality.
I have studied psychology (I’m no expert, nor am I trying to be) but you see this kind of “Siege Mentality” in other parts of the World too, most notably in South Africa from Whites during Apartheid. Of course the History of South Africa and Ireland in regards to Colonialism is very similar.
So maybe Unionists should ask questions of themselves, especially uncomfortable questions. Republicans have been doing the same thing for years, decades even, even in public debates.
“At that point David exploded. He leaned towards me and said I had insulted him, he demanded an apology”
Apologize for the truth? It use to be the Orange Order would happily describe itself openly as an Anti-Catholic organisation but not today, that’s obviously due to the growing number of Catholics. The Orange Order has went from an “Anti-Catholic/Anti-Popery” organisation to a “Pro-Protestant” group, as Ruth Dudley Edwards recently described them. Of course, that’s nonsense. The Orange Order is Anti-Catholic today as like it was in 1916.
“but not before he’d informed me that I was “a rebel”
In other words he was calling you a Republican Jude. Some people on here (I think it was Joe or MT, I apologize if I’m incorrect) accused you of the same when you typed something they didn’t like. Its meant to resign the word “Republican” to be a negative, as if its a crime or a dirty word. Its similar to the way there’s outrage or shock in the media at the words “United Ireland”. Its about demonizing a particular point of view or to make it against etiquette, in this case its the Republican viewpoint.
“One was the use of the epithet “Rebel”. When have you last heard someone called that? I don’t remember it ever being used, other than in “Up the Rebels!””
When I hear the term “Up the Rebels” I assume its referring to the IRA. Now only David knows but I think he could be calling you an IRA man or IRA supporter Jude, though to me you have only ever came across as being against all violence, though we all like to debate the CAUSES of violence on your blog, whether its in the North or Syria or Iraq.
Willie Frazer has also accused you of being a “Republican Supporter” but this is a man who openly supports the UVF/UDA and who the Garda said have evidence he was in the Red Hand Commando terrorist group.
There’s something sinister behind Unionist politicians who accuse people of being “Rebels” or “Republican Supporters”. Its almost as if they are branding or marking people, that’s how it appears to me….
PF, as far as I can see you asked PK to explain himself about unionist attitudes towards equality and he answered and then you stuck you’re fingers in you’re ears because you couldn’t accept the bleedin obvious. That’s disappointing.
See above, Freddie. Sorry, but the thoughtless allegations aimed indiscriminately at unionists is what’s disappointing; but I’ve come to expect it.
Peter
Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island. There are countless accounts and evidence of why so many people on this island will always despise it.
I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people.
Perhaps a good place to start would be for unionism to be held to account, to face the same scrutiny of its past actions, at the very least to acknowledge its role in starting a bitter and bloody conflict that cost thousands of human lives all for nothing.
When unionism puts forward its representatives to do this and begins a reconciliation process with the rest of this island, and I mean all of this island then we can move towards the respect you wish to receive,
But at the moment, unionism whether you like it or not, is represented by the leaders it puts forward to speak on its behalf, which remain its elected representatives, the orange order and the unionist paramilitaries who stood shoulder to shoulder with one another on the flags issue. These are the true representatives of unionism.
If you don’t like it, that is your problem to address as to why your people choose people you don’t seem to like or agree with to represent them.
By claiming yourself to be a unionist, you are not making unionism appear any more acceptable, you are simply tainting yourself, just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing, but it would make people less trusting of you.
Its the same thing.
The bottom line is, you are living in Ireland, and Ireland will be ruled by the Irish, British rule will go and the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better.
“Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.” –
Ad nauseam
Appeal to fear
Appeal to prejudice
“There are countless accounts and evidence of why so many people on this island will always despise it.” –
hyperbole
Vagueness
“I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people.” –
Ad hominem
“By claiming yourself to be a unionist, you are not making unionism appear any more acceptable, you are simply tainting yourself,” –
Ad hominem
” just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing,”
Demonising
hyperbole
Guilt by association
(and a touch of Godwin)
“it would make people less trusting of you.”
Ad hominem
“The bottom line is, you are living in Ireland, and Ireland will be ruled by the Irish, British rule will go and the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better.”
And that’s just a crude threat.
Now what was that about reconciliation?
It sounds a lot like your-reconciliation-way or the high-way.
Happy Christmas.
And I’ll bet my bottom dollar Jude won’t remove any of the verbal abuse directed at me.
“And I’ll bet my bottom dollar Jude won’t remove any of the verbal abuse directed at me.”
I directed no verbal abuse towards you Peter.
Show me where I abused you.
I already did, above.
“Show me where I abused you.
I already did, above.”
Ok lets see.
“Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.”
This is not attack on you or any individual Peter.
It is the opinion of unionism felt by many Irish people all over this island of which I have given detailed explanations of my own reasoning.
If in the light of the blatant and seemingly deliberate failures of the leadership of unionism to acknowledge its past or to embrace reconciliation, if you choose to still be comfortable declaring yourself to be a unionist and choose to simply ignore the actions of mainstream unionism and expect us to accept that all should be forgotten, then no. It wont be. As I said, it would be no different from a modern day nazi party trying to british WWII under the carpet. Simply not going to happen. But don’t try to rebuff reality by claiming I am making personal attacks on you. As I have said consistently, when unionism faces up to its past and embraces working together, I will have no issue reciprocating and working together and even supporting your views and ensuing equality is for all.
At present, I see no difference from your more subtle methods to attempt to maintain the unionist agenda and status quo than the more honest if offensive sort.
“There are countless accounts and evidence of why so many people on this island will always despise it.”
This is also not an attack on you or any individual Peter.
Your claims that it is hyperbole or has Vagueness excludes the fact we have conversed many times and I have explained my views.
You have not adequately responded to them other than hope we can put the past behind us and drop it. Which would be fine, but in the context of unionisms one sided vilification of republicans over a conflict which they started, as I say I for one will not be accepting this.
Once again, no attack on you and I see no difference from your more subtle methods to attempt to maintain the unionist agenda and status quo than the more honest if offensive sort.
“I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people.”
“By claiming yourself to be a unionist, you are not making unionism appear any more acceptable, you are simply tainting yourself,”
Again, no attack on you
“just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing,”
Not Demonising and not an attack on you.
Simply stating the fact that people wanting to ignore unionisms violent and sectarian past, the conflict it started and even the continuing bias its representatives espouse today, can be reasonably equated to a modern day nazi party expecting no one to mention the war.
I would not expect the general public to swallow such reasoning and I wont be expected to swallow the same from unionists today, including yourself.
And this is not in any way an attack on you Peter. It is trying to make you see how your views can be seen from the other sides point of view.
It is up to you whether this is important ot not, but crying sympathy for being attacked when you are not wont cut any ice with me.
“it would make people less trusting of you.”
A statement of fact and still not an attack on you.
As I said, it is up to you whether or not it is important to you. From the actions of mainstream unionism I expect it isnt.
“The bottom line is, you are living in Ireland, and Ireland will be ruled by the Irish, British rule will go and the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better”
And that’s just a crude threat.”
Who is the threat from Peter?
The british state through the GFA accepts that Ireland will eventually leave the UK or what is the point in the agreement in the first place.
I get the mainstream unionist view is that the GFA and even the peace process itself is a threat.
Nice of you to finally admit you hold mainstream unionist views.
But again, this is not a threat and it is not an attack on you.
“Now what was that about reconciliation?
It sounds a lot like your-reconciliation-way or the high-way.”
Unionism has time and time again shown publically its rejection of reconciliation and acts exactly like it is its way or the highway.
My preference would be total reconciliation but if it is not forthcoming, then my preference is not for pandering but the asserton of equality and the reclamation of Ireland.
“Happy Christmas.”
A cynical attempt to portray yourself as the wounded party while claiming you have been personally attacked or abused when you have not.
Sometimes truth hurts Peter. Reconciliation is the only way to avoid this and until mainstream unionism faces up to this, don’t expect sympathy for anyone who would declare themselves a unionist in spite of its blatant failings.
Happy Christmas to you also Peter.
Whatever.
There was nothing indiscriminate about my aim on this specific topic of unionism’s attitude to “equality”.There is an entire historical record of this kind of behaviour and it is still very evident in the ongoing world of today.Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.There is a certain hypocrisy evident in many things.
I am not saying that nationalism is stain-free in many things too, but on the “equality issue” unionism has been found uniquely wanting.There is a need for them to look closely at their behaviour when confronted with the fact that half the population are not voting unionist and have a very different idea of their sense of identity.If, for example they might want to vote and work towards a n aspiration to make Ireland a republic, that is a perfectly logical political aspiration. We are all Irishmen and yet we hear unionist politicians disparaging the very idea of Irishness.They too, are Irish born and their “britishn unionism ” is a political position, which should be open to debate , not some racial separatness .The idea of an Irish politician even making clumsy jokes at the expense of the Irish language, which is important to many people ,is a very odd thing to witness. It smacks of racism , arrogance and inequality…something an 2equality agenda ” should fight against.
There’s the support for many things that an observer would find racist, such as burning flags and effigies on bonfires.Many would find it abhorrent and basely hypocritical that a civic leader of any stripe would have himself photographed before such a thing and use it for political capital. Yet a unionist politician recently did just that.If we are all equal ,why would you want to burn a flag which has long-held associations with your neighbour.If nationalists wanted to burn anyone else’s flag , I would make the very same observation.I believe they disrespect the union flag at every turn anyway.
Given that unionism was at the very heart of the reason why the Troubles began (and that is also part of the world’s historical record, for all to see), it might be expected that they might look a little closer at the reasons why this “Troubles”actually happened.They do not appear to understand cause and effect.I lived through all of that and it was perfectly evident that the roots lay in the “equality agenda” ,specifically the desire for civil rights across the board.
I’m not saying that it might not all have been settled amicably and politically after many long-drawn-out changes.That would surely have been preferable than all that terror, but events took over very quickly , mostly because of some very stupid cack-handed decisions by the British government and of course our own very silly politicians and local police forces. Add to that the holier than thou attitude of Big House unionism when they were at the very same time encouraging their less-educated folks to form terrorist gangs of their own and you can see why I find unionism’s attitude to “Equality” very suspect. They actually expected toalways have the upper hand politically and might really have preferred a neat little dictatorship where they could make neat little laws to suit only unionism.I can recall laws in place to chain up children’s swings on Sundays. A smal thing perhaps , but it says everything about controlling an agenda to suit only unionism’s very narrow vision of how society should be.
“There was nothing indiscriminate about my aim on this specific topic of unionism’s attitude to “equality”.”
So why use the word “Unionism”? You fail to answer that point. “Unionism” is a catch all term.
Something you continue to do throughout your response.
Like Jessica, you tar all with the one brush. Indeed she goes further insinuating I taint myself.
As I said above: unionism, unionism, blah, blah blah. Demonise, demonise, demonise.
There’s little else of note posted on this site.
And for the last time, the example of ‘equal marriage’ is not limited to “Unionists” (there’s that word again). But I’d be wasting my time to point out that others from other communities have differing opinions.
When I speak of “unionism” in the context of these pages, in my mind I am referring to a nebulous ethos and not necessarily a group of people.Obviously the most obvious targets are those we see as representing a specific mindset. these are the people whom unionists vote to represent them by rote and these are the politicians such as Ken McGinnis or David McNarry who regularly reduce politics to comedy.It is with this in mind that it is necessary to unpick some of the howlers of logic that these representatives spew out ..I’d feel the very same if politicians from another ,other political party such as Sinn Fein or the SDLP…or Alliance did what they do .I’d jump on that too.it’s a fact that unionists are being represented by some very weird and wonderful people.The on-air “explosion” by Mr McNarry is only one of a long series of gaffes such as the “Curry My Yoghurt” attempt at clumsy humour from Gregory Campbell. In this respect , he had lost the run of himself and went off on a huff like some spoiled child. You have to remember that he is supposed to be a politician and isactually representing voters….What kind of voters vote for a man like that? “Unionism” too, as a concept, has to be politically questioned like any other political position, especially as the landscape constantly changes. Brexit will bring many changes and they might not necessarily be good for a unionist voter…do they ask themselves about possible alternative political strategies?
“Brexit will bring many changes and they might not necessarily be good for a unionist voter…do they ask themselves about possible alternative political strategies?”
I think you are getting to the nub of it here Harry,
Should unionists put unionism first or people and the same has to be said to nationalism?
Many people here including gio have defended the right of unionists to avoid any talks that could lead to a united Ireland being on the table, basically supporting the abuse of veto.
That is fine, but it is putting unionism first, not people and in a post conflict environment sort of justifies the opinion that unionism is sectarian and bigoted and is core to the problems here.
I never said that “the example of ‘equal marriage “was limited to “Unionists” , either. My position is that if anyone from any particular political position ..left , right, orange , green or in-between thinks they can have a society of “equals” without giving everyone in that society their fair share of equal civic rights , no matter what their sexuality or sexual practice should be …are barking up a very unsteady tree.. It simply doesn’t make any kind of logical sense to deny a person a desired right because of some other person’s religious fears, for example .Esoteric beliefs and faiths are very personal matters and have little to do with logic or even reality. Some people believe some very odd things, but they usually keep them for their own personal and private usage.They cannot enforce them. That’s the law.
PK
I’ll respond to some of your comments here – primarily the one about Unionists.
You said above that, “I can still stand by my allegation that Unionism has a problem with equality on those terms…”
Which is fair enough, now that you have defined your terms.
My point all along has been that terms are rarely defined on these pages leaving an entire community as the subject of the ire and the scapegoat of many commentators here.
In defining your terms as, “When I speak of “unionism” in the context of these pages, in my mind I am referring to a nebulous ethos and not necessarily a group of people.” it now seems that you agree – or are tending to agree – with my complaint that the description ‘unionism’ was “ambiguous”, “unqualified and indiscriminate.”
That being the case, it would be more reasonable to say that ‘many people’, ‘from many differencing political and religious backgrounds, including those who have no particular identification’ have a difficulty with “equality”.
And that many others, have no particular problem with equality.
A greater attention to specifics and less linguistic-carpet-bombing of an entire community would save a lot of trouble for everyone.
Well, I thought I’d answered that too and I provided a couple of examples. I could have mentioned the whole flag issue where there was an eruption because they(unionists and everyone else) were being asked to be as equal as everyone else in the entire UK and only fly flags o certain specific designated days.The assumption is that they want to be more equal than anyone else.I see it as a sort of supremacist tic or an inherent fear of accepting that everyone should have the very same rights in law…again the Ashers Bakery nonsense rears its head where faith in the unknown and ordinary civic commerce clash, leaving the civic law the winner,, It looks very straight forward to me that “equal” means”equal”….but maybe someone else has some better idea…preferably one that doesn’t break the law.
Ah sure, I suppose Unionism is akin to a terminal cancer prognosis, you’re on the way out you just don’t know how long you’ve left.
“Ah sure, I suppose Unionism is akin to a terminal cancer prognosis, you’re on the way out you just don’t know how long you’ve left”
According to An Taoiseach Enda Kenny they should have less than 20 years left…..though I think we’ll see a SF or another Nationalist being First Minister long before then…..
“According to An Taoiseach Enda Kenny they should have less than 20 years left”
I would give them 10.
Once they are in the minority, many will be unable to stomach it and will leave. That along with the drop off in the older ages, the students going to GB and not returning and the anti Irish who will leave when they lose power and realise there is no way back.
Good riddance to the lot of them
O brave new world…!
“Once they are in the minority, many will be unable to stomach it and will leave.”
To be perfectly honest, if the welcome on this site is anything to go by, it’s hard enough to stomach now.
PF
I understand your frustration.
But it is worth remembering that the vast majority of people do not bother themselves with this site or others like it.
They get on with their lives and tolerate their neighbours and mostly, in my experience, abhor the violent paramilitary gangs that blighted our lives for so long
Attitudes expressed here are at times extreme.
The attacks and abuse you are receiving are not the norm.
I agree though that Jude is unlikely to pay any attention.
Gio
Thank you for your kind comments.
“To be perfectly honest, if the welcome on this site is anything to go by, it’s hard enough to stomach now.”
And if unionism refuses to change its attitude, don’t expect things to get better.
“Attitudes expressed here are at times extreme”
I’ve been on a lot of blog sites concerning politics here in the North Gio and not one of them didn’t have what would be considered “extreme attitudes”. We live in a society where “extreme attitudes” is very common, surely you should already know that and expect it. There’s a reason why people in public (like at work, social events, etc) both Unionist and Republic avoid talking politics because they know it wont usually end well. Its the same on this blog at times.
“The attacks and abuse you are receiving are not the norm”
Gio, this is a blog site, no one is being “attacked”. Views are challenged, debates get heated, etc even I would expect that if I was on a Unionist themed blog (I was until I got banned for revealing I was a Catholic). Of course if personal abuse is handed out then that’s wrong and warnings/bans should be given out.
“I agree though that Jude is unlikely to pay any attention”
Gio, I fail to see where Jude is being unfair, this is not the first time you have typed similar comments about him. There’s already over 60 comments on this blog, many of them very long, do you expect Jude to spend an hour or 2 monitoring every single one of them? He even noted in this article he didn’t have time to respond to the Newsletter, a big news paper.
I myself have been warned by Jude for comments I wrote about, I think, MT. He said if I made similar comments again they will be removed or something worse. He did the same to Jessica a few times (and, I think it was Jude, noted in an article about Jessica’s pessimism). He has blurred out or removed comments from Nationalists before, noting that abuse wont be tolerated on the blog. And, if you go back a few weeks on the article list, he even typed an article asking for people on the blog to be more respectful of each other, share ideas, instead of arguing or harking back to the past. He wanted more respect, positively and new ideas. That was from Republicans commenters as much as Unionist.
BTW, in this comment: “According to An Taoiseach Enda Kenny they should have less than 20 years left”, I’m simply referencing an article in the Belfast Telegraph today about Enda Kenny hinting at a United Ireland in 20 years. I’m not giving abuse and as always I’m open to be challenged….well in this case your best challenging Kenny because he’s the one who made the reference.
Ryan, tell me where I abused anyone.
Everything I said is true and they are feelings which are starting to grow in my community.
Have you not noticed?
There is only so long you can hold out the hand of friendship Ryan.
Ryan
Do you think ‘good riddance to the lot of them’ is the view of the general population in Ireland regarding unionists or is it extreme?
Is ‘the sooner the exodus begins the better’ what most people think or is it extreme?
The people who will leave first will be the political elite who can afford it and have done nothing but play up the historic fears of a minority population who had undemocratic control in Ireland and use it to keep themselves in well paid positions of power.
They have font nothing to build bridges or embrace reconciliation and would be quick to return us to conflict if it guaranteed a future within the UK.
They will go to england and will have sufficient earnings from their political careers to set themselves up nicely.
The anti Irish unionists who simply could not stomach the changes which will come when there is a unionist minority will also choose to leave, probably to less attractive prospects in Scotland.
I would say a majority would consider it good riddance to them and all those who will refuse to accept the democratic change but most will be too polite to say it.
You seem to think your attitude of pander to unionism is in a majority here gio, it is not.
I accept my brash and blunt expression of the true feelings would be frowned upon, but who is denying the sentiment behind them?
I am also getting a sense of frustration in the republic, people realising the true obtuseness of unionism the more they have had to deal with them, especially post brexit.
As the realisation grows that ending partition will also be in their economic favour and the benefits of working together as one, as in the bid for the rugby world cup will show. I don’t believe that many will want to have to endure unionism.
We can talk about unionism being 20% representation of a dail, but the more intransigent it remains, the closer to the wire they press against it, the greater the resentment all over this island in general will be that such attitudes are not wanted.
If unionism is unable or unwilling to change, then there is no future for unionism in Ireland period.
Unification will wait until we in the north deal with it through peaceful and democratic means which as the demographics show is the way forward.
I would not want to impose such anti Irish intolerance on the people of the republic with whom bridges can be built and reconciliation will be possible.
Unionism has no-one to blame but itself, they have been given every opportunity to embrace reconciliation and there is simply no logic to their refusal.
Perhaps someone living in the south could confirm my senses on this as accurate or otherwise.
“I would give them 10.
Once they are in the minority, many will be unable to stomach it and will leave. That along with the drop off in the older ages, the students going to GB and not returning and the anti Irish who will leave when they lose power and realise there is no way back.
Good riddance to the lot of them”
I understand why you typed that comment Jessica because your full of anger and frustration by the attitude of Unionism but its important to remember that there’s many Unionists, as I pointed out many times on this blog, who aren’t like people like Gregory Campbell or Edwin Poots and do want to progress onwards and have a better society for all.
When it comes to the Unionist ideology itself, Republicans have to accept it as legitimate, just in the same way Unionists must accept our ideology of a United Ireland as legitimate too. Both are legitimate. We’re a democracy. My main issue with Unionism is the sectarianism, the division and the history of it but I accept that Unionist people have just as much a right to be Unionist as I have to be a Republican, the fact they’re Unionist is not an issue with me. We’re all people and we have to learn to move on (that doesn’t mean the past shouldn’t be sorted and acknowledged, for everyone) and part of moving on is respecting each others views.
Do I hope all Unionists move away in the case of a United Ireland? No, I would hope they would stay and help create a better society and see Ireland, not Britain, as their country. But that’s up to them, not me.
Yes, there is a lot of Unionists who are stuck in the past but its wrong to say all of them are. I often quote Susan McKays book on this blog (its because its a direct source, its not the authors words, its only the interviewees) but I was surprised by how many Unionists/Protestants in that book saying, not publically of course, that they hope to see an end of discrimination and the sectarianism. That all that happened under the Unionist Government was wrong. Some even said they want a United Ireland in the long term because they agree the sectarianism will ultimately end then and partition was wrong.
What I’m saying is don’t be too general about Unionism, yes there’s rotten eggs (mostly created by demagogues within Big House Unionism) but there’s also decent people in there too who have a lot to contribute.
A number of those living on stolen, unpaid for, land, are already purchasing land back home in Alba.
“A number of those living on stolen, unpaid for, land, are already purchasing land back home in Alba.”
You can be sure the elite class elected representatives who use the working class protestant fears to keep them well paid for giving them false hope and perpetuating animosities will have no problem moving to London or elsewhere in GB to retire when they fall from power.
And, frankly, Kenny, et. al can go home with them, Ireland for the Irish’ as O Connell said.
Jessica, I think what you say about unionism is abhorrent. To use such unwarranted language is completely uncalled for. Surely we can discuss matters in a civil manner without resorting to inappropriate language.
Freddie
Many thanks for your comments; much appreciated, and reassuring.
I think many things about unionism is abhorrent Freddie.
While mainstream unionism supports the cover up of british murder and collusion, while they refuse to engage in any reconciliation process, while they continue to frustrate and compound political progress on this island, while they prioritise and impose their wishes in a sectarian and bigoted manner through abuse of the veto of concern and insult and demonise one side in a conflict that they started. Then I am quite comfortable in my view that unionism is indeed a scourge on this land, as much now as it ever has been.
I am perfectly happy and capable of discussing matters in a civil manner, but at the same time, this is my genuine and honest opinion of unionism, and you simply saying you don’t feel it is appropriate isn’t going to change that one bit.
Only unionism can change itself and it clearly doesn’t want to and wont while it has a majority.
I would be quite happy for unionism to embrace reconciliation and will change my views totally when it does Freddie. But until then, please tell my why you feel unionism which divides this country should not be considered a scourge?
Well said Jessica,stick to the truth because that’s the part unionists have problems with……the truth……Before people start rantin at me…..i’m just tellin the truth,since the day I was born unionism has tried to paint my community as wrong doers and second class……no chance.
Well BC, at least you spotted that nowhere did I abuse any individual and nowhere did I speak an untruth.
will the police force you support be among those leaving.
don’t be stupid, why would a whole police force need to leave?
If you are saying the police force is still a unionist armed group, then perhaps more needs to be done to guarantee impartiality. I don’t believe the PSNI today can realistically be considered a unionist group and they have my full support removing all criminal gangs from our society. in fact they need more political support to help achieve this.
so you fully support a british yeomanry patrolling irish streets,blocking inquests,covering up uvf mass murders,still equipped with plastic bulllets ect ect.and now you want protestants who dont agree with your thinking put on the seacat.lol.you sound very mixed up.
Just to clarify things for you billy.
I don’t want to see anyone put on the sea cat.
There is a difference between being happy to see the back of those brought up with such intolerance that leaves them unable to remain here when the inevitable change in demographic happens, or even a grumpy old bigot who might prefer to go live in GB under Mrs May to avoid sharing the place with immigrants, or even the criminal thugs who want to uphold the view that the PSNI is the unchanged RUC while they maintain their criminal activity and take money from MI5 for information.
I would not to see a single person forced to leave this island and I have never suggested otherwise.
As for british yeomanry.
I already said I do not see the PSNI as british yeomanry patrolling irish streets. Only a fool would believe that a police force is not needed and while the PSNI are still in transition I also respect that they have that authority.
What I cannot accept is the unionist attitude towards a post conflict settlement here and their continuing refusal to accept equality and their pursuit to vilify the republican community.
But to be really clear just for you billy, While I would like to see MI5 removed from Ireland along with all british state control over the PSNI and an end to political cover up of british state collusion etc… I would like to see additional support given to the PSNI and new legislation which will give public housing the right to seperate individuals in criminal organisations to remove their criminal control over housing estates and communities here, plus addtional support for policing in general.
I would even support working class loyalist communities and have suggested financial support for all whether it be towards bonfires or not.
I do not resent the working class loyalist / unionist individuals, it is the elite unionist who manipulate and prevent reconciliation and who still encourage unionist intransigence at the expense of better prospects for the most vulnerable in their own communities that I have no time for.
Hope that is clear enough for you billy.
hope thats clear enough for you………
perfectly clear,you fully support and (respect)they have authority in ireland,
what category would you class yourself in,the ones that were purchased or the ones that were intimidated.your either one or the other.
I am glad, though I could not claim to understand where you are coming from billy.
The PSNI have no authority in britain, they are an Irish police force only.
I have no doubt that MI5 still has its claws in them and that this needs to be extracted which can only be achieved through Sinn Feins political growth and with assistance from Dublin.
My opinion of the current chief constable is that he is genuine about policing and is frustrated with the interference of MI5 and the political situation here.
I don’t know what you mean by I am either one or the other, but I assure you that I could neither be purchased or intimidated.
check pearses oration at odonovan rossas graveside and you will find the answer about being purchased and intimidated.your admiration of the ex special branch man says it all.your only embarrassing yourself now,better of putting your spade away.
I prefer to think for myself biily
Jessica your absolutely justified in using that language. Unionism has brought nothing but trouble, death and wrecked lives to Ireland. Unionists will never admit this (why would they)? Only able to function if they are dominant. I hope you’re right about the exodus when all the blow-ins finally go home.
Well Done Jude, you stitched Auld David up like good old fashion Kipper !!! Made my day, Thank You.
Grma, S21..
Jude.
Following your removal of other comments on your website and your refusal to do anything about some posted here, I can only assume you support them, including, and with reference to me and an *entire* community – which is the only way to read an unqualified use of the term “unionist”:
“Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.”
“I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people…”
“you are simply tainting yourself,”
“just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing,”
“Good riddance to the lot of them”
“Unionism is akin to a terminal cancer”
“Unionism really does seem to see “equality” as some kind of threat.”
“Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.”
“might really have preferred a neat little dictatorship where they could make neat little laws to suit only unionism.”
“the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better”
“Well Done Jude, you stitched Auld David up like good old fashion Kipper !!! ” followed by a
“Gram”
Yes, Jude, thanks.
It’s been an enlightening few months.
Unionism in the here and now is defined by those elected to represent it.
They have the freedom to choose what relationship they have with the rest of this island and have chosen instead to pursue the vilification of Irish republicans in an attempt not to reconcile with the Irish people throughout Ireland and beyond but instead to impose the acceptance of northern Irelands place as a province of the UK and to drive a deeper wedge into the divisions within this island.
And that is fine, you are entitled to do so.
But what you need to understand is that in doing so, by declaring your part in this entity, you are also rejecting reconciliation within Ireland and supporting division of the Irish people.
There can be no more looking towards history to justify the numerous evolving positions on either side. We need new solutions and this has to be based on total equality.
Supporting the cover up state abuses on one community is denial of equality.
The over biased scrutiny of republicans in the conflict while totally ignoring the deliberate actions of political unionism that started it to begin with is denial of equality.
Abuse of the stormont veto to prevent equality and respect of the Irish language as a native language is denial of equality.
How can you expect respect for the nuances within unionism while the mainstream behaves in this way?
Why should we simply lie down to be walked over like a doormat in such as disrespectful way, why should we simply make it easy for you to inherit the unionist mantra without unionism ever having to face up to its past or engagingg in any meaningful way towards putting the past behind us.
Cry about it all you want, but until unionism is accounted for, expect the hostility only to increase.
Well, at least we’re now clear what is meant by the words ‘reconciliation’ and ‘equality’: a United Ireland, and nothing less.
And without that, we can expect ‘hostility’.
Interesting.
You know perfectly well that is not the case Peter.
We have had many conversations where I have constantly said nothing should be off the table including maintaining the union with britain, either with part of Ireland or all of Ireland.
Are you denying that I have said many times that Ireland should be britains closest ally, that we should even consider leaving the EU to support the better relationship between these islands if that was a possibility?
Why should anyone trust you when you would twist words and ignore opinions you don’t like to cover up the truth of unionist agenda? It is not like it isn’t in our faces.
Only the leadership of Irish unionism could support refusal to talk in a post conflict peace process.
Denial of equality is abusing vetoes and putting up preconditions and it is only unionism that constantly provides such obstacles.
Hence my opinion that is will not be until unionism is in a minority that such genuine engagement can begin and those who are genuinely intolerant will leave.
Only then can we sit down together with official representatives from both islands and look at all options for how we can guarantee the best relationship between these islands and the best economic and social futures for all of our people.
The house unionism is building by pursuing a policy of vilification and deepening divisions within Ireland will be built on sand.
I believe the best for our people will be an agreed Ireland and an agreed relationship between both islands.
The blue print or road map should be based on equality and include all of our people but most importantly be written TOGETHER.
Which political leaders are preventing this from happening Peter?
If you want to declare yourself part of that club, you can at least take ownership for the very real issues it is promoting.
Intransigence from either side can only lead to hostility.
What do you expect? Or like unionism in general, so you simply not care so long as things are going your way?
I’ll have to have a go at this “cut and pasting” which you are overy fond of PF…
Here goes…
“There was nothing indiscriminate about my aim on this specific topic of unionism’s attitude to “equality”.There is an entire historical record of this kind of behaviour and it is still very evident in the ongoing world of today.Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.”
This directly states that there is not one “saving grace” about “unionism(s)” supposed, and unsubstantiated (as I pointed out above) attitude to equality.”
That’s mostly my statement with your little extra edit added on …as in… “unionism(s)” .
I’ll have to remember too, that I’ve also offered several explanations along the way as to how I arrive at my various positions , (which you neatly ignore), just to clarify the context and to give you a little more insight into the specific geography of my own mind, which I do try explain in some detail.
You have a very obvious pedantic style of thinking and reasoning, PF although you seem to misinterpret or misread what i am actually saying.Is it so imprecise, or do you actually not see what is written before your eyes? I have lived for some sixty four years and have experienced how the unionist parties have conducted themselves on a day to day basis since the mid-1960s. I don’t have to re-write history or anything as crass as that .I just have to remember…. or trawl through some fifty years of newspaper files, books ,or documentary films .I know exactly how they have behaved and what the result of it was.I’ve no idea what you have experienced personally or how old you might be ..or what you have personally seen to compound your own views, but it happened all around me and was on the daily news reports every day for years .You might think i’m biased but I see it as being simply observant.I try to be honest. If there is a specific item where you think i’ve got it wrong…well fire awayand we will talk about that. We can argue the exact meaning of “unionism” or even “unionists” and we would get some very strange definitions from people right across Ireland , the UK, europe and the rest of the world, but let’s just say that unionists are people who vote for the unionist parties we see before us and those deeds that they do are unionist deeds .It is what unionist parties, their politicians and ultimately the people that they stand before and represent that we are talking about. As far as I am concerned each one of us has a right to question their behaviours in public life .I would say the same about any kind of politician and I do regularly.
If you can imagine a conversation where we talk and listen to each other and maybe learn something totally new or see a point of view from another perspective, without feeling that” you”, personally are being attacked, you might get a better idea where I am coming from. I don’t cling to Sinn Fein’s coattails either but if they do some good or bad things I’ll sit up and listen.
I know that it might be impossible for any of us to be undamaged or dispassionate having lived through life here. I believe , at base that every one of us has been affected by it in some way. It has not always been a very healthy or even a very moral place to live in. I have written about some of that recently in “Psycho Killers”. I have no idea what kind of person you might be PF..or even what your likes and dislikes are .You know more about me because I write here regularly under my own name as well as my alter -ego and I have no problem standing over most of the things i write…… but what is very evident to me is that you have a very thin skin when it comes to debate about unionism’s darker side.Dare I say, it has some similarities to the response that David McNarry had to Jude ,when, in a seriously comical outburst he referred to him as a “rebel”….That’s comical because it’s as antiquated as his idea of what a”republican” might mean or be in the 21st century.. it immediately placed Mr Mc Narry as way out of his time-frame and indeed wrapped him up in the psychosis of a seige inside his head. (As Marlon Brando responded when asked what he was rebelling against…he replied “Whattaya got?”)
Mr McNarry sees an attack too when all that is on display is a statement of historical fact. It shouldn’t be so difficult to see that . I’m sure Jude does not slavishly hang onto everything thta Sinn Fein says either. It’s common -ground .We’ve seen it on television or read about it .we haven’t invented it. When I say that unionism has problems with equality , it is because I base it on facts that we all know . It is with the hope that their thinking might be adjusted to take on a more rational colour that I say that. If you cannot see how and why there has been violent trouble in Ireland you might simply think it spontaneously combusts of it own volition when in fact there is always a cause for it.Whether you want to believe it or not I have shown you several examples of why I think that unionism’s attitude to equality is not quite right because it is my belief that equality means that every one is to be treated on an equal basis in civil law…and with no exceptions. my belief is that unionism and it s representatives have fallen short on this . A recent First Minister some months ago actually insulted the entire muslim community here in a dumb statement .Did you miss that one too? I’ll leave it to the many others out ther to compile their lists, PF, bu tcome on …some things are irrefutable.
OK PF – thank you for drawing my attention to comments that you I’m assuming are classifying as abuse. I’ll look down through them and see if I think you’re right, in which case I’ll take them down. As you know, I’ve gone over to a system of allowing comments to go up automatically, without coming through me, in the belief that people would follow my advice and not engage in abuse or libel. Let me look now…
OK. Looked at em and have listed them below. Firstly, I note that most of them are directed at unionism generally and not at you or other individuals. I think that’s an important point. If I say ‘Omagh people are a crowd of liars’ that’s one thing, but if I say ‘John Smith from Omagh is a liar’ , that’s a totally different thing, and I’m sure you see that. However, there are limits to what people can say about groups/communities. I’ll give you my reaction to each, and if you could then pinpoint for me who said any that I think shouldn’t be there, it’d make my task of taking them down much easier – i.e, in response to what blog and who used the expression.
“Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.” – Yes, I’d agree, that is abusive language
“I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people…” – no, I don’t see this as abusive
“you are simply tainting yourself,” – no, I don’t see this as abusive
“just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing,”- a comparison with nazis is pretty rough, but it is a comparison, not a charge. I’m keenly aware of this because during the BB controversy, a number of people charged me with saying that the BB was a terrorist-training group or some such, which was untrue. I think this one just about gets my OK.
“Good riddance to the lot of them” – I can’t imagine what’s abusive about this, except there’s some context that I’m missing
“Unionism is akin to a terminal cancer” – Mmm – again, a comparison, but in this case I’d say yes, excessive. I’ll take it down if you show me where it is.
“Unionism really does seem to see “equality” as some kind of threat.” – Absolutely nothing abusive about this – it’s an observation and while you mightn’t agree, people have a right to have it and express it if they wish.
“Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.” – Are you kidding, PF – what on earth is abusive about that?
“might really have preferred a neat little dictatorship where they could make neat little laws to suit only unionism.” – nor this. It’s not something anyone would enjoy being on the end of but it’s not abusive. Overblown yes, abuse no.
“the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better” Mmm. I don’t like ‘the exodus’. I don’t think it’s particularly terrible but it’s not very good either. I’ll take it down – again, direct me.
“Well Done Jude, you stitched Auld David up like good old fashion Kipper !!! ” followed by a … Again, hardly a pleasant thing to say but neither is it abusive. I’ve been called worse things – in fact I was called worse things by the same David – but if he’d called me a stitched up kipper, I’d probably have laughed rather than been offended.
OK PF – over to you. Let me know where the comments I’ve agreed with you about are, and who posted them, and I’ll remove them.
You will find it hard to believe I know but a few of those seem to be mine Jude
“Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.” – Yes, I’d agree, that is abusive language
It is also my genuine and honest opinion of it.
“Good riddance to the lot of them” – I can’t imagine what’s abusive about this, except there’s some context that I’m missing
The context was that because the unionist community have been brought up to hate all things Irish that many will choose to leave when they are in a minority, as well as many in their political elite who have had cushy careers off the back of it and will buy property in england to set themselves up nicely with.
“the sooner unionism is in a minority and the exodus begins the better” Mmm. I don’t like ‘the exodus’. I don’t think it’s particularly terrible but it’s not very good either. I’ll take it down – again, direct me.
Exodus was reference those who will choose to leave as per context above.
For what it worth.
““Unionism is a stinking festering scourge on this island.” – Yes, I’d agree, that is abusive language” – Jessica has already told you who that was.
““I get you want unionism to be considered as nothing more than a preference of decent god fearing people…” – no, I don’t see this as abusive”
As it directly implies that I seek to redefine the “stinking festering scourge on this island”, as “decent” and “god fearing” – I’d say it is abusive, but we can agree to disagree, and I’ll not reference it.
““you are simply tainting yourself,” – no, I don’t see this as abusive”
As above, but OK, we’ll agree to disagree.
““just as if you said you were a neo nazi fascist it wouldn’t make that group any more appealing,”- a comparison with nazis is pretty rough, but it is a comparison,”
Technically, yes, it is a comparison; it compares my supposed attempted to make the “stinking festering scourge on this island” more appealing, with making nazis more appealing.
““Good riddance to the lot of them” – I can’t imagine what’s abusive about this, except there’s some context that I’m missing”
The context is the “stinking festering scourge on this island” i.e. “unionism” which you have already agreed is abusive. Apparently “unionists”, of whom I am one, are a “stinking festering scourge on this island”, and are not welcome. But whatever.
““Unionism is akin to a terminal cancer” – Mmm – again, a comparison, but in this case I’d say yes, excessive. I’ll take it down if you show me where it is.”
More-so than the nazis? You know what, if you are keeping the Nazi one up, keep this one up to.
““Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.” – Are you kidding, PF – what on earth is abusive about that?”
You don’t know? Here’s the full context:
“There was nothing indiscriminate about my aim on this specific topic of unionism’s attitude to “equality”.There is an entire historical record of this kind of behaviour and it is still very evident in the ongoing world of today.Had there been one little saving grace I would have pointed it out with a heart and a half, but it’s never there.”
This directly states that there is not one “saving grace” about “unionism(s)” supposed, and unsubstantiated (as I pointed out above) attitude to equality.
You know, Jude, all in all the comments here are full of ambiguous language, ambiguous enough to let any of the commentators off the hook.
But one thing is clear.
We’re not welcome here.
When everyone is tarred with the one brush, everyone is demonised. That is the basic point. And it is unseemly.
And what is it about a comparison that means it can’t be abusive?
Interesting thought, that.
Lenin was quoted as saying that the Irish are good rebels but poor revolutionaries.
Jude I’d like commend you using the term “some” when describing Unionists attitudes.
It’s a change from many of the commentators on here who apply broad brush strokes to a whole community and your measured tone is welcome
I only wish the people commenting on here would show similar nuanced rhetoric.
I’m still reading along with your blog, but I’ve withdrawn from commenting mostly because of the hyperbole language and the constant labelling that happens here by the commentators. Basically it boils down to a lot of them uns and us uns which I find highly frustrating.
Also although I wouldn’t class it as pure abuse, there’s certainly a lot of unpleasant language and thinly veiled hatred from the commentators on here. It’s hard to engage in constructive debate when the tone is in the gutter or people just revert to the same old mantras which often boil down to Unionists bad, Nationalists good.
Frankly the whole thing is way more complicated than that.
Scott, frankly it doesn’t matter diddly squat whether there are nuances or not.
Neither nationalism or unionism is represented by individual nuances, it is represented by elected representatives and that is who should they should be judged upon and whether we like it or not they do accurately reflect the majority opinion of.our communities.
Do you not agree?
Jessica
Nuance matters a lot.
“Neither nationalism or unionism is represented by individual nuances, it is represented by elected representatives…”
No they aren’t.
People are people, and people should be treated as people – not as clumps. I have no idea who voted for whom when I meet them, so I seek to treat everyone with respect. That is how we build a future.
“Nuance matters a lot.”
Matters to who Peter?
Did it matter to the civil rights campaigners who were attacked by unionist mobs or murdered by unionists in the b-specials that there were nuances that were horrified in their homes, but opted to do nothing?
Does it matter a jot, that there were unionists against brexit now that the UK has spoken?
Who does it matter to?
Does the UK government give a rats ass that not all unionists or even than a majority here were against it?
Does it matter at all to those who having the Irish language recognised in law as the national language in Northern Ireland is important, that not all unionists might not be against it if they only knew what was in it? Providing of course it didn’t mean wasting money on something not important to unionism.
Yes, people are people, yet it appears unionism acts as though the wishes of the unionist people should always be treated above all others.
Blocking this bill is only one example.
Tell me what difference the nuances make.
Oh that’s right, they matter a lot, because it gives unionists an excuse to distance themselves from the actions they do not wish to acknowledge.
Love it when people say people are people …..so lets just be said people……perfect….except,for example,when some are brought up as THE PEOPLE…….and the state sponsors it(partition)sporting institutions promote it……famine song(fiction of course),the billy boys,the bouncy(paranoid fenian bastard)lyric……tears for fears…people are people so why should it be you and I should get along so awfully…………………I get along just fine with the rest of the world,its just THE PEOPLE don’t get along with…….basically f-all.So,get on the train,or get left behind.Ifor one am ready to forgive.Simply because….that is how I was brought up.
No I’m afraid I don’t Jessica.
I dont think showing your support or belonging to a organisation, means that any actions carried out by that organisation or individuals representing it should be universally applied to people who gave that support.
For example
Just because someone is a Catholic and attends/supports the Catholic Church, I don’t portion blame for the actions of the church i.e child abuse and it’s cover up on all Catholics.
Neither do I Scott, nor have I suggested such.
For example
If an elected representative of any community anywhere broke the law, only a fool would say it meant that the community voted for or supported that illegal action.
However, Irish unionism is not an organisation, it is an ideology that was and is still defined from the communities from which it evolved.
The policies put forward by the representatives of unionism in their manifestos we can only assume accurately reflect the opinions of those communities and hence is why they are successful in getting the electoral support from that community which in turn entitles them to speak on behalf of unionism.
It really doesn’t matter that there are different views within unionism. Not everyone voted for brexit, but those who respect the UK as a whole claim you have to get behind that UK wide decision.
Those who do not agree with the decision are then faced with the choice of staying within the UK or opting out. Or attempting to change the majority opinion within the UK.
The same applies to unionism. If you do not agree with the majority opinion within unionism, then it is up to you to decide, to either get behind it, attempt to change it or to opt out.
As for child abuse and the catholic church since I appear to need to explain the difference to you.
The difference is, parents did not know in advance what was coming for their children, The church did not produce a manifesto outlining their plans to abuse them and the parents opted to support it.
Unionism on the other hand makes its attitudes towards reconciliation perfectly clear for all those who vote to support it in advance.
And just to be clear, I get you saying you didn’t vote for those parties,
But you claim then to be a unionist. Perhaps you should really consider whether that is truly the case. Perhaps you are an alliance supporter who wishes to remain in the UK but does not wish to be considered a unionist. In that case my opinions towards unionism would not apply to you.
As I have said many times, Irish unionism is not simply a choice to remain in the UK. It has a history, it has a past and it has a present and that is currently represented by the DUP whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately, Scott, Jude wrote:
“I was then asked my views on McGuinness’s statement and I said that David had just exemplified the problem: watch-words like “No Surrender”, “Not an inch” and “What we have we hold” are guiding lights for at least (and I’d stress ‘at least’) some unionists.”
The direct implication of, “and I’d stress at least” is, “probably more than”.
I presume “Talkback” could get nobody else but McNarry, if you have a Republican commentator (Jude), it would surely make more sense to balance him with a Unionist commentator, e.g. someone like Alex Kane. McNarry as a member of U.K.I.P. is hardly part of the Unionist mainstream, bearing in mind that one of the main Unionist parties backed “Remain” and a substantial part of the Unionist population voted “Remain.” His performance was predictably embarrassing, all bluster and failing completely to ask obvious questions like, “what specific Unionists does Martin McGuiness consider to have a psychological problem with reconciliation,” or “what specific steps towards reconciliation have Unionists not taken, which M. McG would like them to take?”
Willie
Good points.
It is almost as if Talkback deliberately choose the more provocative guests in the hope of generating a wee bit of controversy. Surely not!
Willie
The question relating to which specific unionists has been answered on this website many times.
If you are a unionist, you are one of the specific problems, as am I.
Oh for Goodness sake Peter, dry your eyes,
I cannot make it any clearer that individuals are not the problem here.
Whether you like it or not, we live in a divided society, split over loyalty between Irish and British.
It will not be resolved by individual nuances but by collective representatives from both governments and the elected representatives of both communities getting their fingers out and producing a way forward to be put to the people to choose on.
Let me ask you a question Peter, if I may.
For as long as we as communities hold on to the labels of unionist and nationalist, do you believe there will ever be any agreement between us?
Jessica
This has nothing to do with drying eyes.
Again and again and again the term Unionist is used to denigrate people. Then when challenged it’s not all unionism, it’s not all people, it’s not individuals – it’s just ‘unionism’: a vague undefined yet potent term applied to my community.
Yes we live in a divided society, but casual and repeated slurs cast on one part of that society helps no one. And yes, when people from the ‘Unionist’ community do that to others, it is wrong.
“For as long as we as communities hold on to the labels of unionist and nationalist, do you believe there will ever be any agreement between us?”
I don’t know – but I do know that I don’t stereotype Nationalists in the way Unionists are stereotyped here.
that’s right Peter, it is the elected representatives of unionism as a whole who not only stereotype Nationalists, who publically insult us with comments such as rogues and renegades, complain of having to hold noses as if there is a stench in working with us, who publically mock the Irish language or just simply veto every single thing that is not important to the unionist community no matter what it means to those with different views.
Of course, it is utterly deplorable of me to criticise unionism in general over what only its elected representatives are doing as it upsets Peter, the individual who wants to be able to proudly declare himself a unionist to us nationalist riff raff who should know our place not to question the integrity of the better supporters of the union and we should just ignore what unionism is actually doing in the real world and focus instead on the nicer views Peter wants us to hear about unionism instead.
Sorry, but it sounds a bit like croppies lie down to me.
jessica
“it upsets Peter, the individual who wants to be able to proudly declare himself a unionist to us nationalist riff raff who should know our place not to question the integrity of the better supporters of the union ”
Since PF never said anything like that and no-one but you has used the term riff-raff (or indeed croppies) this is a perfect example of your bullying comments which drag too many discussions here into the mud.
Now tell us you are not talking about him but some other representative of unionism or whatever. I don’t think you can even see what you are doing.
On the contrary, I see things very clearly gio.
You support the status quo and like to portray yourself as a republican but constantly promote pro unionist opinions, you are anti Sinn Fein, and you hold republicans responsible for the conflict.
You also support the vilification of the republican community, would like to see a middle ground emerge that will denounce the IRA and support a new era of Northern Ireland as a province of the UK comfortable in the union that can have the support of a sufficient majority of the catholic community to make it sustainable.
Peter is correct that unionism has many different opinions within it. It always had. What he refuses to accept is that to those in the catholic / nationalist community that experienced the conflict from underneath the british boot if you like, those variations in opinion are meaningless.
Of course I understand that there are those appalled at the behaviour of some unionist politicians such as McNarry, Gregory Campbell etc…
So would I be.
But why should that change my perception of unionism from being based on the actions of its representatives in government to individuals on a blog site?
Both Peter and yourself gio, would like unionism to be acceptable. You dislike the negatives but believe that if only nationalists and republicans would only embrace the union, then these aberrations of the unionist family would dissipate and we would all just get along as one big happy family within the union,
As for Irish unity. No problem. Once we all see how wonderful life is living under british rule together, we can work on persuading the south to give up its freedoms and come into the union also, maybe even unite but that would have to be seen, depending on how much of the catholic church could be removed.
Now, me as an Irish republican who would like to see the IRA honoured for their role in a conflict they did not start. I would be in a small minority in this new era, with my views considered negative and undesirable. Riff raff would fit the bill I believe.
So what of those of us who support a united and independent Irish nation. Well, for this scenario to work, I guess we would just have to give up such silly aspirations and accept our place in the union.
Simples
As I say, it sounds to me like croppies lie down.
At the very least you cant complain that I do not explain my thinking.
“Peter is correct that unionism has many different opinions within it. It always had. What he refuses to accept is that to those in the catholic / nationalist community that experienced the conflict from underneath the british boot if you like, those variations in opinion are meaningless.”
Well, the variations within the ‘Nationalist’ community are not irrelevant to me.
“Well, the variations within the ‘Nationalist’ community are not irrelevant to me.”
I am very glad to hear it Peter.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for unionism in the general sense, and I don’t mean this to be an attack or an insult on you or any individual.
A majority of unionists rejected the GFA and even today, there is little consequence for the leadership of unionism for their intransigent displays and refusal to engage in meaningful way towards reconciliation with the rest of this island.
I do acknowledge and appreciate that there are individuals within the unionist community who do not agree with what they do or say in their name and I have the greatest respect for you all.
I only hope you understand that my views are a result of my own life experience and I do understand how it is not so easy to speak out against such opinions within your own community which I have first hand experience of also. We have the same issue in our own community, with idiots with views such as billy but thanks to Sinn Fein they have a negligent sphere of influence and are as thick as two short planks so they get confused very easily.
Those are excellent questions Willie, but the BBC is a media organisation and perhaps as such could be forgiven for reconciliation not being as high on its agenda as listener ratings.
Perhaps those well thought out questions should be put to Mr McGuinness by the elected representatives of unionism and perhaps between them they could let us know how the conversation went.
In fact, this is exactly why I believe there should be a public debate. Can we really trust our politicians on either side to act on our best interests behind closed doors?
I suspect that if these discussions were driven through public debate we would find we have more in common than either of us would expect and it would help our politicians come to real agreement.
Willie D
A very fair point.One wonders what the Talkback production team were thinking of when they couldn’t find anyone better than Mc Narry to represent the Unionist viewpoint.How many “unionists ” does David Mc Narry represent?
Just a short thanx to Jude Collins….this site is great for debate….(.poetry)…..haha…..I am a republican,i also want the reunification of Ireland…….does that not make me a reunionist????Gabon.