Man Beaten To Death by Loyalist Mob

Can'tseeme

The 49-year-old father-of-four who died during post-football match violence in Coleraine was "brutally beaten by a sectarian mob", the police have said


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8067198.stm

---

Big brave lads eh?

Not the first nationalist to be killed by loyalists since the GFA. Sectarianism is not being dealt with in these areas by Unionist politicians, who prefer to continue to boast about who's smashing Sinn Fein the most.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Poor guy.

I think your coments are a bit OTT though. I live in Coleraine and have a Dublin accent, have never experienced sectarianism of any kind.

There's only so much politicians can do, they can't stop loyalist hardliners who are never going to listen to them.

Hope they find whoever commited this horrific crime

Can'tseeme

Right...so because you're lucky enough to not have experienced sectarianism means that it isn't a problem. What exactly does unionist politicians do to tackle sectarianism?

oscarBravo

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Right...so because you're lucky enough to not have experienced sectarianism means that it isn't a problem. What exactly does unionist politicians do to tackle sectarianism?

I'm curious: why not phrase the question "what exactly do politicians do to tackle sectarianism?"

Can't you see the irony in asking a question about divisiveness in a divisive way?

serfboard

This problem of sectarianism is not limited to NI.

When I lived in Scotland the pubs would regularly have signs up saying "No football colours allowed in the bar". A&E's in Glasgow would often have victims of sectarian beatings/stabbings in on a Friday/Saturday night. And this is the reason why, even to this day, Celtic and Rangers never play in Glasgow on the same day, unless they're playing each other.

It's very sad what has happened in this case. Hope they catch the b4stards responsible.

dlofnep

Scumbags.

Can'tseeme

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious: why not phrase the question "what exactly do politicians do to tackle sectarianism?"

Can't you see the irony in asking a question about divisiveness in a divisive way?

My reason is very straight forward. Unionist politicians haven't done enough to tackle sectarianism in these loyalist areas that they represent.

Do you feel they have??

Bottle_of_Smoke

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Right...so because you're lucky enough to not have experienced sectarianism means that it isn't a problem. What exactly does unionist politicians do to tackle sectarianism?

Condemning acts of violence and those who commit them. Support tougher policing measures, tougher sentencing, support cross community initiatives.

Unionist politicians do all of the above. What do you think they should be doing that they're not currently doing?

dlofnep

Can'tseeme wrote: »

My reason is very straight forward. Unionist politicians haven't done enough to tackle sectarianism in these loyalist areas that they represent.

Do you feel they have??

It's a valid question. OscarBravo just has problems with anyone criticising loyalism/unionism - But he is more than happy criticising republicanism/nationalism.

You are correct - Unionist politicians don't do enough to tackle sectarianism.

Bottle_of_Smoke

So any suggestions as to what Unionist politicians should be doing? I don't see the point in just commenting that they aren't doing enough

oscarBravo

Can'tseeme wrote: »

My reason is very straight forward. Unionist politicians haven't done enough to tackle sectarianism in these loyalist areas that they represent.

Do you feel they have??

I have no idea what they have or haven't done to tackle sectarianism. I equally have no idea what nationalist politicians have or haven't done to tackle sectarianism. I'm curious what you feel unionists should be doing, and why you don't feel nationalists should be doing it.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a valid question. OscarBravo just has problems with anyone criticising loyalism/unionism - But he is more than happy criticising republicanism/nationalism.

It really is so much easier to pigeonhole people who disagree with you than to actually face up to the terrifying thought that they might actually have a point, isn't it?

You are correct - Unionist politicians don't do enough to tackle sectarianism.

Same question. What should they be doing? What are nationalist politicians doing to tackle sectarianism that unionists aren't?

FTA69

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So any suggestions as to what Unionist politicians should be doing? I don't see the point in just commenting that they aren't doing enough

A DUP councillor in the area came out with a load of waffle about tensions being raised by the erection of tricolours in the area. In other words seeking to lay the blame at someone else's door rather than acknowledging the fact that Unionism and Unionist politicians have cultivated a sense of bigotry for decades.

Can'tseeme

Ah come on, I've seen very little cross community work done by unionists and plenty of talk of defeating and opposing nationalists. Their doesn't seem to be much pushing from unionists regarding the disbandment of Loyalists organisations or getting rid of their arms.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So any suggestions as to what Unionist politicians should be doing? I don't see the point in just commenting that they aren't doing enough

They should offer support for true civil and cultural equality, which they do not.

They oppose gay rights. They oppose the wearing of an Easter-Lilly, while supporting the wearing of the Poppy. Many of them are members of the Orange Order, which is by all definitions - a sectarian organisation. They attack any cultural elements of the nationalist community, such as the Irish language - blocking it out of spite in an attempt to get a "one up" on nationalists.

And no - they have not always been vocal against sectarian attacks. Infact, they have been quite selective about it. After McIlveen's murder, Ian Paisley Jr. consistently stated to not label it as a sectarian attack, and then when it was found to be so - he tried to attempt to justify the death with asinine logic.

If they really wanted to do something - they should be leading by example, and support true equality in the North. Inequality is the foundation of sectarianism.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

It really is so much easier to pigeonhole people who disagree with you than to actually face up to the terrifying thought that they might actually have a point, isn't it? Same question. What should they be doing? What are nationalist politicians doing to tackle sectarianism that unionists aren't?

You don't have a point, and rarely ever do.

Nationalist politicians have no control over members of the unionist/loyalist community. Unionist politicians do. So it's a perfectly reasonable question for that poster to question what Unionist politicians are doing.. And yet, once again - you demonstrate the unionist in you and try to avoid any negative discussion on your beloved unionist friends, and would rather turn attention to nationalists.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

You don't have a point, and rarely ever do.

I see you have one of those dictionaries that defines "you have a point" as "you said something I agree with".

Nationalist politicians have no control over members of the unionist/loyalist community. Unionist politicians do. So it's a perfectly reasonable question for that poster to question what Unionist politicians are doing..

So unionist politicians only represent unionist people, and nationalist politicians only represent nationalist people?

If anyone is curious why I consider Northern Ireland an irretrievable basket case which I would like kept out of my country for as long as possible - look no further than the above. Not only are they incapable of getting on with each other; they will resist at all costs any suggestion that they should get on with each other.

And yet, once again - you demonstrate the unionist in you and try to avoid any negative discussion on your beloved unionist friends, and would rather turn attention to nationalists.

Oh, I'm sorry - please carry on with your even-handed discourse on how all Northern Ireland's problems are completely and exclusively the other side's fault.

Souljacker

This is yet another tragic example of sectarianism in Northern Ireland and I hope the PSNI catch those responsible of robbing 4 children from a father.

Sectarianism still exists in NI, the most stark example of it can be seen in our politics; 90% of people vote for a person based on the nationalist tendencies (whether they want to be in the Union or united). Unionist politicians will always go on about keeping republicans in check and securing the union, while Republican politicians will be at pains to tell you how links between the North and south have never been stronger and a united Ireland is with in living memory.

Both these positions are provocative, Unionists and Republicans have conflicting views so of course there’s going to be tension. That’s the way they like it because it validates their existence which is based in sectarianism. Republican and Loyalist politicians have no interest in defusing tensions for this very reason.
Have a look what the McCartney and Quinn families have to say about Sinn Fein politicians, if you think inaction is limited to unionist politicians you're sorely misguided and cherry picking your victims.

Guy:Incognito

serfboard wrote: »

When I lived in Scotland the pubs would regularly have signs up saying "No football colours allowed in the bar". A&E's in Glasgow would often have victims of sectarian beatings/stabbings in on a Friday/Saturday night. And this is the reason why, even to this day, Celtic and Rangers never play in Glasgow on the same day, unless they're playing each other.

2 big clubs fromt he same city dont play in that city on the same weekend anywhere. Liverpool/Everton, City/Utd etc.

It puts a strain on resources.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

They should offer support for true civil and cultural equality, which they do not.

They oppose gay rights. They oppose the wearing of an Easter-Lilly, while supporting the wearing of the Poppy. Many of them are members of the Orange Order, which is by all definitions - a sectarian organisation. They attack any cultural elements of the nationalist community, such as the Irish language - blocking it out of spite in an attempt to get a "one up" on nationalists.

I don't want to get into a debate about the OO, but its more a club than an organisation. Is it sectarian because you have to be a Protestant? Semantically perhaps, but I don't think it is sectarian in the common use of the word.

Gay rights, I agree its wrong to oppose them but I don't think its relevent to this discussion. Opposing the easter lily isn't a major issue, I oppose wearing the poppy in Northern Ireland personally but I don't care if others wish to. Guess its much the same for the lily.
What is it about Irish language they block? People can do it in school if they want to. What more do people want?

And no - they have not always been vocal against sectarian attacks. Infact, they have been quite selective about it. After McIlveen's murder, Ian Paisley Jr. consistently stated to not label it as a sectarian attack, and then when it was found to be so - he tried to attempt to justify the death with asinine logic.

They're all condemning this one without reservation. That's pretty sickening about Paisley Junior, gonna go look that up.

One thing I think they should be doing is becoming more vocal about loyalist paramilitaries. They should be pushing for the police to make more convictions over UDA membership and condemning them similar to Martin McGuinness comments about the Real IRA

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

So unionist politicians only represent unionist people, and nationalist politicians only represent nationalist people?

Pretty much. Whomever you vote for, will represent your ideologies, will they not? Unionist politicians can sway unionist populations, and nationalists with nationalists. This is very simple logic.

Can'tseeme

Nationalists on the other hand support the setting up of an anti-sectarian charter, address anti-sectarian rallies, Feile an phobail promotes anti-sectarianism/anti-racism issues, supports ethnic minority groups, etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oscarBravo wrote: »

If anyone is curious why I consider Northern Ireland an irretrievable basket case which I would like kept out of my country for as long as possible - look no further than the above. Not only are they incapable of getting on with each other; they will resist at all costs any suggestion that they should get on with each other. Oh, I'm sorry - please carry on with your even-handed discourse on how all Northern Ireland's problems are completely and exclusively the other side's fault.

I do think there is logic to what Dlofnep's saying, whilst Nationalist politicians might be able to push the government about policies regarding loyalist terror, only the Unionist parties are able to interact/engage with the working class unionist/loyalist communities, so I think it is fair to discuss Unionist politicians alone.

I'm not taking sides here - There's no reason why you couldn't discuss how nationalist politicians aren't doing enough to stop republican murders/attacks on orange halls etc without mentioning Unionist politicians.

neil_hosey

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see you have one of those dictionaries that defines "you have a point" as "you said something I agree with". So unionist politicians only represent unionist people, and nationalist politicians only represent nationalist people?

Its not about representation, do you see Sinn Fein canvassing in loyalist strongholds no? Do you think members of the loyalist community recognise Sinn Fein members as representative of them??

your trying to get around the fact that you were wrong lol, no 2 ways about it.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't want to get into a debate about the OO, but its more a club than an organisation. Is it sectarian because you have to be a Protestant? Semantically perhaps, but I don't think it is sectarian in the common use of the word.

The orange order is very much a sectarian organisation. It's access control alone is sectarian.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Gay rights, I agree its wrong to oppose them but I don't think its relevent to this discussion.

I would argue that civil equality is very relevant to a discussion on sectarianism.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Opposing the easter lily isn't a major issue, I oppose wearing the poppy in Northern Ireland personally but I don't care if others wish to. Guess its much the same for the lily.

It is a major issue when you support one symbol, but oppose the other - because it is a symbol of nationalist history. It is certainly sectarian. SF didn't wear a Poppy, but they certainly didn't dictate to who could or could not wear them. Workers were banned, backed by unionist politicians from wearing the Lily. Once again, out of spite.

Another example was the GAA jersey fiasco with a Unionist politican, who had absolutely no problems with soccer jerseys being worn. More sectarian behaviour.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What is it about Irish language they block? People can do it in school if they want to. What more do people want?

An Irish language act was promised, and was blocked by the DUP. People obviously want a language act to give it's support in the north a sense of structure and transparency.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's pretty sickening about Paisley Junior, gonna go look that up.

Save yourself the trouble - Once you start looking into Paisley Jr. you're going to start seeing a trend in his abysmal comments. These are figureheads within mainstream unionism.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

One thing I think they should be doing is becoming more vocal about loyalist paramilitaries. They should be pushing for the police to make more convictions over UDA membership and condemning them similar to Martin McGuinness comments about the Real IRA

Agreed.

futurehope

What steps are Nationalist politicians taking to insure that issues that offend Unionists are resolved to Unionist satisfaction, such as:

Nationalist protests at British Army parades in places such as Belfast.

The continuing cover up regarding those who carried out or ordered atrocities such as Kingsmill, Darkley, La Mon.

The naming of GAA cups after Republican terrorists.

The failure to welcome Protestant parades in places such as Portadown.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for the huge decline in The Protestant population since partition.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's failure to extradite Republican terrorists.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for allowing terrorist safe havens in places such as Dundalk.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's senior citizens helping to form, fund and arm The PIRA.

The continued aspiration of ROI political parties towards a United Ireland, regardless of Unionist wishes.

Etc, etc, etc.

These issues create the background in which Unionist frustration, bitterness and anger flourishes and which can lead to violence on occasion. I do not support such violence, but in order for it to cease, it is vital that the underlying injustices are addressed.

Nodin

futurehope wrote: »

What (.....)addressed.

...all of which was obviously at the forefront of the minds of the well plastered mob who decided to cause havoc after it was announced Rangers won.

FTA69

After McIlveen's murder, Ian Paisley Jr. consistently stated to not label it as a sectarian attack, and then when it was found to be so - he tried to attempt to justify the death with asinine logic.

Not to mention the fact that a DUP councillor stated on a radio interview that McIlveen would not go to heaven as he was a Catholic. Pure and utter, chest-beating bigotry. If an SDLP politician had made a similar statement he'd be out on his ear in a heartbeat. According to Anne Cadawallader, Unionists are twice as likely to be attacked within their own area while Nationalists are three times as likely to be attacked outside their own area. Sectarian attacks, whether co-ordinated or not are usually undertaken by Loyalists.

Some people portray the whole scenario as one as "sure they're both as bad as each other." The reality is that Unionism implicitly and Loyalism explicitly as ideologies and the politicians that represent them are inherently founded upon sectarianism and concepts of social superiority. Often this takes the form of the religious fundamentalism of the Free Presbyterians or the sheer thuggish bigotry of urban Loyalist paramilitarism. It is all based on a planter mentality rooted in fear and hatred of another people they view as beneath them. You'll see the same mindset in white South Africans or French Algerians.

oscarBravo

futurehope wrote: »

These issues create the background in which Unionist frustration, bitterness and anger flourishes and which can lead to violence on occasion.

Unionist frustration, bitterness and anger has a lot in common with nationalist frustration, bitterness and anger: it benefits from the fertile soil of far-too-readily remembered history, and is carefully tended by minority vested interests.

Someday everyone on both sides will come to realise how much they have to gain from emphasising that which they have in common over those things that separate them. I don't expect to see that day any time soon, which is why my interim philosophy on Northern Ireland is: a pox on both your houses, because you have made worm's meat out of far too many of my fellow human beings.

FTA69

futurehope wrote: »

The continuing cover up regarding those who carried out or ordered atrocities such as Kingsmill, Darkley, La Mon.

As far as I know Republicans have continuously called for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, although this has been dismissed out of hand. Probably because the Brits don't want the whole lid blown off their policy of arming and facilitating Loyalists.

The failure to welcome Protestant parades in places such as Portadown.

Why should they accept a supremacist parade in their own gaff?

The failure of The ROI to apologise for the huge decline in The Protestant population since partition.

Oh yeah, the "silent Holocaust" is it? "Europe's Rwanda" perhaps? :rolleyes:

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's failure to extradite Republican terrorists.

Many were, and bear in mind the Brits have been proven time after time to be complicit in torture of suspects.

The failure of The ROI to apologise for allowing terrorist safe havens in places such as Dundalk.

Yeah, the Branch here in the south are a right happy bunch. Hand in glove with the IRA they were. :rolleyes:

The failure of The ROI to apologise for it's senior citizens helping to form, fund and arm The PIRA.

Jesus, he's having a crack at the elderly now.

The continued aspiration of ROI political parties towards a United Ireland, regardless of Unionist wishes.

A bit like the Unionist aspiration to maintain the Union regardless of the wishes of the majority of the Irish people?

These issues create the background in which Unionist frustration, bitterness and anger flourishes and which can lead to violence on occasion. I do not support such violence, but in order for it to cease, it is vital that the underlying injustices are addressed.

Again, lay the blame at the door of the Taigs. Not the fact that Unionism was built upon and sustained by sectarianism in Ireland.

dlofnep

futurehope wrote: »

Nationalist protests at British Army parades in places such as Belfast.

I think you'll find that some of your very own unionists also protest these parades.

futurehope wrote: »

The failure of The ROI to apologise for the huge decline in The Protestant population since partition.

You're kidding, right? Unless you can prove that it was a direct result of our policies, you don't have a leg to stand on.

futurehope wrote: »

The continued aspiration of ROI political parties towards a United Ireland, regardless of Unionist wishes.

Oh - the same way Britain respected Ireland's wishes when it occupied Ireland? The same way it respected Ireland's wishes when it divided the country, threatening immediate war if we didn't accept it against the wishes of the majority of Ireland? The same way the northern Unionists continue to be apart of a Union that has never wanted it (as evident by every poll (19 of them) taken since the 1980's)?

Why should we not want to aspire for Irish Unity? What exactly is it you have to fear? You'd have more weight in parliament.

Souljacker

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that a DUP councillor stated on a radio interview that McIlveen would not go to heaven as he was a Catholic. Pure and utter, chest-beating bigotry. If an SDLP politician had made a similar statement he'd be out on his ear in a heartbeat. According to Anne Cadawallader, Unionists are twice as likely to be attacked within their own area while Nationalists are three times as likely to be attacked outside their own area. Sectarian attacks, whether co-ordinated or not are usually undertaken by Loyalists.

Some people portray the whole scenario as one as "sure they're both as bad as each other." The reality is that Unionism implicitly and Loyalism explicitly as ideologies and the politicians that represent them are inherently founded upon sectarianism and concepts of social superiority. Often this takes the form of the religious fundamentalism of the Free Presbyterians or the sheer thuggish bigotry of urban Loyalist paramilitarism. It is all based on a planter mentality rooted in fear and hatred of another people they view as beneath them. You'll see the same mindset in white South Africans or French Algerians.

So just to be clear here you are arguing that unionism doesn't have a right to exist? How unsecterain of you.