Is Toireasa Ferris correct about SFs place in the "26 counties"?

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Not what I was referring to. The piece in the Sunday Business Post was about the shooting of policemen (RIC, not RUC) in the creation of THIS state (the South). This part of the country was also “fought over”.

The thread is about why Toireasa reckons SF do not get votes in the "26 counties".

Mayo Exile wrote: »

No. I think you did.

Then you're wrong in your thinking. I've repeated said that I can't UNDERSTAND it, but that it's THEIR CHOICE.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

This looks like a lecture to me on what type of government and/or system of government one thinks is desirable, and who should be in it!

Hardly a "lecture" !! Considering what I said was that "psychotic, blatantly criminal* and violent tendencies are frowned upon and make people unfit for office", I presume that you'd be OK if the local drug-dealer, gang-member and child abuser were in power, making laws that affected you and me ?

Mayo Exile wrote: »

No. Sorry Liam, I think what I have said IS relevant to the discussion here. Whether you like or not, a lot of people (myself included) think it’s hypocritical to say that SF can be in government in the North but not in the South considering the history of how both states (North & South) emerged.

The South emerged from Irish fighting against British. As I've repeatedly said, I don't agree with the tactics, but I can appreciate how having the North emerge from fighting against the British would also apply.

I cannot see how "fighting against the Irish", and condoning shooting of OUR police force, is comparable.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

This Sorry, I simply don't think the theory about "different states & rules" can be applied that easily here. I do agree with you that they are different states (I voted yes to the GFA myself, so I fully accept that we gave up the claim etc). But given the history here, I don't think it's that straightforward in the case of the island of Ireland.

No-one said it was straightforward. Hey, I'd love to be able to straightforwardly say that I was a "republican", however then people will associate me with people who condone murder, because a certain sub-set of extremists have hijacked that term, so I can't.

I'm not so much saying "different states and rules", as saying that attacking a member of OUR forces - as distinct from a perceived "enemy", is ONE of the reasons that Toireasa & Co don't get votes (again, the thread topic).

You're excusing a criminal act and a murder because of who was involved. I'm treating it the same as I would any criminal act and murder. That's the main difference.

And - IMHO - until SF stop overlooking and condoning stuff purely because of who does it, they're unacceptable.

If I murder someone, my actions should be condemned and I should be locked up. If an IRA member murders someone, same treatment; just because they once did something for "the cause" does NOT exclude them from justice.

What if SF got into power as Minister for Justice, and then someone who once worked their ass off for "the cause" murdered someone else ? Would they "condemn" that ? Would they treat it with the same contempt as if it were, say, a regular person ? Or a Unionist ?

They're so used to taking "sides" that they don't know how to gauge GENERAL opinion.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Yes. A good point.

Thanks.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Liam Byrne: I presume that you'd be OK if the local drug-dealer, gang-member and child abuser were in power, making laws that affected you and me?

Actually no. I'll ignore the implied suggestion here that I can't figure out right from wrong when applied to different scenarios.

No-one said it was straightforward.

Yes.

Hey, I'd love to be able to straightforwardly say that I was a "republican", however then people will associate me with people who condone murder, because a certain sub-set of extremists have hijacked that term, so I can't.

Jeez, Why not!!!!!!!!!!! It's your absolute right to say you are a republican!!!!

is ONE of the reasons that Toireasa & Co don't get votes (again, the thread topic).

Probably, yes. SF dont know how to expand their vote here. Do they become a "catch-all" party and risk losing their traditional republican vote or abandon them in looking for new ones? They haven't solved this problem here as a "new entrant" to Southern politics. (on topic).

If I murder someone, my actions should be condemned and I should be locked up.

Yes. (If it was of a child abuser, i'd lead the prison break to get you out.....)

If an IRA member murders someone, same treatment; just because they once did something for "the cause" does NOT exclude them from justice.

Your opinion here. You'd be aware there's plenty of differing ones. I've already said I've been voting SF since the 80's so I'll differ here too.

What if SF got into power as Minister for Justice, and then someone who once worked their ass off for "the cause" murdered someone else ? Would they "condemn" that ? Would they treat it with the same contempt as if it were, say, a regular person ? Or a Unionist ?

If the PIRA did it then they would be out of government (in both North AND South i'd reckon). And yes, i'm not so daft, that I'll deny there are links between the two. Not so if it was the CIRA or RIRA. I believe SF have condemned such actions by them already up the North. You may scoff at this, but thats what i think SF will probably say to you.

One other point. Liam, you said that:

If an FF member murdered someone, you can be pretty sure that FF - for all their faults - would condemn it.

Are you sure about that? Google “Altnaveigh massacre” and it’s not very hard to find the name of a founding figure of FF who went on become a very senior minister in FF governments of the Southern state. It’s alleged the person concerned either may have planned or was even directly involved in the above event. I don’t remember any condemnations being asked of FF when they entered power in the South in 1932? Do you?

Surely this person fits your description that you stated earlier:

“where psychotic, blatantly criminal* and violent tendencies are frowned upon and make people unfit for office.”

Yes?

So Liam, I wouldn’t worry too much about any precedents being set if SF does at some stage get into office in the South, as they have already seemed to have happened!!